Almost Half of Immigrants to the U.S. – legal and illegal – are on welfare

That is the result of big government-sponsored culture of dependency — give it and they will come — and that is why Obama intends to legalize all illegals as soon as possible.

By STEPHEN DINAN| THE WASHINGTON TIMES | AUGUST 8, 2012

Immigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and home ownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

The report was released at a time when both major presidential candidates have backed policies that would make it easier to immigrate legally and would boost the numbers of people coming to the U.S.

Steven A. Camarota, the center’s research director and author of the 96-page study, said it shows that questions about the pros and cons of immigration extend well beyond the sheer numbers and touch on the broader consequences of assimilating a population defined by tougher socioeconomic challenges.

“Look, we know a lot of these folks are going to be poor, we get it. But don’t tell the public it’s all going great, which is the story line I think a lot of people want to sell,” Mr. Camarota said. “There is progress over time. Every measure shows improvement over time, but still, the situation does not look like we’d like it to look, particularly for the less-educated. They lag well behind natives even when they’ve been here for two decades, and that is very disconcerting.”

Federal law requires that the government deny immigrant visas to potential immigrants who are likely to be unable to support themselves and thereby become public charges.

Read Full Article →

Italy and France now want to close borders

Sarkozy and Berlusconi want passport-free travel within the EU suspended as north African migrants flee north

UK Guardian
April 27, 2011

France and Italy have thrown down the gauntlet over Europe’s system of passport-free travel, saying a crisis of immigration sparked by the Arab spring was calling into question the borderless regime enjoyed by more than 400 million people in 25 countries.

Challenging one of the biggest achievements of European integration of recent decades, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi also launched a joint effort to stem immigration and demanded European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send new arrivals packing.

The French president and the Italian prime minister, at a summit in Rome, opted to pile the pressure on Brussels and the governments of the other 25 EU states, demanding an “in-depth revision” of European law regulating the passport-free travel that takes in almost all of the EU with the exception of Britain and Ireland.

Prompted by the influx to Italy of almost 30,000 immigrants, mainly from Tunisia, in recent months, the two leaders warned that the upheavals in north Africa “could swiftly become an out-and-out crisis capable of undermining the trust our fellow citizens place in the free circulation within the Schengen area”.

The passport-free travel system known as the Schengen regime was agreed by a handful of countries in 1985 and put into practice in 1995. Since then it has been embraced by 22 EU countries as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, but spurned by Britain and Ireland. It is widely seen, along with the euro single currency, as Europe’s signature unification project of recent decades.

But like the euro, fighting its biggest crisis over the past year, the Schengen regime is being tested amid mounting populism and the renationalisation of politics across the EU.

In other setbacks to borderless Europe, Germany, France and other countries have been blocking the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen in recent months, while the arrival of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants in Greece has fed exasperation with Athens’s inability to control the EU’s southern border.

The Franco-Italian move, following weeks of bad-tempered exchanges between Paris and Rome over how to deal with the Tunisian influx, is the biggest threat yet to the Schengen regime.

“For the treaty to stay alive, it must be reformed,” Sarkozy said. Berlusconi added: “We both believe that in exceptional circumstances there should be variations to the Schengen treaty.”

They sent a joint letter to the European commission and European council chiefs, José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, urging proposals from Brussels and agreement on a new system at an EU summit of government heads in June.

The commission said it was drawing up new proposals, tinkering with the current system, to be unveiled next week. But it has resisted, with the support of most EU governments, intense Italian pressure to label the arrivals from north Africa an emergency.

Under European law the border-free regime can be suspended only for reasons of national security, routinely invoked in recent years by member states hosting major international sporting events such as the World Cup or the European football championships, where individual countries contend with a huge, one-off influx of foreigners.  Read Full Article…

U.S. FEDS Threaten Sheriff Arpaio for Enforcing Immigration Laws

By Jerry Markon and Stephanie McCrummen

A federal investigation of a controversial Arizona sheriff known for tough immigration enforcement has intensified in recent days, escalating the conflict between the Obama administration and officials in the border state.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County

Justice Department officials in Washington have issued a rare threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he does not cooperate with their investigation of whether he discriminates against Hispanics. The civil rights inquiry is one of two that target the man who calls himself “America’s toughest sheriff.” A federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining whether Arpaio has used his power to investigate and intimidate political opponents and whether his office misappropriated government money, sources said.

The standoff comes just weeks after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) because of the state’s new immigration law, heightening tensions over the issue ahead of November’s midterm elections. The renewed debate has focused attention on Arpaio, a former D.C. police officer who runs a 3,800-employee department, and a state at the epicenter of the controversy over the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

(Photos: How the immigration law is being enforced in Benson, Arizona)

Once seen as a quirky figure who has inmates dress in pink underwear and forces them to work on chain gangs, Arpaio has in recent years become a kind of folk hero to those who favor his heavily publicized “crime sweeps,” conducted mostly in Hispanic neighborhoods. But civil rights groups accuse the 78-year-old lawman of racial profiling. And some Maricopa County officials say Arpaio has begun meritless corruption investigations of officials who have criticized his policies or opposed his requests.

Those allegations are at the core of the Justice Department investigations, according to documents, lawyers familiar with the inquiries, and people who have been questioned by FBI agents and the grand jury.

(Arizona: We’re not changing immigration law)

The investigations reflect the tangled politics surrounding the immigration debate. The criminal probe is led by Dennis K. Burke, the U.S. attorney in Phoenix who was a top aide to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Two of Arpaio’s attorneys, Robert N. Driscoll and Asheesh Agarwal, were officials in the Justice Department’s civil rights division in the George W. Bush administration. They denied that the sheriff, a Republican who has been reelected four times since 1992, has been uncooperative or has engaged in racial profiling, misusing money or targeting political enemies.

“The sheriff’s office is cooperating fully with the grand jury investigation and has complete confidence that the inquiry will clear it of any wrongdoing,” Agarwal said. “The office has always fulfilled its responsibilities truthfully, honorably, and in full compliance with state and federal law.”

Arpaio’s attorneys contend that the investigations are politically motivated, citing a news conference in March at which Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was quoted as saying he expects the inquiries to “produce results.”

“While we have no quarrel with the assistant U.S. attorneys handling the investigation, the attorney general’s comments appear to violate federal regulations, departmental policy and state ethical rules designed to ensure the fairness of criminal investigations,” Agarwal said.

(More: Chat with Sheriff Joe Arpaio)

Brewer and her supporters have also asserted that the Justice Department was politically motivated in its lawsuit over the state law, which authorizes, among other things, police officers to ask about the status of people suspected of being in the country illegally. A federal judge last month stopped the most controversial sections of the legislation from taking effect.

Justice Department officials denied any political considerations, saying the investigations and the lawsuit are based on the facts and the law. They declined to comment on details of the Arpaio inquiries.

The civil rights division’s investigation began in March 2009 and focuses on whether Arpaio’s department engaged in “discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures,” along with allegations that his jail discriminated against Hispanic inmates, according to letters the division sent to Arpaio. A complaint to the Justice Department said that even bilingual jail guards are required to speak to inmates only in English and that the rule could endanger prisoners’ medical care. The jail was also accused of forcing Hispanic visitors to fill out a “citizenship check” form, the letters said.

Lawyers in the division have repeatedly interviewed Phoenix area human rights leaders about Arpaio’s immigration sweeps, and local “cop watch” groups have turned over hours of video footage of the sweeps to investigators.

“Their questions are in regards to racial profiling, questions about what are the practices when people get stopped,” said Salvador Reza, an organizer with the Puente human rights movement who has met with Justice Department lawyers. He said the lawyers have asked about the treatment of inmates in Arpaio’s jail.

In an Aug. 3 letter to Arpaio’s attorneys, Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said the sheriff’s office had declined repeated requests to turn over documents and meet with investigators. Without cooperation by Tuesday, the letter said, the government would file suit “to compel access to the requested documents, facilities and personnel.”

In his Aug. 5 reply, Driscoll accused the Justice Department of “a desperate attempt” to compel cooperation and of “a public relations campaign against Sheriff Arpaio.” He added: “DOJ cannot require the reproduction of millions of pages of documents so DOJ can ‘see what it can find.’ ”

Arpaio’s resistance is highly unusual: Justice Department officials said the threat of such a lawsuit is rare. They added that they plan to meet with the sheriff’s attorneys next week in a last-ditch effort to forestall litigation. If the department files a broader civil lawsuit, it could result in the department terminating the several million dollars in grants to Arpaio’s office each year or in a judge’s order forcing him to change his policies.

On a separate track, the grand jury investigation has been underway since at least January. Lawyers familiar with the inquiry and witnesses said it is focused on allegations that as Arpaio has fought with the county board over his budget and other issues, he and his deputies have retaliated by carrying out at least seven criminal investigations of county officials alleging corruption, fraud and other crimes.

Some legal experts say it could be difficult for such allegations to result in criminal charges. “I don’t know what a charge would be,” said Peter Zeidenberg, a former Justice Department public corruption prosecutor. “We all would agree that being abusive is wrong, but I’m not aware of any federal statute that would fit.”

In one case, Arpaio leveled 40 corruption-related charges against a county supervisor who had spoken out against his policies, all of which a judge dismissed. In another, the sheriff’s allies in the county attorney’s office filed more than 100 criminal counts against another supervisor for improperly filling out required financial disclosure forms. Several days after a judge dismissed most of those, Arpaio’s deputies arrested the supervisor in a parking garage and walked him before TV cameras to jail, announcing more than 100 new charges, which a judge dismissed. (Some of the original charges remain on appeal.)

“They’ll never stop,” said Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, who was named in one of Arpaio’s investigations. Wilson testified before the grand jury and has spoken to FBI investigators more than a dozen times, as recently as last week. “They don’t care who tells them to stop.”

County Manager David Smith said grand jurors also questioned him about deputies’ trips to conferences and training missions in Las Vegas, Honduras and other destinations, where he said they often stayed at “boutique” hotels. He said prosecutors were focusing on “issues that might involve the crime of extortion over the county budget, misappropriation of funds and abuse of police power.”

Judge sides with law-brakers, strikes down Arizona immigration laws

Clinton appointed judge puts on hold execution of Arizona’s enforcement of existing immigration laws; for now.

AP

District Judge, Susan Bolton

A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona’s toughest-in-the-nation immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton shifts the immigration debate to the courts and sets up a lengthy legal battle that may not be decided until the Supreme Court weighs in. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge’s order overturned.

But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that most angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.

She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar action elsewhere, prompted a boycott against Arizona and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the state’s border with Mexico is awash in drugs and smugglers that authorities badly want to stop.

Brewer’s lawyers said Arizona shouldn’t have to suffer from America’s broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

“It’s a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I’m sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal,” Brewer told The Associated Press. “The bottom line is we’ve known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds and they haven’t done their job so we were going to help them do that.”

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge’s ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.

The crowd clapped and started chanting, “Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!”

Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.

“I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right,” said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. “It’s the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us.”

Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),” Bolton ruled.

Federal authorities have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries and disrupt U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries.

The core of the government’s case is that federal immigration law trumps state law — an issue known as “pre-emption” in legal circles. The judge plainly accepted that view, pointing out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims that U.S. law supersedes state law.

“Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce pre-empted laws,” Bolton wrote.

Supporters of the law took solace in the fact that the judge did keep several portions of the law intact, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as “sanctuary cities.”

“Striking down these sanctuary city policies have always been the No. 1 priority of SB1070,” said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the law.

Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law’s popularity among conservatives. It’s not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.

“Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. “It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona’s image and economy.”

The law has drawn considerable support among residents in heavily Republican Arizona, where people are fed up with the problems associated with illegal immigration. Ryan Alexander, 39, says illegal immigration has helped bring down wages for jobs in America and created what he calls a slave-labor market.

“I don’t think any of that is good,” he said. “Bottom line is if you’re not supposed to be here, you shouldn’t be here, whether you’re Russian or whatever.”

…And Now For a Global Bank and a Global Currency

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 18, 2010

Since I was a child I hear about the possibility of one world currency.  Back then no one around me knew how to explain how thatwould come about or who would control it.  The answer to those questions are now clear.  Dominic Strauss-Kahn answered my childhood questions.  A Global Currency managed by a Global Central Bank.  The IMF chief said so in Zürich, Switzerland, during a meeting in which he confirmed his view that this crisis “is an opportunity”.

According to Kahn, the Global Central Bank and Currency would be a thing of last resort, in cases when the global economy is in shambles.  He said the new currency would be a “risk-free asset for the system independent of national currencies,” and that a “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort”.  How smart of Mr. Kahn.  The problem is that this ideas aren’t new and aren’t his.  The push for a global financial body has been in the works for decades.

The idea of a global body that controls the issuance of currency and all financial policy was created before the United Nations, the League of Nations and the European Union were born.  This principle of concentrating power and policy originally intended to amass control with the excuse it would avoid economic corruption and disaster.  However it doesn’t take too long to find out it is exactly the opposite.  Just as the creation of the League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union did not end war, neither will a centralized supranational organization end economic unrest.  In fact, it will perpetuate it.

Let’s take a look at past events.  Since the United Nations was born, we experienced conflicts in every continent.  Those conflicts were not the works of countries against countries, but the destabilization came in the form of rogue groups sponsored by governments or their intelligence agencies.  Mossad, MI6, CIA, Taliban and the IRA are just a few examples.  Country-sponsored wars are a thing of the past, and in their letters of intent, the countries that pushed for the creation of the League of Nations and the U.N. knew they would not need such a tool because they also controlled terrorist organizations that would do the work for them.

In the world of economics and finances, the empires, or the countries that aspire to become empires also have their tools to carry out economic and financial terrorism.  The Corporations that initially were outside governments hired financial institutions to carry out their fraudulent activities.  Then, the Corporations became government and it got even easier to carry out financial terrorism.  Multinational Banking Corporations established a new order controlled by themselves, ended oversight and created policies that effectively turned them into the masters of the world’s economy.

So, the bankers did not need Al-Qaeda, MI6, Mossad or the CIA to bring the world to its knees.  That goal could be achieved from and through Wall Street, the IMF and Bank of International Settlements.  The creation of regional blocks to promote commerce and exchange was an excuse to consolidate power and resources.  This idea would later be tested at a global level by promoting the creation of a global financial entity which will control the issuance of money and the terms under which that money is lent.

What were the results of the concentration of financial and economic policy in Europe?  We are seeing them right now.  Iceland, Greece and now Spain, Portugal and England are in shambles.  Why?  Because financial homogenization is not meant to provide stable economies and sound policies, but to tighten controls and carry out policies that will allow the bankers even more.  The goal of the bankers has never been to have a stable economy with sound monetary policy, because in that kind of world they have less control and the wealth is not concentrated in their hands.

Let’s look at another example history provides us:  The creation and adoption of globalist policies like the free trade agreements.  NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT to mention a few, were the troops on the ground for the bankers.  The end of the industrial world, the end of Capitalism -as it successfully worked for some time-, gave way to open borders for cheap, toxic products to flow and illegal aliens to migrate.  Not only did the free-trade agreements ended industry, but also annihilated the social safety net in the nations of the western world.  While cities’ and towns’ monies were robbed and divested to imaginary financial products, illegal aliens sucked dry the already battered social services in every nation of the Americas and Europe.

Nowadays, the most influential politicians and pop culture stars plead for the nations to disrespect their constitutions and laws by allowing not only free-trade agreements, but the continuous flow of illegals through every possible place at the borders.  Enforcing immigration and constitutional laws is seen as racist and those proposing legal immigration are labeled as unjust, inhumane and simply lunatics.  This is exactly the result the banking globalists hoped for.  Dividing and conquering has never looked better.  Sound immigration policies are sure radical in a world where everyone unconsciously believes open borders are the normal thing and cheap slave-made goods are the best bang for their buck.

Now that we have taken a look back, let’s take a look forward.  What would a world with more concentrated power and control in the hands of the makers of the current crisis look like?  Let’s be optimistic and say it could not look better, it will not look better.  The centralization of power and governance at regional levels is what caused the mess we are in right now, so further centralization in the hands of those who financed Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam and who now control and finance the shadow governments of the United States, Great Britain, Asia and Africa, will spin the world even more out of control.  For their benefit, of course.  History doesn’t lie, does it?

Those who promised the end of wars, only brought more of it, and those who promised financial stability only created more inequality, poverty and misery.  Would you trust your house keys to the thief who stands outside your property to take care of it?  You wouldn’t.  You shouldn’t.  In the next election, wherever you live, vote yourself in and vote the crooks out.  That is the only way to defeat their agenda of conquest and slavery.  Many people are already actively working to end the global tyranny they created decades ago, so you are not alone.

Now, enough talk!  Let’s act!  Next, there is a list of some of the corporations in fraudulently in charge of the world today.  I am hoping you can deny them the privilege of running your life.  Stop using, buying or in any way consuming their products.  Let’s use their globalism against them.  A global boycott of their cheap, toxic and fraudulent products will be the first step.

Disney                              Adidas                         Time Warner                  IBM

Merck                              Napa                              Holiday Inn                    ACE

Old Navy                        Ford                              Seven Eleven                  USPS

Comcast                         Chevrolet                    Citgo                                  VISA

CNN                                 Dyncorp                       Pepsi                                  Chevron

Coca Cola                      True Value                   Kraft                                  Chrysler

Exxon Mobile             General Electric         Starbucks                        Westinghouse

Taco Bell                       Wells Fargo                  America Online             KFC

NBC Universal            American Airlines    Royal Dutch Shell         Bank of America

CBS                                  The Carlyle Group    GAP                                     Master Card

Master Card                Stop&Shop                   HBO                                     ABC

Nike                               Wal Mart                       Jiffy Lube                          JP Morgan

GM                                 Volkswagen                 Fox News Channel        Monsanto

Du Pont                        NASA                             Pizza Hut                           Syngenta

Microsoft                    Mc Donald’s                 Home Depot                    Safe Way

Burger King               Sony                                Dodge                                Intel

Staples                         Verizon                          Toro                                  John Deere

Firestone                    Bechtel                           MSNBC                             Goodyear

Amoco                        AT&T                               Mitsubishi                       Nestle

Feel free to suggest names of more corporations through the comment section.  Also, respond to our poll regarding corporate control of government below.