Make your own free website on
People of Southern California UNITE! A call to create the new state of Southern California!
The problem of immigration
Little to stop illegals from voting
Illegals cost U.S. $10 billion a year
Ever wonder why?
Is it possible?
The problem of immigration
Immigration problem (pt. 2)
Socialism within California
The Fifth Column
The Immigrant Gang Plague
The Immigrant Gang Plague (Part 2)
'WMD' smuggled into U.S. from Mexico
Financial independence
What grade does your GOVERNMENT rep. receive on immigration?
Map of proposed state of South California

Why Socialists Love Illegal Immigration

By Bruce Crawford

Members of the Left, who would lead us down Hayek's road to serfdom, have long rejected the Western notion of sovereignty. In particular, they believe any attempt to exercise control of our own borders is "racist," and possibly even a "hate crime." The Founding Fathers had a different view. In Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, they empowered Congress to "suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Today it seems America has lost control of its borders thanks to an invasion by illegal immigrants, and the Left continues to oppose American sovereignty for a simple reason: illegal immigration advances socialism.

This becomes apparent when one examines the "social injustices" trumpeted by the Left. Analyze how illegal immigration feeds those perceived injustices. Without hordes of illegal immigrants, the causes celebre of the Left disappear.

The left-wing think tank (a misnomer, as the Left doesn't think; it emotes), California Budget Project, frequently uses the impact of illegal immigration to build a case for mythical social injustices. The CBP's data are often cited by legislators and journalists.

One current cause celebre is the "earnings gap." Another hot topic is socialized health care. Let's take a look at just these two to see why socialists love illegals and abhor sovereignty.

In a January 2003 report, "The Economy Remains Stagnant," the CBP stated, "The number of working poor increased during the recession" (Mar. 2001 until Nov. 2002), and "The hourly earnings of low-wage and typical California workers made little progress over the past decade." Its thinly-veiled solution is for more socialism in the form of welfare programs and regulations on employers.

According to the INS Office of Policy and Planning, the total illegal immigrant population in the U.S. as of 2000 was 7 million, of which 32%, or 2.2 million, resided in California, comprising 6.5% of our total population. These figures do not include children born to illegals, children who were granted citizenship in violation of the intent of the framer of the Fourteenth Amendment who wrote the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard.

Since education is the best indicator of economic success, let's look at the educational level of immigrants. An analysis of Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows prior to the 1970s, immigrants not only came in much lower numbers, they came with much higher educational levels. Only 17.3 percent had less than an high school diploma, and their median income was slightly higher than that of native Americans. Of those who came in the 1990s, 34.6 percent -- exactly twice the pre-70s level -- did not have a diploma. Immigrants now comprise more than 40 percent of all high school dropouts in the workforce.

This surplus of uneducated, unskilled labor distorts the forces of supply and demand, locking wages at rock bottom. The socialist remedy is a "living wage." Yet a significant portion of the bottom 20 percent of wage earners are uneducated illegals.

Without the negative impact of uneducated illegals on the labor market, the Left's argument vaporizes. The second quintile (21-40 percent) would become the bottom quintile, dramatically lifting the hourly wage of that category. Many of the third quintile would move into the second one, etc. The increasing "earnings gap" and the rationalization for an economically crushing "living wage" would disappear. For those who are here legally, the rich may be getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.

The second cause celebre is health care. Most of the legion of Democrat candidates for president, and many in Congress and state legislatures, are calling for various forms of increased socialized health care. They cite statistics purporting to show more and more people can't afford health insurance. Census Bureau data reveal some dirty little secrets here, too.

It is true since 1989 the national population without health insurance has grown by 7.8 million to 41.2 million in 2001. This is almost exactly the incease in the number of illegals in the U.S. When one counts both immigrants and children born to them, over 95 percent of the increase in uninsureds is the result of immigration, more than half of which (by some estimates, 70 percent) is attributable to illegal immigration.

The root cause of this is the illegals don't have the educational skills to command a job that includes medical benefits. But that doesn't stop the socialists from calling for more federal and state health care programs, more federal and state regulation of the health care industry, more laws requiring employers to provide health insurance, etc., ad nauseam.

The naive are fond of saying cheap illegal labor is good for us, and good for our economy. False. The economic impact of uneducated, unskilled illegal labor fuels the arguments of the Left, and accelerates our journey down the road to socialism.

To stay free and prosperous, Congress needs to live up to its constitutional responsibility to execute the laws of the Union and repel an immigration invasion. In so doing, it would defang the class warfare arguments the Left uses to advance socialism.


Immigrants and Welfare: Back Where We Started

By Mark Krikorian | March 21, 2003

"Since passage of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare use by immigrant households has plunged."

So claimed a leading voice in the immigration debate last year. In 1996, Congress chose to address the problem of heavy immigrant welfare use not by reducing future immigration levels but rather by denying many legal immigrants access to welfare programs.

Has this approach worked? Are the claims of "plunging" welfare use by

immigrants true?


A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that, after

falling slightly, the percentage of immigrant households using at least one

major welfare program is now back where it was in 1996.

The report -- "Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform," by Steven A. Camarota, the Center's Director of Research -- examines use of four major welfare programs: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, SupplementalSecurity Income (SSI), and Medicaid. The findings show that while TANF and food stamp use by immigrant households has declined significantly, when all four programs are considered together, the welfare gap with natives has actually widened. Moreover, immigrant households comprise a growing share of households using the welfare system. The largest increases were in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, and Colorado.

The full report is at . Among

the findings:

* In 1996, 22 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one

major welfare program, compared to 15 percent of native households. After

declining in the late 1990s, welfare use rebounded, with 23 percent of

immigrant households using welfare compared to 15 percent of native

households in 2001.

* The persistently high rate of welfare use by immigrant households stems

from their heavy reliance on Medicaid, which has actually risen modestly.

In contrast, immigrant use of TANF has fallen significantly, from a little

under 6 percent in 1996 to slightly over 2 percent in 2001, and food stamp

use has also declined significantly, from about 10 percent to 6 percent

These rates are now only modestly above those of natives.

* The decline in TANF and food stamp use has not resulted in a significant

savings for taxpayers because it has been almost entirely offset by

increases in the costs of providing Medicaid to immigrant households. The

average value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households has

changed little and remains about $2,000 50 percent above that of natives.

* Continuing high rates of immigrant welfare use, coupled with continuing

very high levels of new immigration, has meant that the number of immigrant

households using welfare has increased by 750,000 since 1996.

"If one of the goals of welfare reform was to reduce immigrant use merely

of TANF and food stamps, then it has been a success. But if the goal was to

save taxpayers money and foster less dependence on government, then it has

largely failed," said Camarota. "Trying to cut immigrants off from the

welfare system after they have been allowed into the country not only has

been unsuccessful but is of questionable fairness. Such an approach sends

the message that immigrants may come but should not expect to be treated

like one of us. If we want immigrants to use less welfare, then we are

going to have to consider changes in immigration policy."

Other findings:

* Estimating welfare use for only households headed by legal immigrants

also shows a significant decline in TANF and food stamp use. However,

continued heavy reliance on Medicaid has meant that the percentage of legal

immigrant households using the welfare system remained constant at about 22

percent between 1996 and 2001.

* About 650,000 households headed by illegal aliens receive welfare,

primarily Medicaid on behalf of their U.S.-born children. However, the

value of benefits and payments received by legal immigrants is about twice

that of illegal alien households. Thus an unintended consequence of

enacting an amnesty for illegal aliens would to be to significantly

increase welfare costs.

* Welfare use remains high over time; immigrants in the country for more

than 20 years still use the welfare system at significantly higher rates

than natives.

* Refugees do not account for the basic findings of this report. In 2001,

21 percent of households headed by non-refugee legal immigrants used a

welfare program compared to 15 percent of natives.

* The high rate of welfare use associated with immigrants is not explained

by their unwillingness to work. In 2001, almost 80 percent of immigrant

households using welfare had at least one person working.

* One reason for the heavy reliance of immigrants on welfare programs is that a very large share have little education. The modern American economy offers very limited opportunities for such workers, thus many immigrants work, but their low incomes allow them to use the welfare system.Policy Discussion: The last five years has show that politically and practically, it is almost impossible to exclude immigrants and their children from the welfare system once they have been allowed into the country. In fact, Congress repealed some restrictions on immigrants shortly after passing them, and many states chose to cover otherwise ineligible immigrants with their own funds.

Legal immigrants can also avoid these restrictions simply by becoming citizens. Perhaps most important, immigrants can receive welfare benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. The only way to significantly reduce immigrant welfare use in the future is to admit fewer unskilled immigrants. In 2001, 42 percent of households headed by a legal immigrant without a high school degree used welfare, compared to 10 percent of immigrant households headed by a college graduate. The solution is not punitive welfare-eligibility bans but rather changes in immigration policy.



This solution may seem extreme to some people but it will provide a solution to the problem. We must remember that these illegals are here ILLEGALLY! We dont support thievery or murder, and the detriments these illegals bring to this great country (crime, disease, lowering of wages) are almost as great. I propose this:

1. BUILD A WALL. I believe that eventually all successful democracies will have to build walls around their borders. The reason is that there needs to be a physical barrier to keep out any unwanted elements. I dont believe however that we need an ugly wall like the one in Berlin, but with some imagination Im sure we can come up with something aesthetically pleasing. My idea would be to build the base with concrete and make it four or five miles deep so that no tunnels could be built. Then above ground we could build an extremely thick, clear wall and make it fifteen feet high. It would have to cover some 4500 miles but considering how much money we throw out in welfare and prison costs, it wouldnt be such a large expenditure.

The wall would be built three miles from the official border so that if anyone attacks the wall it will be an attack on American soil and justify a measurable response.

2. DEPORTATION. While the wall is being built, we must coordinate our INS, Federal Army and whatever state-run immigration office to deport every one of the many million ILLEGAL aliens residing here. Its that simple. It may take a year and the media will show all the crying and heartbreak, but it must be done. These people are not all evil, but there presence here is problematic.