Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LEARN OUR HISTORY AND YOU WILL SEE YOUR WRONG

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LEARN OUR HISTORY AND YOU WILL SEE YOUR WRONG

    You should learn our history, then you would understand that our founding fathers wanted a place where NO ONE GROUP OR PERSONS BECAME A BURDEN TO THE OTHERS, YOU JUST EXCPECT US TO FUND YOUR ILLEGAL ENTRIES INTO THIS COUNTRY , PAY YOUR MEDICAL, EDUCATION ETC..yOUR ILLEGAL ENTRY VIOLITES THE
    FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

    i AM DEPRIVED OF THESE THINGS BY YOUR ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY TAKE TAXES(MY PROPERTY,MONEY)MY LIBERITY IS AFFECTED BY THIS,THE KEY WORDS HERE ARE DUE PROCESS, IT MEANS THIS CANNOT HAPPEN IF IT IS AGASINT OUR LAWS ,AS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS.SO YOU THINK IT IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME AND YOU HURT NO ONE, BECAUSE YOU COULD CARELESS AS LONG AS YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT?


    The Immigration Law Myth
    Adam Sparks

    SF Gate
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...07/asparks.DTL
    July 7, 2003

    "Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible."-- Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Our immigration laws apparently exist only in the confines of our own imagination; they have no life in the real world. Technically, all immigrants must still pass the public-charge test and have a U.S. sponsor or sponsors willing to pledge their income to support them.

    But the system was rewritten in 1999 to make it easy for just about anybody to become a qualified sponsor. Now, anyone who is struggling at just 125 percent of the federal poverty line can qualify to be a sponsor who is financially liable for a legal immigrant, who must also stay above the poverty line. Yeah, like that'll work.

    All sponsors must still sign Form I-864, which reads, "I agree to provide the sponsored immigrant(s) whatever support is necessary to maintain the sponsored immigrant(s) at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. I understand that my obligation will continue until my death or the sponsored immigrant(s) have become U.S. citizens, can be credited with 40 quarters of work, depart the United States permanently, or die .... I acknowledge that ... the Act grants the sponsored immigrant(s) and any Federal, State, local, or private agency that pays any means-tested public benefit to or on behalf of the sponsored immigrant(s) standing to sue me for failing to meet my obligations under this affidavit of support."

    What happens when a destitute immigrant remains unemployed and the sponsor must then become financially responsible? Chaos will ensue. Instead of just the immigrant now being on the dole, the sponsor will, with the additional financial burden, be brought below the poverty line as well. Now, both the immigrant and the sponsor will be on welfare.

    Not to fear, though; our compassionate -- some say foolish and reckless -- government has accounted for that, too. It never really expected a sponsor to have to actually sponsor an immigrant. Oh, no.

    So it changed the laws. There's a major loophole in the new requirements: The prohibition against going on welfare for the legal immigrant doesn't include all federal or state public-assistance programs. A legal immigrant can apply for state welfare, food stamps and even housing benefits without being considered a "public charge."

    People talk a lot about the lack of civil rights and the new get-tough policies of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Department of Homeland Security, particularly on immigrants. But your civil rights and those of the immigrants are alive and well.

    o President Bush didn't touch Bill Clinton's revision to the 1999 immigration standards that defines a public charge as "an alien who is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense."

    For all the screams about a get-tough homeland-security policy, the new immigration policy excludes the following programs from the definition of welfare for the purposes of becoming a public charge: Medicaid and other medical-insurance or health programs

    o the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
    o Nutrition programs such as food stamps, WIC (the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) and school-lunch programs
    o Housing benefits
    o Child-care services
    o Energy assistance
    o Emergency disaster relief
    o Foster-care and adoption assistance
    o Educational assistance (i.e., Head Start)
    o Job-training programs
    o Community-based programs (soup kitchens, crisis-counseling, intervention, short-term shelter, etc.)

    Immigrants are not supposed to even be admitted to this country if there's a reasonable likelihood they'll become public charges.

    If an alien does go on welfare and becomes a public charge, he or she is then subject to deportation, particularly if the sponsor doesn't step forward, according to section 237A(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    In the last 23 years, how many of the immigrants who became "public charges" do you think were deported? You're wrong. Since 1980, only 12 people have been deported for having become public charges.

    The Immigration and Naturalization Service used to publish statistics that explained why people were deported, but the agency no longer even publishes separate statistics on public charge as a category for deportation, because it's so rare.

    Being overly generous to illegal aliens can also be a problem, especially one of security. No states ask for proof of legal presence in the United States to get a driver's license. Why is this a problem? Well, the March 28, 2002, edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that "the 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 were holding 63 state driver's licenses for identification."

    Most big-city police chiefs throughout the nation are instructed by their city councils not to enforce our immigration laws and are actually prohibited from apprehending illegal aliens. San Francisco goes a bit further, as usual: Its local "city of refuge" law commands its officers not to ask immigration status, not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and not to arrest illegal aliens even if they find out about their status inadvertently. Many of these illegal aliens, unfortunately, go on to commit crimes.

    Not only are basic immigration laws not being enforced, but the few laws preventing lawfully admitted aliens from overstaying their visas aren't enforced, either. Hence, 3 million illegal aliens are now in our country. [correction: 12 - 15 million. 3 million in California along.] Many of them are working under the table, but many others are not working at all and are simply enjoying the fruits of our labor through generous benefits.

    Our immigration system is so loose that most of the 9/11 hijacker/murderers either entered the country under false pretenses or were otherwise in the country illegally.

    Cities such as New York and San Francisco are happy to offer social-service benefits to aliens of every stripe. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in outreach trying to give away more welfare and related social services to immigrants, legal and illegal.

    Just look at New York City's Web site, which advertises aggressively to all aliens, including illegal aliens, generously offering them all types of social-service benefits. Cities offer food stamps, medical care, housing, education benefits, welfare -- you name it. They even offer advice on how to get on Social Security or how to collect the inappropriately named earned-income-tax credit. The "credit" is actually a check to people who haven't paid any taxes at all!

    Many of the programs are, according to New York City's Web site, available to all, "regardless of immigration status." Isn't that special? I guess the Red Cross gave New York City hundreds of millions of dollars more than it actually needed following 9/11; the city now apparently advertises to give away its money.

    The law against those legal immigrants who later become public charges is supposed to be enforced, but there are more loopholes than there is law.

    Refugees, asylum cases and all illegal aliens that benefit from our periodic, blanket amnesty legislation can all pass Go and collect $200. They can all then legally take advantage of every welfare program, and Social Security, even though they didn't pay a dime into the system. No wonder the system is suffering.

    Millions of Russian immigrants who flocked to the United States following the breakup of the Soviet Union somehow qualified for "refugee" status. Why so many refugees?

    There was a bit of turmoil during the breakup of the Soviet Union, but there was no civil war going on, the Communist regime fell peacefully. Nearly all of the Russian seniors who entered the United States as refugees then immediately qualified for benefits under our Social Security system.

    Not bad: Come to America, and get free money, housing, health care and education. Hey, it's just like being in the Soviet Union, except better: no lines and no work, and California wines!

    The laws are there, but they're later modified by liberal administrations pandering to special-interest groups. Democratic Party leaders like to kowtow to ethnic communities. They've made it an article of faith of their political platform. Their obsequiousness has led to voting loyalty among minorities and has resulted in a near monopoly of the ethnic vote, much in the way a Chicago ward boss obtained fidelity from local citizens.

    Bush is now taking a cue from the Democrats, trying to attract the growing Latino vote. He has angered conservatives with his lack of enforcement of our borders and his giving in to Mexican President Vicente Fox , who had advocated "open borders" between our nations. The president, soon after meeting with Fox, quickly responded with a new amnesty proposal. Amnesty immigrants are now able to get welfare -- not that their illegal status was much of a bar anyway.

    And many of these ethnic communities have formed powerful special-interest groups, lobbying legislators just as effectively as any corporate fat cat. And politicians respond positively to the lobbying. How else can you explain that California, despite the passage of Proposition 187, which prohibited governmental services to illegal aliens, continues to confer new benefits on them?

    What little remains of the jumbled, fragmented immigration laws is not enforced. Passing laws that have no meaning is tantamount to anarchy. Where is the rule of law?

    And we, the law-abiding and struggling taxpayers, get left holding the bag. But you don't have to take it lying down. Get involved. Join immigration-reform groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA or Americans for Immigration Control [or Stop the Invasion!].

    Clinton summed up the precarious situation best when he said in 1998, "Let me state my view unequivocally: I believe new immigrants are good for America. But mark my words, unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope can threaten our union." And what does Bush think about all this? Well, Mr. President, if you're listening, we need help. What are you going to do about it?

    ---
    Adam Sparks is a San Francisco conservative writer. He can be reached at adamstyle@aol.com.


    --

    Welcome to America
    Mexico's newest Colony
    Have you learned to speak Spanish yet?

  • #2
    You should learn our history, then you would understand that our founding fathers wanted a place where NO ONE GROUP OR PERSONS BECAME A BURDEN TO THE OTHERS, YOU JUST EXCPECT US TO FUND YOUR ILLEGAL ENTRIES INTO THIS COUNTRY , PAY YOUR MEDICAL, EDUCATION ETC..yOUR ILLEGAL ENTRY VIOLITES THE
    FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

    i AM DEPRIVED OF THESE THINGS BY YOUR ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY TAKE TAXES(MY PROPERTY,MONEY)MY LIBERITY IS AFFECTED BY THIS,THE KEY WORDS HERE ARE DUE PROCESS, IT MEANS THIS CANNOT HAPPEN IF IT IS AGASINT OUR LAWS ,AS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS.SO YOU THINK IT IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME AND YOU HURT NO ONE, BECAUSE YOU COULD CARELESS AS LONG AS YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT?


    The Immigration Law Myth
    Adam Sparks

    SF Gate
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...07/asparks.DTL
    July 7, 2003

    "Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible."-- Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Our immigration laws apparently exist only in the confines of our own imagination; they have no life in the real world. Technically, all immigrants must still pass the public-charge test and have a U.S. sponsor or sponsors willing to pledge their income to support them.

    But the system was rewritten in 1999 to make it easy for just about anybody to become a qualified sponsor. Now, anyone who is struggling at just 125 percent of the federal poverty line can qualify to be a sponsor who is financially liable for a legal immigrant, who must also stay above the poverty line. Yeah, like that'll work.

    All sponsors must still sign Form I-864, which reads, "I agree to provide the sponsored immigrant(s) whatever support is necessary to maintain the sponsored immigrant(s) at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. I understand that my obligation will continue until my death or the sponsored immigrant(s) have become U.S. citizens, can be credited with 40 quarters of work, depart the United States permanently, or die .... I acknowledge that ... the Act grants the sponsored immigrant(s) and any Federal, State, local, or private agency that pays any means-tested public benefit to or on behalf of the sponsored immigrant(s) standing to sue me for failing to meet my obligations under this affidavit of support."

    What happens when a destitute immigrant remains unemployed and the sponsor must then become financially responsible? Chaos will ensue. Instead of just the immigrant now being on the dole, the sponsor will, with the additional financial burden, be brought below the poverty line as well. Now, both the immigrant and the sponsor will be on welfare.

    Not to fear, though; our compassionate -- some say foolish and reckless -- government has accounted for that, too. It never really expected a sponsor to have to actually sponsor an immigrant. Oh, no.

    So it changed the laws. There's a major loophole in the new requirements: The prohibition against going on welfare for the legal immigrant doesn't include all federal or state public-assistance programs. A legal immigrant can apply for state welfare, food stamps and even housing benefits without being considered a "public charge."

    People talk a lot about the lack of civil rights and the new get-tough policies of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Department of Homeland Security, particularly on immigrants. But your civil rights and those of the immigrants are alive and well.

    o President Bush didn't touch Bill Clinton's revision to the 1999 immigration standards that defines a public charge as "an alien who is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense."

    For all the screams about a get-tough homeland-security policy, the new immigration policy excludes the following programs from the definition of welfare for the purposes of becoming a public charge: Medicaid and other medical-insurance or health programs

    o the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
    o Nutrition programs such as food stamps, WIC (the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) and school-lunch programs
    o Housing benefits
    o Child-care services
    o Energy assistance
    o Emergency disaster relief
    o Foster-care and adoption assistance
    o Educational assistance (i.e., Head Start)
    o Job-training programs
    o Community-based programs (soup kitchens, crisis-counseling, intervention, short-term shelter, etc.)

    Immigrants are not supposed to even be admitted to this country if there's a reasonable likelihood they'll become public charges.

    If an alien does go on welfare and becomes a public charge, he or she is then subject to deportation, particularly if the sponsor doesn't step forward, according to section 237A(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    In the last 23 years, how many of the immigrants who became "public charges" do you think were deported? You're wrong. Since 1980, only 12 people have been deported for having become public charges.

    The Immigration and Naturalization Service used to publish statistics that explained why people were deported, but the agency no longer even publishes separate statistics on public charge as a category for deportation, because it's so rare.

    Being overly generous to illegal aliens can also be a problem, especially one of security. No states ask for proof of legal presence in the United States to get a driver's license. Why is this a problem? Well, the March 28, 2002, edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that "the 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 were holding 63 state driver's licenses for identification."

    Most big-city police chiefs throughout the nation are instructed by their city councils not to enforce our immigration laws and are actually prohibited from apprehending illegal aliens. San Francisco goes a bit further, as usual: Its local "city of refuge" law commands its officers not to ask immigration status, not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and not to arrest illegal aliens even if they find out about their status inadvertently. Many of these illegal aliens, unfortunately, go on to commit crimes.

    Not only are basic immigration laws not being enforced, but the few laws preventing lawfully admitted aliens from overstaying their visas aren't enforced, either. Hence, 3 million illegal aliens are now in our country. [correction: 12 - 15 million. 3 million in California along.] Many of them are working under the table, but many others are not working at all and are simply enjoying the fruits of our labor through generous benefits.

    Our immigration system is so loose that most of the 9/11 hijacker/murderers either entered the country under false pretenses or were otherwise in the country illegally.

    Cities such as New York and San Francisco are happy to offer social-service benefits to aliens of every stripe. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in outreach trying to give away more welfare and related social services to immigrants, legal and illegal.

    Just look at New York City's Web site, which advertises aggressively to all aliens, including illegal aliens, generously offering them all types of social-service benefits. Cities offer food stamps, medical care, housing, education benefits, welfare -- you name it. They even offer advice on how to get on Social Security or how to collect the inappropriately named earned-income-tax credit. The "credit" is actually a check to people who haven't paid any taxes at all!

    Many of the programs are, according to New York City's Web site, available to all, "regardless of immigration status." Isn't that special? I guess the Red Cross gave New York City hundreds of millions of dollars more than it actually needed following 9/11; the city now apparently advertises to give away its money.

    The law against those legal immigrants who later become public charges is supposed to be enforced, but there are more loopholes than there is law.

    Refugees, asylum cases and all illegal aliens that benefit from our periodic, blanket amnesty legislation can all pass Go and collect $200. They can all then legally take advantage of every welfare program, and Social Security, even though they didn't pay a dime into the system. No wonder the system is suffering.

    Millions of Russian immigrants who flocked to the United States following the breakup of the Soviet Union somehow qualified for "refugee" status. Why so many refugees?

    There was a bit of turmoil during the breakup of the Soviet Union, but there was no civil war going on, the Communist regime fell peacefully. Nearly all of the Russian seniors who entered the United States as refugees then immediately qualified for benefits under our Social Security system.

    Not bad: Come to America, and get free money, housing, health care and education. Hey, it's just like being in the Soviet Union, except better: no lines and no work, and California wines!

    The laws are there, but they're later modified by liberal administrations pandering to special-interest groups. Democratic Party leaders like to kowtow to ethnic communities. They've made it an article of faith of their political platform. Their obsequiousness has led to voting loyalty among minorities and has resulted in a near monopoly of the ethnic vote, much in the way a Chicago ward boss obtained fidelity from local citizens.

    Bush is now taking a cue from the Democrats, trying to attract the growing Latino vote. He has angered conservatives with his lack of enforcement of our borders and his giving in to Mexican President Vicente Fox , who had advocated "open borders" between our nations. The president, soon after meeting with Fox, quickly responded with a new amnesty proposal. Amnesty immigrants are now able to get welfare -- not that their illegal status was much of a bar anyway.

    And many of these ethnic communities have formed powerful special-interest groups, lobbying legislators just as effectively as any corporate fat cat. And politicians respond positively to the lobbying. How else can you explain that California, despite the passage of Proposition 187, which prohibited governmental services to illegal aliens, continues to confer new benefits on them?

    What little remains of the jumbled, fragmented immigration laws is not enforced. Passing laws that have no meaning is tantamount to anarchy. Where is the rule of law?

    And we, the law-abiding and struggling taxpayers, get left holding the bag. But you don't have to take it lying down. Get involved. Join immigration-reform groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA or Americans for Immigration Control [or Stop the Invasion!].

    Clinton summed up the precarious situation best when he said in 1998, "Let me state my view unequivocally: I believe new immigrants are good for America. But mark my words, unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope can threaten our union." And what does Bush think about all this? Well, Mr. President, if you're listening, we need help. What are you going to do about it?

    ---
    Adam Sparks is a San Francisco conservative writer. He can be reached at adamstyle@aol.com.


    --

    Welcome to America
    Mexico's newest Colony
    Have you learned to speak Spanish yet?

    Comment


    • #3
      You'd better do some more research before you start ranting and raving. California does require proof of legal residence to obtain a driver's license or even just a state ID. Immigrants in illegal status in the state of California qualify only for emergency Medi-Cal benefits. That means if they get in a car accident and are going to die if they don't get help, then Medi-Cal will step in so that they can get those life-sustaining services. They still must pay a share of cost. Any non-essential follow-up services will not be taken care of by Medi-Cal. I know this since I once had an illegal boyfriend who was in a car accident. He was in the hospital for four days. Medi-cal payed a percentage of the services that were necessary to keep him alive. he payed the rest. All follow up tests and services were his own responsibility. He is still making payements on them four years later. He was not able to obtain a driver's license. He was clearly told by a friendly lady that he needed to show that he was in the United States legally in order to get his license. All US citizens are eligible to receive governemnt aide. If a US citizen child needs aide, then she will receive it. The immigration status of the parents is not a factor. Anyone born within US borders is a US citizen. Having a US citizen child cannot stop the parents from being deported, but as long as the child is residing within the US, which is that childs country of citizenship, then that child has a right to food stamps and medical care if she needs it. The only time an illegal can receive non emergency medical care is for pregnancy. This makes sense because if the child does not receive pre-natal checks and is born with more problems, then it will be an even bigger burden on the state. The only way to prevent this would be to make pregnancy a cause for immediate deportation. That would prevent the children of illegals from becoming citizens.

      Comment


      • #4
        Your wrong about NYS drivers licences too.

        http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          We sure are having a LOT OF CAR WRECKS if that is the ONLY time you get free medical.Why is it the same story in all states with high illegal alien populations HMMMM hospitials going broke.Da@@ car wrecks!!!

          Funding of Health Care Services in Los Angeles County

          Dear Supervisors:

          It is my understanding that your group has voted to close 16 community clinics, reduced by 25% funding for our network of private clinics partnering with the County to provide care, and approved the transition of High Desert Hospital to an ambulatory care center.

          It is my further understanding that within the last decade, 50 emergency rooms and 17 trauma centers throughout Southern California have closed their doors, all because they couldn't afford to keep them open because of the ever increasing numbers of uninsured.

          I'm aware of the recent study co-authored by Daniel Flaming, supported by data compiled by Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn's economic development team, that led researchers to estimate that about $1.1 billion a year is not being paid into Social Security, workers' compensation, health insurance, and other social safety-net programs to protect workers who became ill, injured, unemployed or retired, in violation of the law. This study estimated that 28 percent of the workforce in the county is paid in cash, and one in four don't have federal and state payroll taxes withheld, creating the kind of economic unpredictability that potential employers tend to avoid. We know that a large percentage of those without health insurance are illegal immigrants.

          For historical perspective, I've also read the County's, 1992 "Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County". This study revealed that for each dollar of tax revenue generated by the County's 700,000 adult illegal aliens into County coffers, it cost the County $39.50 to provide them with social services. And if one looks at the contributions by these same illegal immigrants to all levels of government, the Study further revealed that for ever dollar of tax revenue generated, these same adult illegal immigrants consumed $1.58 in social services.
          So no one in County Government can claim any surprise about the huge financial albatross that illegal immigrants represent to Los Angeles County. While illegal immigrants certainly aren't the sole cause of this health care financial catastrophe, they nevertheless are a large component. While local county governments aren't responsible for the enforcement of federal immigration laws, they still get stuck with the check.

          I'm certain that many U.S. citizens and legal residents are either denied L.A. County medical assistance or are greatly inconvenienced by having to queue-up with people who have no right to be in this country.

          What distresses me further is the shameful silence by most of you supervisors about the policies of our national government that passes immigration laws which aren't enforced, and then rewards those who're successful in criminally breaching our borders with all kinds of educational, maternity, TANF and citizenship benefits. Can't you supervisors, at the bare minimum, go on public record and protest these travesties? Couldn't you instruct the L.A. County Sheriff to cooperate with the INS? Shouldn't your body play a leading role in getting the general public behind a movement to pressure the federal government to end the malfeasance and abuses of Uncle Sam? What's so sacrosanct about the reality that immigrant rights don't belong to those who have no right to be here?

          Babies, Welfare and Crime
          The Social Contract (Summer 1995)
          by Linda Thom
          Email this article to a friend View original format



          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Synopsis
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          What connection exists between guns and babies? Immigration. Because of immigration, California's birth rate has climbed continuously since 1970. Between 1970 and 1993, births to foreign-born women accounted on average for 221,831 additional births in the state each year. Recent changes in the number of felony and misdemeanor arrests reflect the same patterns. Although birth location of criminals is not recorded, ethnic and racial data are maintained. The ethnic patterns of births and arrests are consistent with immigration patterns in California.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Babies
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          On March 22, 1995, a headline in the Los Angeles Times reported, ''State Leads Nation in Rate of Teen-Age Births, Study Says.'' The study, released by the California Senate Office of Research indicated that in 1982, the state's teen birth rate was 52.8 births per thousand girls as compared to the national rate of 52.9 births per thousand girls (California Senate Office of Research). Other findings in the report included

          ¡Ã± In 1993, two-thirds of the fathers of children born to teenagers were adults.

          ¡Ã± Despite recent, small declines in teen births overall, teen birth rates for Hispanics continue to grow. There has been a 44.8% increase in the decade between 1983 and 1993.

          ¡Ã± In 1992, Medicaid funded over half of teen deliveries. The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) costs for one pregnancy, birth, and first year of support is $10,000.

          ¡Ã± Recent research indicates that two-thirds or more of pregnant and parenting teenagers have been victims of sexual abuse prior to becoming pregnant.

          ¡Ã± Los Angeles County, alone, accounted for one-third of the teen births in 1993. In 1993, the birth rates for females (under 20 years of age) by ethnicity and race are as follows


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Race/Ethnicity Birth rate
          Hispanic 123.2
          African-American 97.9
          White 36.2
          Asian/Other 30.6
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Why is the Hispanic birth rate so high? Why, when teen birth rates are declining, are Hispanic birth rates increasing? The press secretary for California Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) stated, ''We don't have any sense why it is so high among Hispanics.'' She said that researchers suspect that part of the reason may be because of the Hispanic population's increase in California. They may use abortions less frequently than other groups and they are closer to the poverty line than whites and Asian Americans (Ingram, Los Angeles Times).


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ''Immigration caused all
          of the increase in teen births
          and then some.''
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          The question which jumps right out and bites is Why is the Hispanic population increasing? Either it did not occur to anyone in the California Senate Office of Research or no one was willing to discuss the reason why there are so many Hispanic *****. This author guesses that no one wishes to discuss the issue, since the statistician who supplied the birth place data for this piece was the same person who supplied the teen birth data to the Senate Office of Research.

          What did the statistician's numbers show? Immigration caused all of the increase in teen births and then some. Table 1 shows the change in annual teen births between 1970 and 1993 by place of birth of the mother. Table 1. California Births for Females under 20 years


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          by country of mother's origin
          Source California Department of Health Services, birth records
          Year Total U.S. U.S. % total Foreign Foreign % total
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          1970 61,757 58,358 94.5% 3,399 5.5%

          1975 53,601 44,701 83.4% 8,900 16.6%

          1980 55,521 42,751 77% 12,770 23%

          1985 51,255 37,505 73.2% 13,750 26.8%

          1990 70,950 44,455 62.7% 26,495 37.3%

          1993 70,091 43,848 62.6% 26,243 37.4%


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Change 8,334 (14,510) 22,844
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Total annual teen births increased by 8,334. The number of annual births to United States-born girls declined by 14,510. The number of annual births to foreign-born girls increased by 22,844.

          The foreign-born mothers are overwhelmingly Mexican but Table 2 shows that the births are also statistically significant among girls born in other countries.

          Table 2. Ethnicity/Race and Birthplace of Teen Mothers, California-1993


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Race/Ethnicity Total Numbers Mexico born U.S. born Other born
          Total 70,091 20,014 43,848 6,229
          Hispanic 42,199 19,902 19,246 3,051
          White/NH 16,113 83 15,490 540
          Black 7,913 3 7,767 143
          Native Am 515 1 508 6
          Filipino 807 342 465
          Laotian 429 4 425
          Vietnamese 352 15 337
          Cambodian 238 3 235
          Othr Asian 679 52 627
          Samoan 118 69 49
          Thai 87 9 78
          Chinese 85 19 66
          Guamian 73 37 36
          Other 483 25 287 171
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Immigration supporters would suggest that the births among native-born girls is declining because the number of native-born ***** is declining and the number of immigrant-teen births are increasing because the number of immigrant ***** is increasing. That, of course, is true; however, the birth rate of immigrant ***** is disproportionally high. Recall that the Senate Office of Research study showed that Hispanic teen birth rates continued to climb while birth rates for all other racial groups fell two years in a row. The girls are not only young, but also they are poor. Medicaid funded half of the teen deliveries in 1993. Statistics for all Table 3. Annual Births in California by Birthplace of Mother, 1970-93


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Total US-born Percent Foreign Percent
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          1970 362,652 324,375 89.4% 38,277 10.6%

          1975 324,949 242,460 74.6% 82,489 25.4%

          1980 402,720 286,873 71.2% 115,847 28.8%

          1985 470,816 319,204 67.8% 151,612 32.2%

          1990 611,666 361.388 59.1% 250,278 40.9%

          1993 584,483 322,810 55.2% 261,673 44.8%


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Increase 221,831 (1,565) 223,396
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          women reflect these same patterns. Table 3 shows the change in the distribution of births to United States-born and foreign born women between 1970 and 1993 (Burke).

          From 1970 to 1993, the annual births for US-born women decreased by 1,565 and the annual births for foreign-born women increased by 223,396. Foreign-born women accounted for 45% of the total births in 1993 and Mexican-born women accounted for 27% of the total births. The countries of the mothers' birth are distributed much the same as the countries of origin of the *****. Moreover, the total fertility rate (TFR) of all California Hispanic women was 3.5 in 1992 which is one full child higher than the next highest TFR, that for blacks (Burke).

          The overall effect of this is a skyrocketing population in California. ''Natural increase (the number of births less the number of deaths) will assume the leading role in the State's population growth in the 1990's, increasing from 45 percent of total population growth in the 1980's to 60 percent in the 1990's'' (Governor's Summary Budget, 1994-1995, p. 17). In addition to the births, California continues to receive large numbers of immigrants and their children.

          Absolutely no question exists, therefore, as to why California classrooms are overcrowded. California has the unenviable fiftieth position in a ranking among the states of average students per class. The Urban Institute, chief proponent of the ''immigrants pay their way'' theory, does not include the costs associated with U.S. citizen children when computing the costs of immigration (Passel). But who is responsible for the tax dollars needed to pay for these children's schooling? Their next door neighbors?


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Poverty Among Immigrant Women
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          California's foreign-born women are disproportionally poor. Of the 261,673 births to foreign-born women in 1993, 39 percent of the deliveries (100,989) were funded by OBRA/IRCA Medicaid, a special program for illegal and amnestied aliens. Medicaid data for refugee and naturalized citizen births are not available, as those cases are carried in the regular caseload statistics.

          For example, Imperial County which is immediately east of San Diego County and north of the Mexican border showed 56 percent of births (1,583) to foreign-born women (all but 54 were born in Mexico) in 1993 but only 11.2 percent (318) of the total deliveries were funded by OBRA/IRCA Medicaid. However, 60 percent (1,697) of the total births (2,849) in 1993 were Medicaid funded and 81 percent (1,376) of the Medicaid funded deliveries were to Hispanic women. Clearly, many immigrant women in Imperial County have become naturalized citizens. This contrasts with Los Angeles County which had 189,706 deliveries of which 111,892 were to foreign-born women; and 50,579 of the foreign-born deliveries were funded by OBRA/IRCA Medicaid (California Department of Health Services, Medical Care Statistics, birth records).

          In addition to Medicaid, the U.S. Department of Agriculture funds the Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). WIC is a supplemental food and nutrition program for low-income pregnant, breast feeding and postpartum women, and for infants and children up to the age of five who are at nutritional risk. The WIC caseload in California has grown from 580,000 participants in December 1991 to 612,000 in January 1993 and was anticipated to reach 950,000 clients by the end of September 1994 (WIC 2000, p. 11).

          The report goes on to say, ''Many of these young women and children are WIC-eligible (185% of the federal poverty level, or $22,792 per year for a family of three) because the economic conditions for young California families have worsened in the last two decades.¡Â­ Today, one in four children — 2.2 million — live in families whose income is below the poverty Table 4. Ethnic/Racial Distribution


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          of WIC and Medicaid Clients, 1993
          Ethnicity/Race Medicaid WIC
          White 19% 13%
          Hispanic 62% 64%
          Black 9% 9%
          Asian/Pac Isl 6% 7%
          Native Amer. .4% .6%
          Not Reported 4% 7%
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          level'' (WIC 2000, p.15). Did the conditions worsen or did the poor people come from some place else?

          The report continues, ''The population dynamics in California are markedly different ¡Â­ from those in other states. The number of births and the number of children in California have been increasing since the late 1970's¡Â­ The state experienced an 18 percent increase in its birthrate between 1980 and 1990. This trend is impacted by three factors 1) a small overall increase in fertility rates, 2) a higher proportion of women of childbearing age, particularly those from ethnic groups with high fertility rates, and 3) immigration¡Â­'' (WIC 2000, p. 14).

          WIC services are provided regardless of immigration status and, therefore, no statistics are available on the birthplace of mothers. Ethnic and racial data are maintained, however, and the distribution by race and ethnicity is remarkably similar to that of California's clients whose deliveries were funded by Medicaid. Table 4 shows the ethnic distribution of Medicaid and WIC clients in 1993.

          The WIC caseload is climbing rapidly. The client ethnicity and racial distribution is obviously the same as the Medicaid caseload. If immigrants account for all of the increase in the annual birthrate, we can presume that they comprise the added caseload for Medicaid-funded deliveries and for the WIC program.

          Children of immi-grants who are born in the United States are citizens. They are eligible for the full scope of welfare services if their parents are poor. Many poor refugee families live in California also and receive welfare benefits. Between 1980 and 1990, California accounted for 525,000 of the 1,035,000 added clients in the nation's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Texas and Florida accounted for an additional 494,000. Together, these three states accounted for 98 percent of the added clients on AFDC for the entire nation in the decade of the 80's (US Census, Table 607).

          And the trend continues in the 90's ''From 1990-91 through 1995-96, the [California] AFDC caseload will have grown ¡Â­ 40 percent while the population of the state will have grown 9.4 percent. In federal fiscal year 1992, California had only 12 percent of the nation's population, but accounted for ¡Â­ 26 percent of the national total of AFDC expenditures'' (Governor's Budget Summary, 1995-96, p. 64).

          Without a doubt, immigration is causing an increase in population and poverty in California. Table 5. Felonies and Misdemeanors by Ethnicity


          dd

          d



          Guns
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Birth place data are not available for those who are arrested for crimes. Ethnic and racial data are available, however. Biologically, young women have babies and young men commit crimes. It does not matter if they live in Lithuania or Louisiana. In California in 1993, 75 percent of all felony arrests were of men under 40 years of age and 98 percent of births were to women under 40. How are guns and babies connected? Immigrants are disproportionally young. If immigrants account for the increase in babies, do immigrants account for the increase in crime? Yes, they do.

          Felony arrests among teen males are increasing while misdemeanor arrests are decreasing. As with teen births, the numeric overview does not tell the story; the ethnic composition does. Table 5 shows the change in arrests by race and ethnicity for males under the age of 20 in California for the period 1986 to 1993. (The category ''Other'' is primarily Asian/Pacific Islander but it also includes Native Americans and others.)

          Felony arrests for young white and black males declined by 11,415 while felony arrests for Hispanics and ''Others'', most of whom are Asians, increased by 22,965. Felony arrests among ***** would be dropping precipitously but for arrests among Hispanics and ''others.'' The misdemeanor arrests are consistent with the felony trends. White and black, young male misdemeanor arrests are down by 46,724. Hispanic and ''other'' misdemeanor arrests are up by 16,253 (California Department of Justice).

          The ethnic composition of the arrests for violent crimes is especially troubling. Violent crimes are offenses against people and include homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and kidnapping. Aggravated assault is defined as ''an unlawful attack or attempted attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe and aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of weapons or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.'' Table 6 shows statistics for all felony arrests and for selected violent crimes.

          Some of the information that can be garnered from this data white teen males are committing more crimes of property than violent crimes as their percentage of crimes against people is relatively low (19 percent) as compared to their total felony arrest percentage (26 percent). Hispanic, black and ''other'' ***** are committing more violent crimes but note that black data is skewed by blacks' very high level of robbery arrests (40 percent). Assault and homicide arrests are disproportionally accounted for by Hispanics. Other (mostly Asians) homicide arrests are 138 as compared to whites' arrests which are 122. As there are significantly fewer Asian ***** than white *****, this trend is very disturbing.

          Does immigration have anything to do with this? Considering what we know about the birth place of teen mothers in California, what other explanation could there be?

          Are ***** the only tarnish on the Golden State? No, unfortunately, adult crime statistics are also dismal but the absolute numbers are much greater. Table 7 includes all felony arrests, for men and women, adults and juveniles.

          Together, Hispanic and Other (primarily Asian) arrests increased by 74,372 or 78.8 percent of the increase in felony arrests between 1986 and 1993. On a base of 17,279, the ''Other'' category increased by 9,020 arrests as compared to a black arrest increase of 2,426 Table 6. Ethnic/Racial Composition of Selected Felony Arrests


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          for Males under 20 years, California 1993
          Source California Department of Justice
          Total White Hispanic Black Other
          All Felonies 122,690 31,960 54,022 27,057 9,651
          Percent of all 100% 26% 44% 22% 8%
          Violent Crimes 30,137 5,647 13,666 8,613 2,211
          Percent of all 100% 19% 45% 29% 7%
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          *Homicide 1,091 122 514 317 138


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Percent 100% 11% 47% 29% 13%
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          *Robbery 11,297 1,257 4,835 4,479 726


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Percent 100% 11% 43% 40% 6%
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          *Assault 16,578 4,028 7,794 3,488 1,268


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Percent 100% 24% 47% 21% 8%
          Table 7. Racial/Ethnic Composition of Felony Arrest Changes
          California, 1986 to 1993
          Total White Hispanic Black Other
          1986 469,982 183,022 132,912 136,769 17,279
          1993 564,307 200,549 198,264 139,195 26,299
          Increase 94,325 17,527 65,352 2,426 9,020
          Percent of
          total increase 100% 18.6% 69.3% 2.6% 9.6%
          Table 8. Change in Misdemeanor Arrests, California 1986-93
          Total White Hispanic Black Other
          1986 1,299,222 678,145 377,814 185,403 57,860
          1993 1,079,136 455,228 407,086 169,331 57,491
          All Change (220,086) (222,857) 29,272 (16,072) (369)
          Teen Change (30,471) (46,240) 14,248 (484) 2,005
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          on a base of 136,769. Clearly, the rise in arrests among Asians is very rapid and the black arrests are still very high but not rising so rapidly.

          The violent crime data for adults are similar to those for juveniles. The felony statistics are disturbing but the homicide statistics are more so. Between 1986 and 1993, the number of homicides increased by 244. White and black arrests declined by 221. Homicide arrests for Hispanics increased by 342. In 1986, homicide arrests among ''Others,'' mostly Asians, were 158 and by 1993, they were 281; that is a 78 percent increase! In 1993, 138 of the total 281 homicide arrests were Asian males under 20 years of age.

          Table 8 shows the change in all misdemeanor arrests as compared to the change in misdemeanor arrests for males under 20 years of age.

          Overall, misdemeanor arrests declined signifi-cantly but arrests for teen males did not decline nearly so sharply. The majority of the decline is caused by the large decrease in white arrests. Black arrests are also down by 9 percent overall which is very encou-raging. Hispanic male youths, in contrast, accounted for almost half of the increase in misdemeanor arrests and the ''Other'' male youths misdemeanor arrests increased by 2,005 while arrests, overall, decreased by 369. The trends in arrests for Asian and Hispanic male ***** are not good.

          Does the change in the ethnic and racial composi-tion of arrests have anything to do with immigration? What other explanation could there be? This is not to say that all Hispanics and Asians are immigrants but rather most immigrants are Hispanic and Asian. There must be a connection between the changing ethnic and racial composition of the arrests and immigration.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Conclusion
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Repeatedly, ''think tank'' reports indicate that data are not available. Statistics are available. They are everywhere and they are public record. As more statis-tics appear and suggest that everything is not working out, immigration supporters cry ''racism.''

          In a review of the book, Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow, Newsweek writer Tom Morganthau states, ''Brimelow thinks race counts, though he never actual-ly says other racial groups are inferior to whites. But he implies it, by rehashing tendentious research on immigrant welfare dependency ¡Â­ and by making much of the irrelevant fact that immigrants now compose 25 percent of the federal prison population'' (Morganthau).

          Morganthau does not say the facts are wrong, only that Brimelow must be racist because Morganthau believes the facts are tendentious and irrelevant. Perhaps Morganthau believes the facts are tendentious and irrelevant because they do not support his point of view. More important, why is it racist to discuss the facts? Perhaps Morganthau wants discussion of the facts to stop.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ''¡Â­in California, the U.S. citizen
          children of Illegal immigrants
          are almost half of the AFDC
          caseload increase since 1985.''
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Further, so-called-experts keep repeating nonsense such as, ''The most striking feature is that for all programs, welfare participation rates of undocumented immigrants were well below those of the total U.S. population.'' (Tienda and Liang) It would only be ''striking'' if the welfare participation rates of illegal aliens were high because illegal aliens are legally barred from receiving most welfare benefits. The benefits for which they are eligible, such as OBRA/IRCA Medicaid for delivery of babies and WIC, are used in abundance. In addition, in California, the U.S. citizen children of Illegal immigrants are almost half of the AFDC caseload increase since 1985. (Department of Social Services)

          Are the experts trying to convince us that Illegal immigrants do not use welfare because the illegals do not want to? Are we to conclude that illegal immi-grants who do not use AFDC are morally superior to their children who do? Are these immigration experts trying to mislead us into thinking Illegal immigrants are not big users of welfare, or that they will not use it if we naturalize them?

          More probably, the experts are not experts. They do not understand the programs they are studying and, therefore, leap to unwarranted conclusions which support their preconceived notions and do not explore other plausible explanations for low welfare usage by illegal aliens such as they are not eligible.

          Many Californians are tired of being called racists. They do not need dueling studies of the economic consequences of immigration. The changes in California are obvious to all who wish to see. The majority of Californians are tired of waiting for something to be done, as the 59-percent-yes-vote on Proposition 187 demonstrates. As much as anything, the passage of Proposition 187 was a measure of voters' frustrations with government. Most Californians just do not want any more poor immigrants, legal or illegal.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ''Many Californians are tired
          of being called racists.''
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Maybe in the long run it will all work out, as immigrant supporters claim, but in the words of the late British economist, John Maynard Keynes, ''in the long run, we will all be dead.'' In the meantime, California must suffer ever more crowded schools, highways, prisons, parks and welfare rolls. To pay for all the added poor people, huge cuts are being made to local programs such as libraries, parks and recreation programs. Tuition at junior colleges and public universities continue to rise as the State diverts more and more financial support away from higher education to pay for burgeoning health, welfare and school services. The native-born poor have endured repeated cuts in public assistance. Californians suffer increased crimes, teen gangs and graffiti in their communities.

          Californians want to know what conceivable national interest is served by this

          Comment


          • #6
            How, may I ask, does the birth rate among hispanic ***** prove that immigration is hurting this country? Hispanic does not always mean illegal. There are thousands of hispanics in California who were born here. If you are going to spout statistics to prove your point, then you need to post statistics concerning the birth rates of illegal immigrants. "Foreign born" does not mean illegal immigrant. A women born in another country could be a legal resident or a US citizen. "Hispanic" does not mean illegal immigrant. You did NOT do your homework (Unless, of course, you are trying to prove somehow that Hispanics in general are bad for this country which would make you a close-minded racist) You also said that immigrants can't receive a driver license without proof of residence, which is simply false. You wish to shock people, but you are not shocking anyone. Perhaps the only shock value is how someone who pretends to be so educated and knowledgeable as yourself could so ignorantly make statements without researching them. I don't care if you know a lot about teen pregnancies. Clinics going broke for treating uninsured people does not mean that immigrants are the problem. I know for a fact that there are thousands of working US citizens who have no insurance and they do not have a way to pay thier medical bills. They do not qualify for Medi-Cal. I know this first hand as I am a bill collector and I talk to these people every day and garnish thier wages. I see thier debts and they are US born Americans of all skin colors, but predominantly white, with no insurance. If they don't make enough to have thier wages garnished, then the money gets written off as bad debt. By the way, despite all of the clinics going broke, I don't see any doctors, at least not in my neck of the woods, who have had to move out of thier expensive houses or gotten thier Mercedes' and Lexus' reposesed. Racial statistics cannot be substituted for immigration statistics. There are immigrants, both legal and illegal, of all races. There are plenty of asian immigrants here illegaly, as well as Russians, and even those from western Europe. Hispanic ***** may have more children, but all ***** are screwing around at the same rate. Some were just raised thinking that killing your own baby is not right. Hispanics have the lowest divorce rate. That little statistic, however, didn't seem to fit into your demonizing of Hispanics, so you chose to leave it out. A Hispanic child is more likely to grow up with the original mom and dad than a white child. But all of that is beside the point anyway. Hispanics are not all immigrants and immigrants are not all Hispanics. A Hispanic child who is born here has no less of a right to the wealth of this country than a white, black, or asian child who is born here. If you are going to bash immigrants, then at least do it right. Anyone could cut and paste sections from a demographic site here, but that just doesn't prove anything, especially when the statistics aren't even about illegal immigration. If you want to use racial statistics to decide who is and who isn't beneficial for this country, then you will probably want to deport blacks first. Of course, you might like to make a master-race of some white-asian hybrid. They could all live happily ever after not having children until the United States is down to a population so small that everything costs hundreds of dollars. Kind of like Iceland. They've really got it made. The most homogenous society on earth and they've got thier little Island all to themselves. Everything costs a pretty penny, but then, I guess you'd be willing to pay that price to live among your saintly own kind. You wouldn't have to be annoyed by hearing somone talking in Spanish at the grocery store or hearing about some teenage girl who refuses to kill her child so that you can feel like your tax money is going to help only the races that you see as more deserving of the things that you take for granted every day. Start worrying about yourself and stop spending your energy worrying about others getting something that you think they don't deserve. It's like a dog that's eaten his fill and has a lot of food left who goes to his food bowl and growls when another dog is nearby. Have you ever seen that? Cats do it too. They are just animals, but you are a human being. Why don't you act like it? I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with you.

            Comment


            • #7
              deport illegal aliens

              Comment


              • #8
                I did not write either article, you missed the obvious point of Welfare and Babies, its PC written so as not to insult you, which I am sure you were forming at the mouth reading the FACTS, if you can't figure out who the illegal group was well, re-read until you get it. Point is WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN YOUR COUMNITY TO HELP THESE FOLKS OUT??? NOTHING ,YOU LET THEM COME HERE AND SUFFER A LIFE OF POVERTY, AND SCREAM AT US TO FOOT THE BILL.THEN CALL US RACIEST WHEN WE OBJECT TO YOUR ILLEGAL PRESSANCE AND THE COSTS IT BRINGS.SENTENING FOLKS TO THIS LIFE IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYBODY AND WE WILL PAY GERANTIONS FROM NOW FOR IT, I WILL SAY IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT .STICK A SOCK IN IT TOO.


                http://www.usadaily.com/Commentary/S...troy_ameri.htm
                How Illegal Aliens Destroy America's Health Care

                By Scott A. Lauf

                February 20, 2003

                Over one million illegal aliens – mostly Mexicans – sneak into the U.S. every year costing Americans untold billions of dollars and creating chaos in every community they invade. Health care for these illegal aliens is one burden that is tapping the pocketbooks of Americans and decimating the quality of care in the process.

                Under a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, illegal aliens can receive emergency medical care at U.S. hospitals – and we, the taxpayers, pick up the tab through higher insurance premiums, fees, and taxes. Indeed, thousands of illegal aliens show up in emergency rooms of border hospitals every year and the costs are staggering. The U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition estimates that emergency medical treatment for illegal aliens in the year 2000 was over $200 million for 77 border-area hospitals in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The costs are nearly a billion dollars when other states are factored in.

                In Mexico, the people are well aware of this law and exploit it to the nth degree. Illegal Mexicans willingly brave the most dangerous desert crossings of our southwest border with the knowledge that if their bodies cannot take it and they are picked up by the Border Patrol, they will be taken to an American hospital and receive free medical care. Mexican women who are nine months pregnant are another favorite patient at border hospitals. They too risk their lives – and the life of their unborn child – so they can deliver their babies in an American hospital. They know that by having an "anchor baby" on U.S. soil, their child gains immediate citizenship, and they, as mothers, are allowed to stay in the U.S. indefinitely.

                In fact, one doesn't even have to be on U.S. soil to receive free medical care. Believe it or not, some Mexicans in need of emergency care have been allowed by U.S. authorities to be driven across the border to American hospitals, despite the fact that a Mexican hospital is closer!

                Clearly, Americans are placed in a catch-22 situation. As a nation founded on Christian principles, America is morally obligated to try to save human lives in dire emergencies, and rightly so. On the other hand, should we, as taxpaying citizens, be forced to pick up the tab and sacrifice our own quality and access to medical care? Absolutely not!

                When more than 40 million American citizens cannot afford health insurance, it is insane that illegal aliens receive free medical care. For those unfortunate citizens who happen to live near the border, they are dealing with not only crowded emergency rooms and delayed service but also hospital closures. To them, this is more than just cost – it is a matter of life and death.

                So where is the outrage? Is not "health care" a pet cause of the Democratic Party? Likewise, where is the "compassion" by Republicans for our fellow citizens who live near the border and are put at higher risk every day?

                Several lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to remedy the situation to recoup the losses to their states' hospitals. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and John McCain (R-CA), as well as Pete Domenici (R-NM), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have introduced legislation that calls on the federal government to reimburse their states by $1.45 billion a year for the cost of mandated medical care for illegal aliens. However, while these Senators may be well intentioned in serving the interests of their constituencies, it is unfair for all American taxpayers to absorb the burden of this bill.

                A more worthy alternative would be to tax the remittances that immigrants send home each year. According to immigration researcher Brenda Walker, publisher of ImmigrationsHumanCost.org, recent studies estimate that Latin immigrants (legal and illegal) transfer home over $23 billion a year ($14 billion to Mexico and Central America alone). This is money that foreign nationals are siphoning from our country annually – money that should be spent inside the U.S. to help stimulate our economy.

                Our Founding Fathers never intended for Americans to be taxed on our income let alone to assume the social and economic costs of foreign invaders in our own country. Our constitution prescribes that tariffs and imposts on foreign goods and services should be the principal source of revenue for government. What better way to raise this revenue than to tax the illegal aliens already here? Since the vast majority of migrant workers do not pay any taxes for their illegal work inside the U.S., fairness and common sense dictate that we should seize a chunk of this cash. A 25% tax, at a minimum, on these remittances could generate over $5 billion a year in revenue to help offset not just health care costs but also border security operations and other measures designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

                Moreover, Congress should enact legislation that bans automatic citizenship to babies born of illegal aliens on U.S. soil. In the last Congress, Rep. Bob Stump (R-AZ) introduced H.R. 190 that intended to do just that. Hopefully, in this congressional session this bill will be reintroduced and pick up more co-sponsors.

                Lastly, President Bush must send U.S. military troops to patrol our borders. National polls consistently show that the American people overwhelmingly support such action. If Jose and Pedro and Juanita and Rosita were up against the manpower of the U.S. Marine Corps, they might think twice before they violate our borders.

                A USA Daily columnist, Scott Lauf is the Executive Director of CitizensLobby.com. His work in public policy is extensive and varied. As Executive Officer of the Citizens' Investigative Commission (CIC) from 1997 to 2001, he delivered over 1.4 million petitions to Congress calling for the investigation, impeachment and prosecution of Bill & Hillary Clinton. In 1996 he served as a national staffer for Patrick Buchanan's GOP presidential campaign and in 1992 worked for U.S. Senator Jesse Helms. He has also taught English in Slovakia, and has studied and worked abroad in Chile and Argentina. Mr. Lauf holds B.A. and M.A. degrees in International Affairs from the George Washington University. He currently resides in northern Virginia with his wife and three children.
                Noncitizen Care Costs Hospitals In Florida
                By RAFAEL GERENA-MORALES
                rgerena@tampatrib.com

                TAMPA - Florida hospitals last year spent $40.5 million providing care to uninsured patients who are not U.S. citizens, a burden that has wounded the industry's financial health, according to a report released Tuesday.
                The cost has become especially difficult to bear because hospitals are struggling with falling Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates and rising medical malpractice premiums, reports the Florida Hospital Association, which conducted the study.

                ``Hospitals have to absorb most of these costs because there is very limited [government] funding to pay for'' the care of patients who are not U.S. citizens, said Kim Streit, the association's vice president of health care research and information.

                ``We need some form of federal funding to help pay for these costs,'' she said. ``The people of Florida are paying for this through higher medical costs and insurance premiums.''

                The study did not track the costs in previous years to care for uninsured patients who are not U.S. citizens.

                Federal law requires hospitals to care for all patients who visit an emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship.

                Hospitals are also largely responsible for providing follow- up care in which an uninsured resident may remain bedridden for months, if not a year or more in a small percentage of cases, Streit said.

                The report suggested that:

                * The federal government clarify how hospitals provide follow-up care to patients who are not U.S. citizens.

                * Foreign nations be required to accept the medical transfers of their citizens.

                * Tourist visas be issued only if travelers document their health status and financial ability to pay for care.

                In the Tampa Bay area, hospitals are spending millions of dollars to pay for the care of uninsured residents, including U.S. citizens.

                In Hillsborough County, Tampa General Hospital annually provides roughly $65 million in charity care for all patients. St. Joseph's provided $9.4 million in charity care in 2001. In Pinellas County, Bayfront Medical Center annually provides $13.5 million in charity care, including services for U.S. citizens. Officials at these Bay area hospitals said they did not immediately know how much of their overall charity care was provided to patients who are not citizens.

                Still, an expense of $40.5 million for uninsured patients who are not U.S. citizens might not be extraordinary when spread statewide across hundreds of hospitals that collectively generate billions of dollars in annual revenue. But it might be symptomatic of a larger issue: how to pay for all uninsured patients.

                Jay Wolfson, a professor of public health and medicine at the University of South Florida, said hospitals need help paying for uninsured patients, and must continue caring for them.

                ``As a community, we have a moral obligation to be compassionate and care for people even if they are not citizens,'' he said.

                Comment


                • #9
                  To Hispanic- I stole this off another topic but then you can chew on this, there is a lot more to illegal immigration then just showing up here and demanding RIGHTS. We can only hold so many GET A CLUE that is why we have laws and a number , but what do care as long as they get want they want and then leave back to Mexico RIGHT.It was just another drive -by.





                  We don't need 30 million dishwashers do we , they are not the jobs that pay the way in this country.So much for the crops to pick we will have no farmland to grow crops on in Calif SOON.


                  Sprawl and Population

                  Americans have finally noticed that our country is getting more crowded - public transit use is up, school enrollment is exploding, parking is getting more difficult and a host of related problems reduce the quality of life for everyone. The largest attention has gone to sprawl, the cancer-like expansion of suburban housing which creates the associated problems of disappearing open space and farmland, longer commutes by car and generally worse traffic. Even though the United States has added more than 120 million people in just 50 years, the subject of population growth rarely occurs in discussions of sprawl and gridlock - a curious oversight. California, which is the poster case of rampant sprawl's damage, has grown from an environmentally sustainable 10 million in 1950 to 35 million today. How can such growth be ignored?

                  "Smart growth" purports to solve sprawl by mandating more densely populated cities surrounded by green belts of agricultural land and open space, aided by more public transportation. But "smart growth" only seeks to redirect growth, not to slow it. At the same time, the U.S. Census forecasts the U.S. will reach half a billion people in the lifetime of a child born today. Surely any approach to sprawl which ignores the population component is intellectually dishonest and will fail to solve the problem.

                  Consider the following and decide whether it is wise to ignore America's overpopulation problem...


                  "¢ The United States is growing in population by around 2.2 million persons yearly (more than half of which is from immigration) with no end in sight.

                  "¢ California now has a higher rate of population growth than Bangladesh, i.e. 1.7 percent versus 1.6 percent.

                  "¢ The Texas Transportation Institute reckoned that areas in the nation with "severe" and "extreme" traffic congestion increased from 14 percent in 1982 to 36 percent in 1997.

                  "¢ In 1998, Atlantans spent 23 hours per year stuck in traffic and wasted $1.5 billion worth of fuel. (Metropolitan Atlanta's population has more than doubled since 1970.)

                  "¢ In California's Central Valley, which provides half of America's produce, there has been a population influx of two million in 20 years, shrinking valuable farmland by 500,000 acres. Another seven million residents are forecast for the region by 2040, perhaps causing one million farm acres to be lost. The state as a whole may lose half of its agricultural acreage in the next 20 years if current rates of farmland conversion continue.

                  "¢ The number of hours of delay on Sacramento-area freeways have grown 1,000 percent since 1986.

                  "¢ CalTrans reported (2/19/99) that traffic congestion on California urban freeways is increasing an average of 10 percent per year, costing motorists nearly $8 million in lost time and wasted fuel use each day.

                  "¢ The San Francisco Bay Bridge carries 44,000 more cars per day than it did just 10 years ago.

                  "¢ The California Transportation Commission announced in 1999 that $100 billion in repairs and new building was required in the next decade to keep up with the state's explosive growth. Another 18 million residents are expected in the next 20 years.

                  "¢ While California's population went up nearly 50 percent in the last 20 years (from 24 to 34 million), the lanes of new roads increased over the same period by just 16 percent, with most of that occurring within new subdivisions.

                  "¢ By 2020, drivers in Southern California are expected to spend 70 percent of their time in stop-and-go traffic, as compared to 56 percent now, according to the Southern California Association of Governments.

                  "¢ The nine counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area are projected to grow in population from 6.9 to eight million by 2020. (The current population is a near-doubling from 1960's 3.6 million.)

                  "¢ Bay Area Rapid Transit authorities reported (2/9/00) that ridership had increased by 18 percent over the previous January, surpassing the transit district's own projections by 12 percent.

                  "¢ Bay Area drivers lose $3 billion annually because of congestion and its accompanying wasted fuel and lost productivity - that's $1,000 per driver.

                  "¢ According to a 1999 PBS Newshour report, "A new state study shows that morning and evening rush hours in parts of the Bay Area have nearly doubled in length over the past two years, and now total seven hours a day."

                  "¢ In a recent Pew Foundation study, 47 percent of San Francisco Bay Area residents named sprawl as the worst problem facing the region.

                  "¢ The pollution from Los Angeles' famous smog degrades air quality in the Grand Canyon, hundreds of miles away.

                  Read the new report Sprawl in California, which shows that population growth is highly related to sprawl in that state. This report is part of a national study (to be released in late November, 2000) quantifying the role of U.S. population growth in the two most recent decades of Sprawl in the 100 largest Urbanized Areas as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau.

                  U.S. population must be stabilized soon if we hope to save America's environment

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    We spend 2 million and they still want to sue us and your illegal , damm car wecks will bankrput us,you should not get drivers lic I guess LOL
                    Editorial: Hospital did right
                    Guatemalan patient in care at home, where he should be

                    July 13, 2003

                    The hand-wringing over the discharge from Martin Memorial Medical Center of an undocumented indigent immigrant is unwarranted and an unfair reflection on the hospital, its physicians and staff.

                    During two years at Martin Memorial, Luis Alberto Jiminez, 31, received $2 million worth of medical care for massive brain injuries he suffered in a car crash. He was sent home to his native country Thursday, after the Guatemalan government certified it had a rehabilitation facility in which he would be provided treatments he could not receive in this country.

                    Jiminez was in need of rehabilitative services, but because he was an undocumented "” read that illegal "” alien working in Florida, and was not qualified for Medicaid or Medicare, he could not be placed in a rehab center. He was kept at great expense in a space among Martin Memorial's acute-care patients. Jiminez was thus a custodial patient taking a bed needed by more critically ill people.

                    If he were a U.S. citizen, he would have been placed in a custodial-care facility more than a year ago. But he still would have had a problem receiving any financial help.

                    The officials and staff at Martin Memorial take their obligation to care for all indigent persons most seriously. Such care is mandated by the hospital's charter, and it has been provided in this case in spades. From the medical standpoint, doctors and nurses did all they could for Jiminez. The Guatemalan government, through its Miami counsel, has assured Martin Memorial that Jiminez will get the proper custodial care, and that should end the matter.

                    Threats of lawsuits against the hospital seem as useless as they are outrageous. Jiminez is now outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. court and is still receiving care, paid for by his own country. If a suit were filed, and if it were successful, the money the hospital would have to pay out simply would take away from the care of the next indigent to appear in its emergency room.

                    Martin Memorial is deserving of thanks and, frankly, admiration "” not the implied criticisms made by attorneys and friends of Jiminez.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      STICK AND CARROT

                      July 14, 2003

                      Out of curiosity, I run my old 2002 TurboTax (the results attached below) for a fictitious 2 + 2 (a married couple with two kids) family with a total annual income of $21,100. To my great surprise, although I made them free of any tax withholdings, it turned out that they qualified for a federal tax refund of $1,074. Of course, that does not include the additional child tax credit of up to $1,000 per child for low income families that is being currently deliberated by the U.S. Congress, which, if passed, would increase the "refund" for the above family to up to about $3,000 on the 0 (zero) taxes they paid.

                      As much as one can be delighted or outraged with this form of federally mandated charity, it must also have its unavoidable long-term impact on this nation. Since our free society, and embedded in it market-driven American economy, correctly responds to fiscal stimuli, Americans will get the message and move in the direction of carrot, while avoiding the stick as much as possible. My prediction is that, if the current taxation policy is continued, during next 10 years the percentage of American residents eligible for the carrot (i.e., a "refund" on the taxes they didn't pay) will increase, while the percentage of those who deserve the stick (carry a bulk of the tax burden, that is) will shrink. That, obviously, will have its devastating effects on the quality of life in the U.S. and will further worsen already visible dysfunctionality of publicly funded institutions.

                      That rewarding failure (giving away to the poor) and punishing success (taxing the rich) discourages progress in a society that is based on the idea of free enterprise, is only half of the bad news that comes from the current federal tax system. The other half comes from our federal government's inability, or unwillingness, to control American borders and, as a result, to foresee how many prospective beneficiaries and of what nationality will take advantage of the federally sponsored giveaway program. Here is what a couple of illegal aliens who sneaked thorough the American porous border can do. Have two kids right away, with pre- and post-natal care provided free, compliments of American taxpayers. (This, in addition to other benefits will, due to currently prevailing misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, make you the "parents of American citizens".) Out of all "under the table" wages that you have received, make sure to report $21,100 to the IRS This will make you not only eligible for a handsome "refund", but also will make you belong to the category of "taxpayers", or, in other words, persons fully eligible for free public services, social security protection, Medicare, and other goodies funded from the actual taxpayers money.

                      It is estimated that currently at least half a million of "migrants" a year is illegally crossing the American-Mexican border in the North direction, in search for a carrot, or a better life, if you will. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen to this number (hint: it will skyrocket) when the news of even bigger carrot, a federal income tax "refund", spreads South of the border. If you were a poor, uneducated Mexican you had to be stupid, or unable to jump the border, to not take an advantage of it. So, they will. And the American underclass, eligible for these benefits, will keep growing until that system collapses unable to support indefinitely increasing number of those who cannot support themselves. And for those who naively hope that the poor masses of border jumpers and their numerous children will learn how to succeed in America, just look at the alarming high school dropout rates among descendants of Mexican "migrants" (a.k.a. "Hispanics").

                      I suggest that the name of the "1040" federal form be changed to the "U.S. Individual Income Tax and Welfare Form" to better reflect its actual purpose. Moreover, it should contain a clear indication that the "welfare" part (a.k.a. "refund") applies to everybody who has managed to put his/her foot on American soil. At least then we will know what are the rules of the dangerous game the Feds and the IRS are playing.

                      Check the math yourself - and get angry.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow - seems like one or two of these gosh-darn American hard-working taxpayers are using an awful lot of company time to research op-ed articles bashing immigrants. For every hour you get paid by your employer for not working, maybe you ought to consider yourself on the dole as well...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am sooo soorry I forgot that citizen bashing is the thing to do today, how un PC of me.As we fill this country with Illegals not legal immigrants just how do you plan to fund this???

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Gee, I don't know - maybe with the money we save by deporting Ken Lay and the other white-collar american citizen lawbreakers costing this country billions?? Oh, and also my immigrant husband's taxes which he pays on time every year as dutifully as any of us do who hate to give up 28% of our income but are happy to have a job. The difference between him and the rest of us, of course, is that he pays those taxes while not having the right to vote, and being treated like dirt by enlightened folk such as yourself.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Do you notice how you all always use other Bad behavior to justify there bad behavior ? Exactly how did what they did ,, justify people entering this country illegally and violating the rights of its legal citizens ???Is your Husband illegal ?


                              The difference between him and the rest of us, of course, is that he pays those taxes while not having the right to vote, and being treated like dirt by enlightened folk such as yourself.

                              What would you call the treatment of legal citizens by those here illegally ? I sure don't have my hand in the pocket of those here illegally DO I? We are being treated worse then dirt, we are treated like puck-a-buck- machines , just pay the bill and don't be a raciest ???

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X