A suspicious person might reasonably look away momentarily from the noisy debate on the legalization of (officially) 11 million lawbreaking foreign job thieves and reflect upon the ginormous “future flow” of legal immigrants that continues in perpetuity. Gargantuan unsustainable legal immigration is the real crime against Americans.
Senator Sessions brought up the question of legal numbers during the Thursday mark-up. Senator Schumer’s response was that the millions are coming anyway; under the new regime they will enter legally. Schumer said, “They’re coming. They’re either coming under law or not under law. And what we do is try to rationalize that system.”
So Schumer is saying in effect that no enforcement can be implemented that will keep out the invading foreigners, so Washington might as well legalize the unlawful behavior — problem solved, according to Democrat rules!
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and David Vitter (R-LA) today sent a letter to the Gang of Eight Senators asking for estimates of future flow under the bill, detailing the specific categories of immigration that must be tallied:
The immigration bill is proceeding toward a vote and yet members of the Senate still do not have an estimate from the bill’s sponsors of the future flow of immigration that will occur.
It appears your bill would authorize legal status for 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years and provide work authorization to many millions more through nonimmigrant visas.
The public, and the Senate, are entitled to hear directly from the bill’s sponsors about just how many people will be given legal status under this proposal over the next decade. Only then can we fully understand the implications for the 90 million Americans who are not in the labor force, many of whom are either unemployed or have simply given up looking for a job. Continue reading this article
Following is Senator Sessions’ opening statement listing the lofty promises made about tough enforcement in the Gang of Eight bill, with its lack of actual means to create that lawfulness.
One problem: I wish the Senator didn’t feel the need to begin his statement with a pledge of allegiance to the institution of legal immigration, which many patriotic restrictionists routinely do. Isn’t America full yet? Still not diverse enough? Here in California, we are both overly crowded and diverse, and the state has become a dystopian basket case as a result.
That quibble aside, rest of the statement is a suitably dreadful inventory of Senatorial bad faith. Sessions called the bill “dangerous” in an interview with Breitbart a couple days ago, remarking, “It was written by experts who know what they’re doing. It was not written by the Gang of Eight themselves. But they have blessed special interests to write and develop and approve each one of those provisions and sections that impact their interest area.”
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered an opening statement today as the Judiciary Committee began marking up the Gang of Eight immigration bill. A text of Sessions’ prepared remarks follow:
“First, what do Americans really believe about immigration? We believe in it. Our current law provides for the yearly lawful admission of over one million persons. More than any nation in the world. We are proud of that—of being a nation of immigrants. But, almost as many have entered the country unlawfully, causing serious concerns. Americans are rightly not happy about that.
This is the situation. The people of this country are good and decent. They understand and have compassion for those who come here, even if illegally. But, they have pleaded with, urged, and sometimes even demanded that their government end the lawlessness, and for the creation of a lawful system, a rational system, that admits not too few and not too many. A rational system that serves the national interests. One with clear rules where the rules are enforced. I certainly support that kind of reform.
Wrestling with these issues is what we are here about today. While the sponsors of the legislation say their bill meets these goals, it does not. It was crafted in secret, essentially, by a series of interest groups. Too little concern was expressed for the impact this huge increase in immigration would have on struggling American workers and families. With high unemployment, anemic job growth, and with unprecedented number of workers who have given up and dropped out of the labor force, we must be focusing more on getting jobs for lawful immigrants and Americans. Wages are not even keeping up with inflation.
And, we should be hearing in depth from those sheriffs, police, and immigration officers who can tell us how to end the illegality.
I would ask unanimous consent to offer into the record a letter sent to Congress today from law enforcement officials across the country—including ICE officers—expressing their concerns over this legislation.
The sponsors told us there would be enforcement first. This legislation provides immediate amnesty and actually weakens enforcement requirements already on the books.
We were told there would be a border fence. There is no fencing requirement in the bill.
Critically, we were told there would be biometric entry and exit system as the 9/11 Commission called for and as Congress has required. This legislation undermines that requirement.
We were told there would be strict requirements for amnesty. But the amnesty is immediate and is open to those with multiple misdemeanor convictions, gang affiliations, and long criminal records—all without a guarantee of future enforcement.
We were told there would be the toughest security measures in history. But the border security provisions actually weaken current law, changing “one hundred percent operational control” to “effective control” of only three of nine border sectors, and currently collapsed interior enforcement is further gutted. Removal or denials of entry can be waived for reasons as vague as “hardship” or “the public interest”—in effect, codifying the unlawful abuse of discretion the Administration is now using.
We were told illegal immigrants would not be eligible for public benefits. But many will become eligible for all benefits in as soon as five years. These costs have been calculated to total trillions of dollars in the long term. Continue reading this article
Mexico is by far the biggest sender of illegal aliens, so this attitude is not an insignificant item. If Mexico the national entity is hostile, then the mass of its population must be seen in the same way.
And why should the Mexicans want a big cash cow killed off? The pests south of the Rio Grande get over $20 billion in free-to-them remittances every year. It’s money that goes to poor families, and subtracts from social welfare pesos the Mexican government needs to shell out to its citizens.
President Obama met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto late last week to discuss ways to reduce violence and drug trafficking along the border and stressed his continued support for immigration legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States. However, fewer Americans than ever view Mexico as an ally of the United States, and most still don’t believe the Mexican government wants to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 30% of Americans view Mexico as an ally of the United States. Eight percent (8%) see the southern neighbor as an enemy. A bare majority (52%) thinks Mexico is somewhere in between the two.
The Senate’s pending immigration bill will trim taxpayer spending on illegal immigrants for a decade, but will explode deficit spending by roughly $1 trillion in each following decade, according to a new analysis by the Heritage Foundation, which opposes the sweeping measure.
The lifetime costs for the 11 million illegals would reach $9.4 trillion, although they would pay roughly $3.1 trillion in taxes. That’s a $6.3 trillion lifetime cost to taxpayers, the report projects.
The cost would rise to $1.6 trillion per decade once the wave of amnestied low-skill immigrants starts using federal retirement programs in roughly 35 years, said Heritage’s assessment, released Monday.
Without an amnesty, the cost of the “unlawful immigrants” would be $1 trillion over five decades, Robert Rector, Heritage’s forecaster, told reporters May 6.
“Unlawful immigrants on average are tax consumers; they never once generate ‘fiscal surplus’ that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society,” said the Heritage report.
In contrast, “well educated households tend to be next tax contributors [and] the taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive,” said the report.
Meatpacking used to be a middle-class job for Americans, illustrated in the 1990 Academy-Award-winning documentary American Dream, which showed Minnesotans fighting to maintain their wages and benefits at Hormel which had cut them despite healthy profits. Companies later discovered that illegal alien foreigners were happy to work for peanuts, and wages were lowered accordingly. However, in the years following, occasional spurts of government enforcement proved troublesome, so the meatpackers turned to refugees to take the hazardous, poorly paid jobs. (See the 2008 report, Legal Somalians (“Refugees”) Replace Illegal Mexicans At Swift Plant.)
The latest influx courtesy of the Refugee Industrial Complex is the importation of Burmese into Iowa, home to many meat processing plants.
Interestingly, local Mexicans are miffed at the importation of non-hispanic diversity. As doctoral student Christina Ortiz observed, “But in a certain sense, they are in competition with each other. They are applying for the same jobs. They have the same skills. And that’s tricky. Obviously there is some tension there.”
Didn’t the Mexicans get the memo that Diversity Is Our Strength?
Other diversity symptoms have included drunk driving, public urination and unhealthy barracks-like living conditions among the newbies. So enriching. Four hundred non-English-speaking refugees in a town of 1899 residents (2010 Census) is a huge burden on schools and social services, despite all the happy talk.
If the reader objects to the government’s reckless refugee program to replace citizens with compliant foreigners, don’t forget that the State Department is accepting remarks from Americans on the topic. The occasion is an annual meeting, with the deadline for written statements being May 8 — that’s Wednesday!
COLUMBUS JUNCTION, Iowa – The first Chin Burmese student arrived at Wilma Sime Roundy Elementary School three years ago, a smiling preschooler whose father often checked on his progress.
The school had long been accustomed to educating the children of the Mexicans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans who came to work at the sprawling Tyson Foods pork processing plant that sits outside this town of 2,000. But then, principal Shane Rosenberg recalled, Tyson informed school leaders that a new group of workers was coming — the Chin, a largely Christian ethnic minority who were fleeing their homeland in western Myanmar to avoid persecution.
A trickle of Chin students turned into dozens. Frustrated educators struggled to communicate, often having to call the pastor of the Chin church to interpret. Rosenberg intervened to ease the way, using grant money to hire one of the Chin to translate to and from the Hakha language. And he invited Chin parents for a welcoming ceremony and tour of the school.
“It was an awe-inspiring moment, for them to see the opportunities their children were going to have by being here in school,” he said.
All told, about 400 refugees have descended on the town, and more are arriving by the week to reunite with friends and relatives and work grueling jobs for Tyson. Like other waves of immigrants, they were drawn to this poor, sparsely populated region of southeastern Iowa by the promise of jobs, good schools and welcoming people.
And as was the case with other waves of immigrants, there have been bumps along the way.
“We’ve had a lot of experience with Hispanic cultures, but for all of us, the Burmese thing is new. There’s no one around that is an expert in that area or knows the language or this and that. That whole transition has been interesting,” said Mayor Dan Wilson, a businessman who grew up on a farm outside town. He said the influx has been more easily noticed in Columbus Junction than elsewhere: “It’s more obvious in a small town when you’ve got 200 new people coming in. You’re not going to blend in here. You’re going to stick out.” Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions remains the indispensable man in defending American sovereignty from the open-borders gangsters. He recently revealed his population-increase estimates for the Senate’s enforcement-free amnesty legislation which is overly complex to hide its destructive elements.
The debate over what to do with the official 11 million illegal aliens has camouflaged the huge increase in legal immigration that political elites and business desire. For more detail on this topic, see the written analysis from Sessions’ office: Analysis Of Future Immigration Flow In Gang Of Eight Plan.
An analysis of future immigration flow released Friday by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions shows that more than 32 million immigrants would receive legal status over the next decade and an additional 25 million would be granted non-immigrant work visas under the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill.
On a conference call with reporters about the analysis Sessions explained that number of legal immigrants over the next decade “exceeds the population of California, our largest state, and will have a very significant impact on our economy and the American people.”
According to the analysis presented by the senator, the high immigration estimate derived from visa program proposals in a revised 867-page bill crafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators shows that the bill would vastly increase the level of future “low-skill” immigration.
“[O]ver the first decade, the total number [of legal status] granted will be well over 32 million (not taking into account chain migration from increased legal flow),” the analysis reads. “Adding in all the various categories of nonimmigrant work visas, the number climbs to more than 57 million.”
The 57 million estimate includes the 11.1 million illegal immigrants already in the country, who would receive legal status under the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill.
On the increase of new workers, Sessions did not mince words.
“This large flow of workers will impact working Americans significantly. It will reduce their salaries; dynamic scoring will not change that,” Sessions said, addressing one of the criticisms leveled against past immigration analyses.
“We have a time in this country when there is a growing failure of working Americans wages to keep up with inflation. That has been going on for more than a decade, some say 15, 30 years. And a large flow of low-skilled workers does impact the wages of Americans,” Sessions added.
Sessions noted that while the bill attempts to deal with the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country by offering them legal status, the problem of illegal immigration will not end as he believes the border and visa enforcement aspect is not strong enough.
“We think this is a matter of humanitarian interest and even civil rights and the obligation we have as American policy makers in Congress is to consider what is in the long term national interest of America, at a time when we have 90 million people outside the work force, 47 million on food stamps. Shouldn’t we be working to make sure every single American citizen now dependent on the social services of the government be provided the first opportunity to achieve a good job with decent pay with a retirement plan and a healthcare plan?” Sessions asked. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, Somali national Omar Mohamed Kalmio (pictured) got life in prison for a 2011 mass murder in two parts. First he shot his girlfriend, then drove across town to murder her 13-year-old brother, her mother and the mother’s boyfriend.
Kalmio has two criminal convictions from 2006 in Minnesota. He was convicted of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony, and sentenced to one year and one day in prison, court records show. A criminal complaint in the case said Kalmio and a group of other Somali men attacked a man in Minneapolis in January 2006, and Kalmio stabbed him three times in the back with a knife. The victim also was stabbed in the face and shoulder and suffered a collapsed lung and concussion.
A criminal background of such determined diversity made Kalmio an ideal prospect for deportation. But Somalia at that time was considered too ungoverned to accept deported thugs, so Kalmio remained in this country.
In 2011, Congressman Ted Poe became alarmed at the thousands of foreign criminals released onto American streets because their dirtbag homelands refuse to take them back. He authored a bill that would require the State Department to deny visas to embassy and consular support staff if they do not accept the criminals within 90 days. Of course the legislation went nowhere. Public safety doesn’t appear on the government’s to-do list.
And anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense to end visas and immigration entirely for any nation not accepting its criminals? We can start with Somalia.
MINOT, N.D. — A Somali national was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday for killing the mother of his child and three other people in North Dakota two years ago.
Omar Mohamed Kalmio, 28, declined to comment following the 30-minute sentencing hearing, the Minot Daily News reported (http://bit.ly/ZxYxSA ). Judge Douglas Mattson sentenced Kalmio to four consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Kalmio was convicted of fatally shooting 19-year-old Sabrina Zephier on Jan. 28, 2011, at her Minot home. Authorities said he then killed her 13-year-old brother, Dillon Zephier; her mother Jolene Zephier, 38; and Jolene’s 22-year-old boyfriend, Jeremy Longie, at the mother’s nearby mobile home. The baby girl was found unharmed in Sabrina Zephier’s home. They were members of the Yankton Sioux Tribe.
Kalmio, who had a history of violent crime, was working in North Dakota’s oil patch at the time of the killings and said he was in the U.S. under political asylum. Continue reading this article
Funny, when candidate Mitt Romney suggested that illegal aliens might self-deport themselves, the open-borders gangsters shrieked that such a policy was offensive to sensitive hispanic lawbreakers. But when ABC News reports how numerous Mexicans chose to self-deport because of America’s crappy economy, that’s merely descriptive.
And guess what — the Mexicans are more comfortable to be among la raza and in their own country speaking their favorite language. I love a good happy-at-home deportation story.
The cobblestone streets of El Cargadero, Mexico, are eerily empty. The houses in this small northern Mexican town are bolted shut, the windows boarded, their residents living and working across the border in the United States.
“I would say that two thirds of the people from here, they reside in Southern California,” Joaquin Fernandez, an El Cargadero resident who lives in California most of the year, told ABC News.
But that is changing. After desperately and dangerously crossing the border for work in the U.S., many Mexican immigrants now find the land from which they fled holds more opportunity and economic promise.
“When the economy [in the U.S.] started going down, it was hard, especially my work,” Erika Felix said. “It was just so much stress and my parents tell me, ‘Why don’t you come back and continue education here?’ So I did.”
Self-deportation is a trend not often mentioned in the debate over immigration reform. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, since 2005 migration between the U.S. and Mexico has been net zero.
Roughly 1.4 million Mexicans came into and out of the United States during that time.
After living undocumented in the U.S. for nine years, Felix decided to move home to El Cargadero.
“I heard some people say we’re even better here in Mexico, and I think so, too,” she said.
On a day when thousands of foreigners in America took to the streets to demand amnesty, Singapore citizens rallied against the government’s plan to import foreign workers to support the city-state’s aging population. The people don’t want the social engineering; they want to maintain their own culture. This behavior is a normal expression of human nature, to like their own tribe the best and want to preserve it.
Mass immigration is not a popular public policy the world over, as shown by polls like Ipsos and Pew, which is why the liberal press promotes it daily to bend the public will.
A huge crowd turned up at the Speaker’s Corner at Hong Lim Park Wednesday afternoon to again protest the government’s plans to let in more immigrants to counter Singapore’s ageing population. Wire agency AFP estimated the crowd reached 3,000 people though event organiser Gilbert Goh eventually put the final number between 5,000 and 6,000.
The protest on the grey-cast, drizzly day was organised as a sequel to the first protest in February, which was one of the largest protests held in the city-state. That event held in a light drizzle drew about 4,000.
In his opening speech at about 4pm, Goh of transitioning.org, a support site for the unemployed and the event organiser, said more protests would be held at the park.
As the crowd swelled, he also asked attendees to wave their pink identification cards to show they were not foreigners, as non-Singaporeans were discouraged from attending the event.
Foreign labour issue
He explained that he felt he had to organise the protest after seeing well-educated Singaporeans reach their 40s and 50s without good job prospects.
“I am not against foreigners but we are against the policy of allowing a company to hire 100 per cent foreigners,” he said.
“The employment pass allows companies to hire 100 per cent foreigners, and I don’t think this is right. There is a quota for S pass. Why don’t they put a quota for the employment pass? They are the greatest competition for educated Singaporeans,” Goh asserted.
Anti-foreigner sentiment has been rising in Singapore with many citizens blaming immigrants for pushing up the cost of living, taking jobs away from locals and straining infrastructure.The first protest in February was a backlash to a government white paper projecting that Singapore’s population could increase to as much as 6.9 million in 2030 with almost half of the number made up of foreigners. Continue reading this article
Anyway, wouldn’t it be better for Mexicans to dislike America, particularly if the feeling dissuaded them from relocating here? A report of positive attitudes on the part of Mexicans is not reassuring.
When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico this week, he will encounter a Mexican public that has far more positive attitudes about the United States than at any time in the last several years.
America’s image south of the border fell sharply in 2010, when Arizona passed a “show me your papers” law aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. But Mexican views have rebounded since then, and U.S. favorability ratings are now at their highest point since 2009. The prospects for U.S. immigration reform may be, at least in part, the source of renewed Mexican approval of their neighbor to the north.
A new Pew Research Center poll found that 66 percent of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of the U.S., up 10 percentage points from a year ago and up 22 points from May 2010, immediately following the enactment of Arizona’s immigration law. The last time America’s image was as strong among Mexicans was in 2009, when 69 percent said they had a favorable opinion. [. . .]
Doesn’t anyone in the polling universe care about what Americans think of Mexico and its demanding inhabitants? Particularly since Mexico is largest sending country of immigrants by far. A search of the handy internet turned up a survey from the National Journal last November, expressed rather cleverly.
The word cloud below answers the survey question, “Now, thinking about Mexico, what are three words that come to mind?”
As the newly elected Mexican president travels to Washington next week, a new survey released by consulting firm Vianovo on Monday underscores the startling challenges Mexico faces with its international image, especially in the U.S.
The survey highlights what has been widely assumed: that Americans have a generally unfavorable view of Mexico. But while illegal immigration and border crossings may be at the forefront of concerns in the Southwest, drugs and corruption are the ringing concerns of most Americans.
“Drugs” was the word most often used to describe Mexico by those surveyed, as is stunningly illustrated by the survey’s word cloud. Additionally, 72 percent cited drug cartels and traffickers as the main reason behind their negative perception of their neighbors to the south.
Of those surveyed, an astounding 72 percent of Americans think Mexico is unsafe for travel and only 17 percent consider the country to be modern. Continue reading this article
The newbies are supposed to be self-sufficient, and not go from the point of entry to the welfare office, but enforcement of that taxpayer protection has become lax like so many others. Illegal aliens are really not supposed to get welfare freebies, but they do.
Now the nation’s attention is focused on the sinister Tsarnaev family: not only were they stone-cold killers for Allah in the Boston Marathon bombing, their evil behavior was assisted by mooching off the unwilling American taxpayers. Immigrant welfare ripoffs, particularly food stamp fraud, have been burbling along in the back pages for years. In this case, Judicial Watch has found someone who worked in the bureaucracy and was willing to describe the depth of corruption firsthand.
For decades the U.S. government has knowingly given illegal immigrants food stamps, according to a former certification case worker who denounced the costly practice back in the 1980s but was essentially ordered to keep a lid on it.
The retired assistant case manager, Craig McNees, was in charge of vetting food-stamp applicants in north Florida and Indiana in the ’80s and says the program was infested with fraud and corruption that was perpetually ignored by management. “Illegals would come in by the vanload and we were told to give them their stuff,” McNees said. “Management knew very well they were illegal. It was so rampant that some employees would tell their illegal relatives to come get food stamps.”
McNees contacted Judicial Watch after reading documents obtained by JW from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) detailing how the agency is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program. The effort includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA ensuring that Mexicans in the U.S. don’t need to declare their immigration status to get financial assistance from Uncle Sam.
The documents ignited outrage considering the nation’s food stamp program has exploded under President Obama, who claims there are too many “food insecure households” in America. To correct the problem the administration has spent millions on ad campaigns promoting food stamps and has rewarded states with multi-million-dollar bonuses for signing up recipients. It’s been quite effective because American taxpayers spent an astounding $80.4 billion on the program in 2012 and a record number of people—46 million and growing—get free groceries from Uncle Sam.
The retired case worker who contacted JW says in the three years he worked in a Sarasota food-stamp office, he found more than 500 cases of fraud but management ignored them all instead pushing a yearly quota. “They just said that if we don’t give out as many as last year, we don’t get our money,” McNees said. “It was crazy, like a three-ring circus; like the inmates were running the asylum.” Continue reading this article
The central sales pitch for the Gang of Eight’s immigration legislation has been the claim of strong border security triggers that are supposed to be the “toughest border immigration enforcement measures in U.S. history.” But a close examination of the legislation reveals that the promised enforcement is nowhere to be found. The triggers aren’t triggers at all—and in fact would actually weaken requirements previously enacted by Congress—while granting extraordinary new discretion to the Department of Homeland Security to waive security protocols, removal proceedings, and denials of entry.
The day the bill passes, there will be an effective amnesty for the vast majority of illegal immigrants—abandoning the Gang of Eight’s public promise of enforcement first. All that needs to occur to make this legal status official is for Sec. Napolitano to submit to Congress, within six months of enactment, a mere “fencing strategy” and a plan on how to achieve and maintain “effective control” in just 3 out of 9 border sectors.
· “Effective control” is defined as “persistent surveillance”—which is not defined—and “an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher.” Sec. Napolitano all but acknowledged during her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the effectiveness rate is meaningless because by definition, DHS has no idea how many border crossings go completely undetected. As such, the measure is subject to almost limitless manipulation. By contrast, the rejected 2007 immigration bill set a stronger target of 100 percent operational control of the entire border as the ultimate goal.
· No language in the bill requires the Secretary to construct any fence at all. Given that Sec. Napolitano has said multiple times that no further fencing is necessary, Americans can be certain that very little fencing will ever be built. (In effect, this legislation further weakens a 2006 law which required 700 miles of double-layer fencing, only 36 miles of which were constructed.)
The second so-called trigger, the “Southern Border Security Commission,” is not even formed unless the Secretary determines, five years after legalization has already been granted, that she failed to meet the bill’s weak targets. It is entirely up to the Secretary whether her plans are “substantially completed” and “substantially implemented”—both undefined. Thus, the existence of the Commission is entirely up to her, and the Commission itself only issues recommendations (if it chooses) with no enforcement power.
The bill also repeals the proven E-Verify workplace enforcement system. That system is then replaced with a new, untested system from which day laborers appear to be exempt—and which does not even have to be fully in place for five years, leaving a huge gap for new illegal workers to enter the workforce. Continue reading this article
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.