[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: NEW HAVEN & HAZELTON: A TALE OF TWO CITIES Informed Americans cheered when Hazelton, PA., Mayor Louis Barletta, took a stand against the invasion of his city by illegal aliens: "Mayor Louis Barletta understands what the word illegal means and crafted new laws to do what Congress has refused to do: uphold Art. 4, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution which reads: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. "The new ordinance would require anyone attempting to rent must obtain a residency permit at city hall. If the individual's background check cannot verify or confirm they are U.S. citizens or legal aliens, they would be prohibited from living in Hazelton. Landlords who thumb their nose at the law by renting to illegals would be fined as well as employers who would lose their business license for a period of five years. Topping off this long overdue action by a local municipality, the ordinance would mandate English as the official language of Hazelton and that includes refusing to saddle natural born or naturalized citizens with wasteful spending in the form of printing city information in any language except English." Predictably, the American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU), an organization which promotes lawlessness and defends filthy, dirty pedophile organizations like N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Men/Boy's Love Association whose motto is "Sex after eight, it's too late) went ballistic and filed a lawsuit. The question is: Do the states or local municipalities have the right to take steps to stop an invasion if the federal government fails or refuses to do so? According to constitutional scholar, Dr. Edwin Vieira: "By recognizing, adopting, incorporating, and perpetuating "the Militia of the several States" as they historically existed, the Constitution immunizes them from fundamental changes in their legal composition and characteristics through mere legislative acts (as opposed to constitutional amendments). The Constitution does impose certain new National duties on the Militia when they are "call[ed] forth * * * to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. This, however, also empowers them in these particulars, both when "call[ed] forth" according to laws that Congress "provide[s]", and in those situations in which the Militia ought and need to be "call[ed] forth" but Congress refuses, fails, or is unable to do so...." Arizona State Representative Russell Pearce has weighed in on this issue: "Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law. Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so. In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws. The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were written into state statutory law." Rep. Pearce's full analysis is found here; I encourage every American to read it. Rep. Pearce also had an excellent commentary earlier this year on these domestic terrorists; click here. Predictably, another black robbed tyrant ruled: "Federal law prohibits Hazelton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinance" aimed at expelling illegal immigrants. Whatever frustrations … the city of Hazelton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme." Judge James M. Munley also wrote after drinking from the cup of vile political correctness wrote, "We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single act … The United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted [the 14th Amendment] to apply to all people present in the United States, whether they were born here, immigrated here through legal means, or violated federal law to enter the country." "Persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights..." What rights, judge? What right does someone who has violated federal immigration law have except to be deported? The Fourteenth Amendment? "Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Judge Munley is saying that an illegal alien from commie China who slithered across our border in the dead of night has all the "privileges or immunities" as citizens of the United States? Why even bother with citizenship? Mayor Barletta has stated they will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, the tale of the other city. New Haven, Connecticut has decided to blatantly violate federal laws by issuing ID cards to illegal aliens to obtain bank accounts and tax funded city services. The city fathers are obviously victims of the mental disease called political correctness. How many illegals are in New Haven? Between 10,000 and 12,000. These people are criminals because they have violated federal immigration laws. Mayor John DeStefano is quoted as saying that since the federal government has failed to address this massive invasion, the cities are being forced to "find a way to manage." How about getting I.C.E. to your city and get busy deporting them, Mayor? Legal scholars who have spoken out agree that New Haven's mayor and co-conspirators are in violation of federal law, at the very least: Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)) TITLE 8 CHAPTER 12 SUBCHAPTER II Part VIII § 1324 Why should hard working Americans and legal immigrants who live in New Haven pay taxes from the sweat of their labor to give a free ride to criminals who have broken into our house? Illegals steal our jobs, are bankrupting major cities medical facilities and education systems and importing wholesale crime, disease and gangs. Now, we have a city actually aiding and abetting these lawbreakers by making life easy for them! If I lived in New Haven, I would move heaven and earth to recall Mayor DeStefano - after I called I.C.E. demanding his arrest. Every single "sanctuary city" in this country is guilty of violating federal law. In the case of New Haven, Mayor DeStefano, it goes even further. One of the justifications for this ID is, "The cards, available to New Haven's entire population, are meant to help anyone without a state-or federal-issued ID open a bank account..." This is an excerpt from Lou Dobbs show (CNN) on March 21, 2005: "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is encouraging banks to sign up illegal aliens in the banking system, calling the growth of the market "a compelling incentive for U.S. banks to enter this largely untapped market." And the FDIC program demonstrates that unbanked Latin American immigrants can be brought into the financial mainstream. But there are clear laws on the books for the integrity of the immigration system. United States criminal code, "It is a crime punishable by 10 years in jail for aiding and abetting someone in this country illegally for commercial gain." And the Bank Secrecy Act of 1972 makes it clear banks must know their customer, and any illegal activity must be reported to the government. Banks and federal regulators all say enforcing immigration laws not their problem. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it focusing on networks smuggling illegal aliens, not the aliens themselves." Let's look at another renegade mayor, an illegal who lied his way into citizenship, has for all intents and purposes, seceded El Cenizo from the Union: "Texas Town Adopts Spanish As Official Language. EL CENIZO, Texas (Reuters) - The border town of El Cenizo, whose population is heavily Hispanic, has adopted Spanish as its official language and declared the community a safe haven for illegal immigrants, officials said Friday. The ramshackle town of 7,800 people is located just south of Laredo, Texas, across the Rio Grande River from Mexico. Mayor Rafael Rodriguez told Reuters that he and most of the town's residents speak only Spanish. Many are first-generation immigrants, both legal and illegal. Rodriguez himself crossed into the United States illegally from Mexico but became a U.S. citizen in 1995." An illegal, a liar who broke federal immigration law becomes a citizen, then a mayor and then converts his town into a mini-Mexico! Is this an isolated case? I don't think so. There's no doubt in my mind - since I did an on site investigation - that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) (who loves being at the Playboy mansion) is also an illegal alien and remains so to this day. Lawlessness is spreading across this country with allegedly elected officials blatantly thumbing their noses at federal law. Why should any American obey any laws anymore when illegal aliens flood across our borders 24/7 (terrorists as well as murderers and rapists), are given "sanctuary" and a free pass in the legal arena? These illegals, regardless of country of origin, are criminals and the City of New Haven, CT., is now giving them the golden goose. I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the transparent propaganda by "mainstream media" in their on-going efforts to support illegals. This from a column covering the protests against giving illegal aliens in New Haven a free pass to break our laws: "Click on the play arrow to watch Kristafer discuss that question, as well as the campaign he has launched both on his morning drive-time show and in public speeches against New Haven’s embrace of its immigrant community." Embrace its immigrant community? Did you get that nonsense? Illegal aliens are NOT immigrants. The New Haven Independent should be given a piece of your mind if you live in their distribution area - right along with the pledge that you will never buy their rag again.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *The Border* (#0)
Ron Paul for President
New Haven should be able to do what they want in regard to immigrants. So should Hazelton. See who comes out the better.
Newest Data Shows Latin American Immigrants Contact: Steven Camarota WASHINGTON (June 6, 2007) — As they debate legalization for illegal immigrants, Senators would do well to keep in mind the most recent data on welfare use by the people in question. According to the Department of Homeland Security, nearly 60% of illegal aliens are from Mexico and 80% of the total are from Latin America as a whole. A Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2006 Census Bureau data, which includes legal and illegal immigrants, shows use of welfare by households headed by Mexican and Latin American immigrants is more than double that of native households. Among the findings: 51% of all Mexican immigrant households use at least one major welfare program and 28% use more than one program. 45% of all Latin American immigrant households use at least one welfare program and 24% use more than one program. 20% of native households use at least one welfare program and 11% multiple programs. Among Mexican and Latin American households, welfare use is somewhat higher for households headed by legal, as opposed to illegal, immigrants. Thus legalization will likely increase welfare costs still further. 90% of Mexican and Latin American households have at least one worker. Their heavy welfare use reflects their low education levels and resulting low incomes – and not an unwillingness work. There is a common but mistaken belief that welfare programs are only for those who don’t work. Actually, the welfare system is designed to provide low-wage workers, or more often their children, things like food assistance and health care. It is the presence of their U.S.-born children coupled with their low education levels that explains why so many immigrant households use the welfare system. Most recently arrived immigrants are barred from using welfare programs and this would likely apply to those legalized by the Senate bill – however this is not true in every state, nor does not apply to all programs. Most important, the bar does not apply to the U.S.-born children of immigrants, who are immediately eligible. There are an estimated 1.4 million households headed by illegal aliens using at least one major welfare program. If even half these families returned to their home countries, the savings for taxpayers could be substantial. If we do not wish to make a large share of illegals return to their home countries, then the United States has to accept the welfare costs. There is no other option. Programs examined in the analysis are food stamps, WIC, school lunch, Medicaid, TANF, SSI, and public/rent-subsidized housing. If Illegals Stay, So Will Welfare Costs: The heavy use of welfare by immigrants from those parts of the world that send the most illegals is relevant to the question of whether to allow illegal immigrants to stay or, alternatively, to enforce the law and cause them to return home. The figures reported above are drawn directly from the best government data available, and show that allowing illegals to stay creates significant welfare costs. Many of the welfare costs described above are due to the presence of U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, the prohibition on new immigrants using some welfare programs makes little difference because their U.S.-citizen children will continue to be eligible. We estimate that nearly 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens each year. Welfare Use by Working Immigrant Families: Most immigrants from Mexico and Latin America hold jobs. Their heavy use of the welfare system is due to the fact that a very large share have little education and as a result are able to earn only low incomes in the modern American economy, even though they work. The welfare system is geared toward helping low-income workers, especially those with children. Their education levels and the presence of U.S.-born children means welfare use will be extensive. Tax Payments: Of course, immigrants, including illegal aliens, also pay taxes. However, because of the education level and resulting incomes levels of Mexican and Latin American immigrants, their tax payments are much less than natives on average. The same is true for illegal aliens. In a 2004 study, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that illegal alien households used about $2,700 more services than they paid in taxes at the federal level only. We also found that households headed by a legal Mexican immigrant created a net fiscal drain at the federal level of roughly $15,000, and for those with only a high school degree the drain was a little over $3,700. However, those with more education were a fiscal benefit. A new Heritage Foundation study estimated the net fiscal drain at all levels of government created by households headed by high school dropout immigrants at about $20,000 a year. A 1997 National Research Council study found the same pattern – less-educated immigrants create a net fiscal drain and educated immigrants create a net fiscal benefit. Data Source: The data for this analysis come from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau in March of 2006. It includes legal immigrants and most illegal immigrants. Like the Department of Homeland Security, we distinguish legal from illegal immigrants based on the socio-demographic characteristics of those who responded to the survey. By design our estimates of illegal immigration closely match those of DHS. Results are also broken out for the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.
Your argument is with the Tax Man then. Not New Haven. Of course me doubts New Haven would be so welcoming of such people if the Feds were not giving them freebies.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||