Unsurprisingly, the Opravda media is more concerned with the politics of the scheme rather than the national effect of Mexicanizing our culture and shredding the importance of citizenship, not to mention the dollar amount to be paid for self-destruction.
In 2007, Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector authored an important study, Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion. Now he is back, saying the increased costs everywhere, including Obamacare, will drive the price tag even higher. Incidentally, Rector is also an expert on welfare costs and is particularly qualified to understand the intersection of low-skilled immigrants and welfare use.
Rector says he is currently preparing a new report with updated figures. Hopefully that paper will be finished soon. Meanwhile, we have his recent remarks to ponder. In particular, why does this government insist upon importing and subsidizing poverty when we are $16 trillion in the hole already?
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, expects the bipartisan immigration reform proposal, which includes a path to citizenship, will end up costing taxpayers more over time than the trillion-dollar calculations he testified to during debate over the 2007 immigration reform bill.
“[The proposal] seems to be virtually identical to the 2007 bill and would be extremely costly to the U.S. taxpayers,” Rector told The Daily Caller in a Wednesday interview. “Granting amnesty or legal status to illegals will generate costs in Medicare and Social Security alone of $2.5 trillion above any taxes paid in.”
According to Rector, the majority of the undocumented immigrants who would eventually be legalized by the legislation are largely uneducated, and therefore more likely to be dependent on government assistance. Fifty to 60 percent of the new immigrants are high school dropouts, and 75-80 percent have no more than a high school degree.
“It’s not like they pay in a lot when they are young, and they take it out when they’re old. They are in fiscal deficit every year of their lives,” Rector explained. “For example, the typical household headed by someone who does not have a high school degree, as I said in that paper in 2007, got back then $30,000 in benefits and paid $10,000 [in income and consumption taxes]. It’s a net cost of $20,000. That would be significantly higher now.”
Rector’s numbers, he noted, were from 2007, which means that now the cost will higher due to the increase in benefits programs and number of undocumented.
“We don’t know how many there are,” Rector said of the 11 million undocumented immigrant figure. “You can say all these costs will be significantly higher in this bill than in the 2007 bill.” Continue reading this article
An inquiring mind might ask whether those community members would include ranchers, who are the ground-zero frontline experts of illegal border crossers. A report from last fall quoted Texas rancher Dr. Mike Vickers as saying, “The border is not secure; it’s dangerous. We’re in a war zone here. Washington is just a mass of deception. There’s absolutely no truth to what they’re saying.”
A more recent observer is Nogales, Arizona, rancher Dan Bell, whose border-front property is assaulted daily by drug smugglers and illegal aliens. A couple broken strings of barb-wire supplied by Washington doesn’t keep out the invaders, interestingly enough.
Dan Bell owns a cattle ranch in Nogales, Arizona, that sits right on the border with Mexico. He’s been on the property his whole life and has seen firsthand the violence and tragedy that stem from issues with illegal immigration.
“I don’t believe there’s a day that goes by – either illegal immigrants or somebody smuggling contraband drugs,” Bell told CNN’s Gary Tuchman. “There’s always somebody coming across.”
A tall fence lines some of Bells’ land, but mostly the only thing dividing the two countries is a rickety barbed wire fence that can easily be climbed; he makes repairs to it himself.
It would be difficult to build the tall, protective fence along the entire border because of the mountainous topography.
When asked if he considers the border secure, Bells says it’s not. “We do need to focus on making sure that we have boots on the ground, that we have the technology available to us, that we have infrastructure to actually get to the border and patrol it.”
In the present example, Jane Kelly, an editor for the Salisbury Review, voices her unhappiness at feeling like a stranger in her own London neighborhood. The only surprise is that she would be brave enough to speak against the new secular religion of diversity being the highest good; in fact, white Britons are now a minority in London.
Below, sign on shops in London’s Acton Vale area indicate its immigration-caused diversity.
As new figures show ‘white flight’ from cities is rising, one Londoner writes a provocative personal piece about how immigration has drastically changed the borough where she has lived for 17 years
“When you go swimming, it’s much healthier to keep your whole body completely covered, you know.” The Muslim lady behind the counter in my local pharmacy has recently started giving me advice like this. It’s kindly meant and I’m always glad to hear her views because she is one of the few people in west London where I live who talks to me.
The streets around Acton, which has been my home since 1996, have taken on a new identity. Most of the shops are now owned by Muslims and even the fish and chip shop and Indian takeaway are Halal. It seems that almost overnight it’s changed from Acton Vale into Acton Veil.
Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they never look me in the face.
I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments. I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a place where I am a stranger.
I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays, though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what was on TV last night. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions took the Senate floor on Monday to speak out against the Gang of Eight amnesty plan. He emphasized their announcement was only a framework and not a bill, yet the Senate’s elite “Masters of the Universe” expect meek acceptance. He noted that the 1986 amnesty did not do what it promised, namely to advance the national interest.
Senator Sessions is a steadfast friend of America’s national sovereignty and is well remembered for his fine list of 20 Loopholes in the 2007 Senate immigration bill. A couple examples: terror connections were not a disqualification for a path to citizenship, nor was gang membership.
“Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration. They have pleaded with Congress to end the mass illegality for decades to little avail. All the while, millions have been added to the total of those illegally here.
It’s time to fix that broken system. Now we are told that the Obama Administration and members of Congress say they have a plan that they promise will do the job. So, the American people will need to watch closely. And, members of Congress must insist that they have a full and complete opportunity to study and amend such legislation.
We would be in a much better position to achieve immigration reform if the Obama Administration had spent that last four years enforcing federal law rather than dismantling it. Brave immigration agents have been left with no recourse but to sue their own Department head, simply so that they—like any other law officers—will be allowed to do their jobs. Just last Friday a federal judge made an important preliminary ruling in their favor. The ICE union also held their own agency head, John Morton, in no confidence with a unanimous vote. The first task for every media agency in the country ought to be to study this lawsuit, to listen to the long-documented complaints of ICE agents, and to review the record of stymied attempts at congressional oversight of DHS. [. . .]
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions voiced concerns over the bipartisan proposal for immigration reform introduced on Monday by eight senators, saying the plan will substantially increase the already sky-high national debt and criticizing the federal government for inadequately enforcing existing immigration laws.
“No one should expect the members of the Senate are just going to rubber stamp what a group who met decided,” Sessions said on the Senate floor.
While immigration system needs to be reformed, Sessions said, the country has been through this dance before.
The Alabama senator recalled the failed promise of enforcement following immigration reform in 1986, as well as the aborted attempts at immigration reform in 2006 and 2007.
The latter efforts, Sessions said, didn’t succeed “because it did not do what they said it would do. It did not end the illegality. It did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for America, [and] it did not sufficiently alter the nature of our immigration system to advance the national interest of the United States.”
Sessions suggested that the U.S. should adopt some Canadian immigration policies, including the country’s preference for potential immigrants that speak its native language or possess advanced education and skills. The U.S. should also seek out younger people who will pay more into the system over their lifetimes, and investors who will help grow the economy, Sessions said.
“It should be a major part of any immigration reform that focuses on trying to get the people who will be most successful in America — the ones we know are going to be able to do better here. It should not admit people who are likely to be a public charge. However, that is already the public law. You are not supposed to be admitted to America if you are likely to be a charge on the public — that is, you are going to need government aid to take care of yourself.”
Below, a diverse crowd attended a financial aid session at Mission High School in San Francisco where attendees learned how illegal alien college students can get thousands of dollars from unwilling taxpayers.
The article linked below from the San Francisco Chronicle angered many readers, particularly those parents who had paid the full freight for their kids’ education:
I pay thousands of dollars in taxes and will struggle to send my kids to college. The cost of college is going to put a heavy burden on my wife and I yet we will find a way. To say I am upset that I can’t afford college for my kids, yet I am paying for others that are illegal is an understatement.
My husband and I have been paying taxes, including substantial income tax, to the state of California for 30 years. Our child will be charged $60,000 for four years of UC tuition.
Another family crosses the border illegally into our country. After just three years here (contributing no taxes except some minor amounts of sales tax), those illegal immigrants’ children will receive that same UC college education completely free.
How is this fair? And how is this financially sustainable for the state of California?
At this time every year, parents of college-bound 12th-graders pack high school auditoriums and cafeterias to learn about the confusing and confounding process of applying for financial aid.
This year, undocumented immigrants are eager to find a seat.
For the first time, those families will be able to apply for state financial aid under the controversial California Dream Act.
While federal funding is still out of reach, the state measure now allows children who were brought to the country illegally, but who attended a school in the state for at least three years to qualify for up to about $12,000 in Cal Grants to use toward college.
In San Francisco, district officials are holding meeting after meeting, in at least three languages, urging the families of every 12th-grader to fill out a form.
In prior years, about 60 percent of students completed the application for state or federal aid, and 90 percent of those who did ultimately went to college, said Maureen Carew, director of San Francisco Promise, which helps city students access higher education.
In San Antonio, a six-year-old boy was hit by a drunk-driving illegal alien on Thursday evening and died en route to the hospital. First-grader Brandon Abrams (pictured) was struck as he rode his bike on the sidewalk while waiting for an ice-cream truck.
The driver, 17-year-old Luis Enrique Landin, reportedly lost control of his pick-up when he reached for the cell phone he had dropped.
Landin faces the charge of intoxication manslaughter and was driving without a license. Authorities placed an immigration hold on him, yet bail was set at $100,000. Go figure. Plenty of illegal alien criminals have used bail to depart for the dear homeland.
A day after watching a 6-year-old neighborhood boy fly through the air when he was fatally struck by a teenage driver suspected of being intoxicated, Jane Withers refused to leave the spot where the boy’s mother tried in vain to save him.
Overcome by the magnitude of the tragedy that left Brandon Abrams’ family grieving and a 17-year-old jailed on intoxication manslaughter charges, Withers helped set up a makeshift memorial soon after the incident at 6 p.m. Thursday in her Northwest Side neighborhood.
Brandon was waiting on the sidewalk for an ice cream truck when he was struck. According to a police report, the driver involved, Luis Enrique Landin, told officers he’d dropped a cellphone and was reaching to pick it up when he lost control of his Ford Ranger in the 9300 block of Autumn Sunrise.
Withers saw it all from her garage.
“I saw (Brandon) fly in the air and hit the ground,” she said, pausing to hold back tears. “I’ve never seen anyone fly through the air so much. … He was doing the right thing, riding on the sidewalk.”
She said Landin told her he had just looked down to get his phone when he hit the boy.
As she spoke, Brandon’s bright red bike lay crumpled on the grass. The impact had knocked him out of his little black shoes, marked as evidence on the roadside.
She maintained a constant vigil at the site throughout the day Friday, as friends, family and neighbors dropped off stuffed animals, candles and flowers for Brandon.
By Friday evening, about 100 mourners gathered at the site to remember the Nichols Elementary school student who had just won first place at his Cub Scout pack’s Pinewood Derby.
Landin was arrested on a charge of intoxication manslaughter Thursday and bail was set at $100,000. Police said he was driving without a license.
On Friday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a hold on his release, meaning the agency intends to take custody of him because it believes he’s is in the country illegally. Continue reading this article
Blogger Mickey Kaus has a common-sensical list of simple questions about the upcoming amnesty legislation which is bearing down upon the nation. The points he brings up are part and parcel of the arguments against mass amnesty that restrictionists have been making for a long time, and are still true after all these years.
But the current environment is one of emotional panic on the part of the Republicans plus a push to act rapidly by the President before the craziness wears off. The Republicans have little interest in whether the amnesty will behave as promised; the nouveau border-blasters merely want it to be over and done with, even though an amnesty will hasten the decline of conservatism and the rule of law in this country.
If politicians cared about what the public wants, they might have noticed recent polls from Gallup and Pew showing that there is little interest in doing something about immigration compared with increasing jobs and cutting the deficit.
To all my respectable friends: A big push for “comprehensive immigration reform’–meaning some combination of an amnesty plus some border-securing (“enforcement”) measures–begins this week. It will be portrayed in the MSM as a debate between rational bipartisan problem solvers and retrograde bigots. But it’s not that easy! Here are six questions to think about:
1. Why won’t this new reform be a repeat of the 1986 reform, when the amnesty provisions were implemented but the enforcement half was blocked by ACLU-style lawsuits and bureaucratic weakness? The result was a broken border and the approximately 11 million new unauthorized immigrants we’re talking about giving amnesty to today. (If it wouldn’t bother you if an Obama amnesty attracted millions of new unauthorized immigrants, then let’s be open about that.)
2. After this new reform is passed, some people will sneak into the country illegally. What happens to them? Won’t the same arguments–the need to bring people “out of the shadows,” the need not to offend Latino voters, etc.–produce yet another amnesty for them down the road? Don’t potential future border-crossers realize this?
3. What about the wages of unskilled workers? Unskilled workers have gotten the short end of the economy of recent decades. Many of the jobs they used to do are now done by cheaper workers overseas. Luckily there are still some unskilled jobs that have to be done in the U.S. Are we now importing desperate unskilled foreigners to do those jobs too? Doesn’t the law of supply and demand say this will drive wages for basic work down, at least a bit? Low-income workers are the people Democrats claim to care the most about. Will the immigration reform Dems champion force them to take yet another hit?
4. Are we really that good at assimilating? Yes, American culture is powerful. But now there is an entrenched lobby for bilingual education, and identity politics curricula that teach young people they’re right to resist assimilation. Formal and informal race preferences reward Americans for maintaining separate ethnic identies. And then there’s Univision, which would go out of business if too many people spoke the common language.
5. Isn’t Mexico special? Other immigrants had to cross oceans and cut ties to get here–and many still do. But half of our new unauthorized immigrants come from a single country a day’s drive away–a nation with a not-implausible claim to much of our Southwestern territory. The “border” may mean something else to them than it does to us, or to other immigrants. Everywhere else in the world this is a recipe for turmoil. Why are we immune?
6. Why not “Enforcement First … Amnesty Second”? Preventing unathorized immigration–i.e. having a working border–isn’t easy. We’ve made strides, and immigration flows have slowed significantly. But we still have ways to go –only a minority of employers use the E-Verify system, for example–and we don’t know if the unauthorized flow will resume if the economy, particularly the construction industry, picks up. Why not wait and find out if enforcment measures (including any new ones that would be part of “comprehensive” reform) work–and then, if they do, go ahead give the undocumented the legal status that would ordinarily encourage more uncontrolled border-jumping?
It’s not like there won’t be political pressure for amnesty in the future.
According to squawking leftists, the refusal of Americans to welcome millions of illegal aliens into the national community is a result of citizens’ mean-spirited racism.
On the contrary, normal humans prefer the company of their own tribe the best, as borne out by worldwide polls from Ipsos and Pew showing many people in the attractive first world think their country has too many immigrants. Human nature dictates that we prefer the safety and comfort of shared values, language and jokes. The psychologically normal reaction to diversity is suspicion, which is why the media must propagandize constantly about the moral superiority of multiculturalism. As Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam observed, “Diversity decreases trust.”
Now a national poll has been published showing how the citizens of France do not like what diverse Muslim immigration has done to their society. The aforementioned Ipsos poll found in 2011 that 52 percent of French citizens thought the country had too many immigrants; in the new France-focused Ipsos survey, that number was 70 percent.
A survey in France published this week revealed 70 percent of the population believe there are too many foreigners living in the country and 74 percent believe Islam is not compatible with French society.
The survey, which was carried out by polling institute Ipsos and the Jean-Jaures Foundation, was published in left-leaning French newspaper Le Monde.
As well as having a distrust of Islam and a belief there are too many foreigners in the country, the poll also highlighted French misgivings on everything from globalization to Europe, the media and democracy.
But many of the more interesting results of the survey surround the controversial issues of immigration, religion and racism, which are frequently at the centre of political and public debate.
Some of the stand-out stats include:
· According to the survey, only 29 percent of French people believe the “vast majority of immigrants who have settled in France are well-integrated”.
· 46 percent believe unemployment levels can only be cut by reducing immigration.
· 57 percent believe anti-white racism is quite common in France
· 77 percent believe religious fundamentalism in France is a concern.
· 62 percent say they no longer feel at home in France.
Studying the results of the survey for Le Monde, French historian Michel Wincock concluded that “the ingredients for populism are there and not just in the ranks of Marine Le Pen’s Front National party”. Continue reading this article
Funny, but President Obama’s policy priorities don’t correspond at all with what the voting public wants fixed. American citizens want the economic mess cleaned up, in particular by increasing the number of jobs and decreasing the deficit.
That was the common-sense result of recent polling from Pew Research. The paper, released January 24 and titled Deficit Reduction Rises on Public’s Agenda for Obama’s Second Term, surveyed various concerns of the American public. The topic “dealing with illegal immigration” (a pretty squirrelly expression that could encompass both sides) is far down the list. Perhaps the public has no faith in Washington not to make the problem worse.
On Monday, President Obama shared his vision for the next four years with the nation in his second inaugural address. In the speech the president laid out an ambitious agenda for the next four years and there’s been a lot of talk about how much can actually be accomplished. He touched on a series of issues including climate change, immigration reform, economic inequality and gay rights- becoming the first president in modern history to talk about gay rights in an inaugural speech. Many of you had questions about the president’s speech and also about what we can expect in the second Obama term.
Obama’s favorite issues are chosen to please his far-left base and to give Marxist historians material for adulatory books.
The California model of government, with high taxes and a Democrat-majority legislature and governor, is looking pretty good to top union goons, er labor leaders. While union membership is dropping like a rock in the United States as a whole, organized labor is growing in the once-Golden State, which has had some of the nation’s worst unemployment for the last four years.
A major reason cited for union success is the willingness of hispanic immigrant workers join up to demand more money and benefits using their “collective voice.” Their aptitude for group action sounds like a great fit for unions — no wonder organized labor has abandoned independent-minded American workers and embraced foreigners who are willing and obedient unionists.
(Since this is an LA Times report, we can assume that the word “immigrants” is used in the liberal style to include illegal aliens.)
Say, why didn’t the foreigners organize unions in their home countries to get better wages?
The latest snapshot of the U.S. working class shows that unions are in trouble, their ranks thinning amid a backlash against organized labor and a still sputtering economy.
But California and a few nearby states in the Southwest are showing a vastly different picture — labor’s ranks are on an upswing. The Golden State’s union organizers signed up more than 100,000 new members last year, while the nation as a whole shed 400,000, according to data released Wednesday.
The reason: Latino workers.
After working hard to get here, many Latino immigrants demand respect in the workplace and are more willing to join unions in a tough economic environment, organizers say.
“There’s an appetite among these low-wage workers to try and get a collective voice to give themselves opportunity and a middle-class lifestyle,” said Steve Smith, a spokesman for the California Labor Federation.
Just 12.5% of the workforce was represented by unions nationwide in 2012, down from 13% the year before. But 18.4% of California’s workforce was represented by a union last year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Continue reading this article
The case of Cardinal Roger Mahony is a reminder that justice delayed is justice denied; if a perp can slow down the functioning of the legal system for years, then memories fade, the urgency to prosecute dissolves and the statute of limitations kicks in. Mahony has been involved in a continuing cover-up of criminal activity since the mid-1980s, the facts of which are gradually coming to light even now.
Recent revelations from a Los Angeles court shows communications from Mahony to Msgr. Thomas Curry about how to cover up the widespread sexual abuse of kids. Nothing was done to protect the children; the only action taken was to shield the Catholic church from public disapproval and legal repercussions.
The law is wrongly assuming that Arizona residents, including local law enforcement personnel, will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents. That’s also nonsense. American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation. Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers? Are family members and neighbors now supposed to spy on one another, create total distrust across neighborhoods and communities, and report people because of suspicions based upon appearance?
The latest news about the sordid story shows hypocrisy of biblical proportions. While Mahony was claiming to be the friend of illegal hispanics, he allowed their status to be used as a club against them to protect his pervert priests. Msgr. Peter Garcia raped at least a dozen illegal immigrant boys whom he believed would not report him to authorities because of their illegality, and he threatened one boy with deportation if he notified police.
Such is the moral universe of one of the Catholic church’s most illustrious leaders.
Documents from the late 1980s show that Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and another archdiocese official discussed strategies to keep police from discovering that children were being sexually abused by priests.
Fifteen years before the clergy sex abuse scandal came to light, Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and a top advisor plotted to conceal child molestation by priests from law enforcement, including keeping them out of California to avoid prosecution, according to internal Catholic church records released Monday.
The archdiocese’s failure to purge pedophile clergy and reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement has previously been known. But the memos written in 1986 and 1987 by Mahony and Msgr. Thomas J. Curry, then the archdiocese’s chief advisor on sex abuse cases, offer the strongest evidence yet of a concerted effort by officials in the nation’s largest Catholic diocese to shield abusers from police. The newly released records, which the archdiocese fought for years to keep secret, reveal in church leaders’ own words a desire to keep authorities from discovering that children were being molested.
In the confidential letters, filed this month as evidence in a civil court case, Curry proposed strategies to prevent police from investigating three priests who had admitted to church officials that they abused young boys. Curry suggested to Mahony that they prevent them from seeing therapists who might alert authorities and that they give the priests out-of-state assignments to avoid criminal investigators.
One such case that has previously received little attention is that of Msgr. Peter Garcia, who admitted preying for decades on undocumented children in predominantly Spanish-speaking parishes. After Garcia’s discharge from a New Mexico treatment center for pedophile clergy, Mahony ordered him to stay away from California “for the foreseeable future” in order to avoid legal accountability, the files show. “I believe that if Monsignor Garcia were to reappear here within the archdiocese we might very well have some type of legal action filed in both the criminal and civil sectors,” the archbishop wrote to the treatment center’s director in July 1986.
The following year, in a letter to Mahony about bringing Garcia back to work in the archdiocese, Curry said he was worried that victims in Los Angeles might see the priest and call police.
“[T]here are numerous — maybe twenty — adolescents or young adults that Peter was involved with in a first degree felony manner. The possibility of one of these seeing him is simply too great,” Curry wrote in May 1987. Continue reading this article
Seriously, budget hawks rightly pillory the spendaholic President for his annual trillion-dollar overruns, but spending $2.6 trillion to give citizenship to 12 to 20 million border hoppers and visa overstayers is also monstrous and unacceptable.
In addition, the fact that many of the illegals have been here for years yet have prospered demonstrates that they don’t need a path to citizenship, nor do they care about anything but work permits.
The only person I’ve noticed bringing up the amnesty cost issue is Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach:
President Obama must not be very serious about immigration reform because the proposal outlined over the weekend is out of touch with sentiments in the U.S. House and with the American public, said Kris Kobach, one of the nation’s leading anti-illegal immigration advocates and Kansas’ secretary of state. [. . .]
Kobach agrees with verifying the legal status of workers, but he said allowing a path to citizenship could add more than $2 trillion to the nation’s debt if illegal immigrants become eligible for Medicaid, Medicare and other benefits.
He acknowledged illegal immigrants would be paying taxes, but he said because many of them are low-skill workers it wouldn’t make up for the additional costs.
“You’re basically giving citizenship to people who will be a fiscal drag on the economy,” he said.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.