According to US News & World Report, Mexico since 2000 has lost more people to migration to the United States than to death.
Here’s one of those statistics that sums up everything you need to know about America’s immigration crisis. The May 14 edition of US News & World Report had a small item noting that, “Mexico has lost more people to migration to the United States than to death since 2000.”
“An average of 577,000 people moved to the United States annually during the 2000-2005 period, while 495,000 people died in Mexico.” The U.S. agency providing this data estimates that about 11 million Mexicans are living, legally or not, in the United States.
This is not about disliking Mexicans. Many have come here legally, become citizens, and have risen in our society to contribute in business, academics, and government. This is about saving America from a wholesale and entirely illegal invasion, and its consequences.
Mexico has an entirely different view of people who would move there. The Center for Security Policy points out that Mexico prohibits foreigners from owning land within 100 kilometers of the Mexico border and within 50 kilometers of the Mexican coastland, prime real estate. Mexican law permits the government to revoke the naturalized citizenship of anyone who chooses to live in his country of origin more than five years.
Foreigners are admitted only after proving they have “the necessary funds for their sustenance” and they can be fined or jailed if they show false papers. Any Mexican who helps an illegal alien is breaking the law there. On the average, Mexico annually grants citizenship to just 3,000 people, compared to the U.S. rate of almost 500,000.
Compare this with the insidious and stupid immigration law, S. 1348, that Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and other members of the U.S. Senate are trying to fast-track to passage with the support of President Bush. Co-sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Ken Salazar (D-CO), this bill would provide amnesty to those who are here illegally and invite a whole new rush to the border by more Mexicans and others.
By way of illustrating why the virtually uncontrolled flow of Mexican and other aliens represents a problem that cannot and must not be ignored, let me share some facts about its impact on just one State, New Jersey, where I live.
In a recent study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform on the “Cost of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites,” the executive summary notes that, “The illegal alien population residing in New Jersey is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly $2.1 billion per year for education, medical care, and incarceration.”
Bear in mind that New Jersey is essentially broke thanks to the huge debt it has been incurred under several governors. When you add in the costs of an estimated 372,000 illegal aliens, you just exacerbate a bad situation. In sum, the “annual tax burden amounts to about $800 per New Jersey household headed by a native-born resident.” Even if you subtract the sales, income, and property taxes that might be collected from illegal aliens, you still have net costs of $1.6 billion per year.
New Jersey is small, but when one extrapolates such costs to a State like California, you begin to see why illegal aliens pose an enormous cost to educational, medical, and other institutions and agencies trying to cope with people who have absolutely no right to be here. It is estimated that 40% of all workers in Los Angeles County are working for cash and not paying taxes. In Los Angeles, 95% of warrants for murder are for illegal aliens and more than two-thirds of all births in LA County are illegal aliens. And that’s just for one county.
Then there’s the issue of national security. In November, a report from the inspector general’s office of the Department of Homeland Security revealed that half of the 91,516 illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring countries and those of ‘special interest’ apprehended at the border between 2001 and 2005 were released into the U.S. population. I grant you that Mexico is not a sponsor of terror, but it provides an avenue for access to America from nations where the drug industry rivals all others.
In addition to the high-risk aliens who were released, the report notes that authorities also released 27,947 known criminals over a period of five years between 2001 and 2004. When you consider that only one in four aliens attempting to enter the U.S. during this period was caught, the actual numbers of those who were not are some 350,000 from high-risk nations and an estimated 400,000 criminal aliens.
A 2006 study by Edwin S. Rubenstein, a former contributing editor for Forbes, commissioned by the National Policy Institute last year, stated that, “Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer $25 billion more than they pay in taxes.” Titled “The Economics of Immigration Enforcement,” the study concluded that they cost U.S. citizens an estimated $81 billion per year. “Amnesty would make things worse,” stated the study, “by adding another $44 billion to government spending for services.”
Something is very wrong when, given just these few facts, there are members in Congress seriously considering the granting of amnesty — no matter how they mask the true intent of the legislation — and that the President of the United States is one of its leading advocates.
The tyranny of numbers is that they cannot be ignored. The U.S. faces a new torrent of illegal aliens; seeking to absorb them despite ample evidence we are endangering and burdening current native-born and naturalized citizens. The proposed legislation is a demographic time bomb.
ACaruba@aol.com
http://www.anxietycenter.com/
Read more articles by Alan Caruba
“….there are members in Congress seriously considering the granting of amnesty – no matter how they mask the true intent of the legislation – and that the President of the United States is one of its leading advocates”. And, as also stated by this author, that a Republican president has joined forces with the Democrats to pass legislation contrary to the wishes of most Republicans is indeed a strange scenario.
Even if the legislation is narrowly defeated by some miracle, the spin that follows from Republicans will be a bizarre and amazing comedy of apologists claiming “amnesty really isn’t so bad and conservatives shouldn’t abandon the Republican Party, we need them in Washington or we’ll have to live under the rule of Democrats.” The conservative commentators will pin a happy face on the compromise with observations such as: “Are there provisions within the proposed legislation to protect the border, provide more security, physical barriers, additional law enforcement, etc? You bet your 401-k there are and you can thank us Republicans for that. And, this time around we really, really mean it. We’re going to enforce the border security provisions of this new law with manpower and money and no screwing around with these illegals who refuse to respect our laws, except, that is, for those who receive amnesty, but don’t dwell on past failures.”
Even now the apologists are backpedaling and rationalizing furiously; the number of foreign nationals reported here illegally is dropping like a rock. I’ve heard the number estimated as high as 30 million, frequently 20 million and the most often cited “guesstimate” number is 12 million illegals. But, within the past few days, the number has mysteriously dropped to 11 million on some conservative websites. Maybe in a month, the apologists can get the number to 10 million or even 9 million. Who knows, in 6 months the number could be 5 million. With a few strokes on the keyboard, the apologists can deport millions of illegal aliens, something the government has consistently failed to do. The number grew rapidly when conservatives needed a rallying point to fight illegal immigration under the Republican banner and no doubt the number will fall rapidly when the apologists need a means to retain our loyalty to the Republicans.
How important is retaining a solid conservative base to the Republicans? Well, how important is it for the Democrats to retain the African-American and Jewish voting blocks? Nothing will make a Democrat more furious than having some smart-aleck conservative commentator point out that the Democrats have done nothing for African-Americans, they take them for granted and count on their support at the polls while actively working against their best interests. Among Republicans there aren’t many African-American voters, but there are many conservatives who emulate their loyal and unquestioning support for one party.
“Let’s change the focus”. You’ll also hear that a lot from the apologists in the next few weeks. The “focus”, we will be told, should be on terrorism and America’s domestic security, particularly in regards to next year’s presidential candidates. Only the Republicans can be trusted to fight on to victory and keep the jihadists from blowing up every McDonald’s on Mainstreet, USA. According to the Republican theorists, our border security is actually two tiered. Within the primary tier, we must keep those jihadists out of America; the scenario of nuking an American city is real and we must remain mindful of the risks of lax border security. New York appears the target of choice for the fanatics, but it could just as easily be your city, town or village where the mushroom cloud is sighted.
Our Mexican border is the second tier, but it’s a completely different situation. While it’s true poor (and illegal) immigrants have been and currently are crossing the border in droves, there is no risk from these people. Content to do the jobs Americans won’t do, the illegals are not religious crazies like those scary jihadists. In reality, they are only poor, wholesome, family-loving types; really just ordinary conservative Republican folks with funny accents who mean us no harm.
We can count on the Mexican government to let these innocent illegals through, but not those wild-eyed jokers from the Middle East carrying bomb making components. After all, would the Mexican authorities either want or allow jihadists to transport bomb-making materials, particularly the nuclear kind, through their borders, even if they are just passing through on their way to Arizona?
If the apologists can successfully compartmentalize the issues, they can build a solid case that we desperately need the Republicans at the helm to keep us secure, but amnesty legislation is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with security from terrorist attack. What we desperately need is a law that addresses the failure to enforce the present law by passing a completely new law that will deal with an illegal immigrant situation in the only sensible way it can be approached and that is, of course, amnesty legislation. After all, we can’t seriously believe it’s possible to deport 20 million, 12 million, 11 million, 5 million, whatever the number is of illegals? Can we?
If the legislation passes, there will be tight lips and clenched buttocks among many conservatives and the apologists will have their work cut out. How to convince conservatives that this time around there will be severe attention paid to border security, not like in the past (we already cautioned you folks about dwelling on past failures, didn’t we?). Maybe turning a liability into an asset is the answer. Warn conservative voters that only the Republicans can ensure the border security provisions of the new amnesty law will be enforced. The Democrats can’t be trusted to do that, they only want to pass new welfare legislation for these recently pardoned citizens (formerly known as “illegals”) in exchange for their votes. You can count on Republicans to keep the Democrats in check, and for the last time quit harping on what happened in the past for gosh sakes.
At the least, President Bush will finally receive a grudging commendation from the New York Times for supporting amnesty – something that won’t earn points with many conservatives unfortunately. But, maybe the Wall Street Journal will also chime in on the side of amnesty. That has to be worth something. In the end, the important issue we will be told is keeping the Republicans in power. Who would want the wife of Bill Clinton and 8 years of another Clinton presidency, possibly supported by a Democrat controlled Congress? Frankly, while contemplating this scenario – Republican enlightened rule vs. Democrat misrule - I can’t see any real difference.
Comment by Pat Skurka | May 21, 2007
Good article. I have become the dreaded one issue voter. My new mantra is: Any senator or representative that votes for amnesty, parole (the new PC speak for amnesty) or any other form of legalization process for the illegals; I will vote for their opponent UNLESS the opponent also voted for amnesty, parole or other form of legalization then I do a write in candidate even if it is Donald Duck (can't use the mouse because on the West Bank it trains children to be suicide bombers).
Please consider the possibility of setting employer rules for hiring illegals to be similar to drug dealers, don't just jail them confiscate their belongings used in the enterprise. Deport every illegal found and end the anchor baby welfare bonanza.
Comment by Mickey G | May 21, 2007
Get rid of the socialist policies - both foreign and domestic - that support illegal immigration and immigrants will have no motivation to come here illegally. Yes, it is THAT simple.
Comment by g8r hed | May 21, 2007
Employer sanctions would seem sensible; supposedly the employers know they are hiring illegals, probably paying them under the table or accepting phony social security numbers if they bother to file payroll tax returns. But, the reality is the majority of employers aren’t causing the problem, the government is. “If you can’t beat the mule, then beat the pack” speaks more to alleviating frustration than it does to workable solutions.
In Northern California, where I live, illegals are a fact of life like sunny, blue skies or the water board permanently raising your rates (but never lowering them) whenever we have our periodic droughts. Ubiquitous best describes illegals here in the Golden State. And, if we sanction employers, what to do about their customers? Car washes, roofing contractors, fast food joints, fruit orchards: an endless chain of employers hiring illegals, including state and local governments. And landscapers – Californians are obsessed with landscaping; every tree, bush and blade of grass is constantly groomed. We have a love affair with landscaping and it’s not just a summer fling. And how many landscaping employees are tall, blonde Swedish-Americans? Precisely – about as many as there are short Inuits in the NBA.
Aren’t the retail customers just as guilty? Like Sean Connery in the movie “The Untouchables” said, “everyone knows who is making the illegal booze, but no one wants to do anything about it”. How many Californians want to pay higher prices for legal, native-born American employees – last count there were 12, with one undecided. I’m not talking about how many Californians talk a good, patriotic game, but how many actively seek out contractors or stores with obvious American citizens as employees.
Check out all the questions employers can’t ask by law during a job interview – any Human Resource department will hasten to tell you what they won’t or can’t ask by law. If presented with a phony social security number or phony birth certificate, what do you do next if you suspect an illegal? Legally, you can’t challenge the documentation unless the social security administration tells you to. Do you call Immigration? Try it; raids on employers are politically upsetting to the locals here in California and the media raises a big stink whenever one occurs – so very few occur.
I work for a California military defense contractor and after 9/11 Homeland Security made us all (each and every employee from the VP’s to the receptionist at the front desk) produce a birth certificate and go through a check of citizenship – so obviously the government can do something with employers when they want to. But, does the government want to?
If you call Sacramento to resolve a simple business problem, you invariably speak to someone with a thick foreign accent who will only give their first name and it’s always “John”, “Mary” or “Robert”. Sure it is. And local governments won’t knowingly hire illegals according to our mayor – but, they do hire contractors (landscapers – you guessed it) who do. If our state and local governments hire illegals directly or indirectly, do the sanctions apply to them also? Do we strip them of their assets or rather of the assets we bought for them? If Immigration ever raided the local social security branch offices around the country, it would be amusing to learn how many illegals work for the federal government. Been to a social security branch office lately? More than half the clientele waiting in line aren’t native born Americans and many have their interpreters and attorneys with them. Is it possible the branch office employees dealing with these foreign nationals are all documented citizens?
If it seems reasonable to punish those employers who knowingly break the law and hire illegals, then why isn’t it reasonable to punish the government employees who knowingly allowed the illegals entry to our country? Because, we can’t as citizens punish the government or its employees – it’s a one way street. And, the government isn’t about to punish itself. We can vote every two or four years to throw the bums out to make room for the next posse of bums – but that’s the extent of it.
Americans are captive to our insane laws and we seem to like it. The important point is whether we have a law that controls some facet of our lives, not whether the laws are actually enforced. Our citizens in the private sector and the government aren’t incompetent, but you wouldn’t know it from the way we solve problems.
The current arguments over the proposed legislation involve compromises where every special interest group gets a bone thrown to them within a 1,000 page Gone with the Wind law. Will this law, if passed, be enforced – is enforcement even the point of this comedy? We can politically lean toward those kind-hearted, benevolent Democrats who want to give every illegal amnesty. Or, we can lean toward those letter of the law, tough-minded Republicans who want to give every illegal amnesty if they pay a $500 fine. What a choice!
Comment by Pat Skurka | May 23, 2007
I wonder at what point American citizens will take the law into their own hands and defend themselves and their families against the constant onslaught of illegals. In addition, I wonder at what point people will take the law into their own hands and start capturing and arresting those public officials responsible for allowing the destruction of our country, the violation of its laws they have sworn to uphold along with all appointed judges who fail to do same.
Comment by Dean | May 23, 2007
facts or distortions?
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/17/111523.php
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2005_fivemyths.shtml
Comment by jlyoung71 | May 26, 2007