Two Major Differences Between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans-JOBS!

“…In 1994, nearly two-thirds of U.S.-born teenagers were in the summer labor force; by 2007 it was less than half. At the same time, the overall number of immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job doubled. The evidence indicates that immigration accounts for a significant share of the decline in teen labor force participation…”

(A Drought of Summer Jobs: Immigration and the Long-Term Decline in Employment Among U.S.-Born Teenagers)

Illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans – by Corine Flores

I am a native-born New Mexico Hispanic. I often write letters to newspapers on a subject which those without an Hispanic last name dare not write: the urgent need for immigration reform.

This nation’s immigration policy, begun in 1965, is a disaster. It hurts minorities, the poor, the environment – as we see dramatically here in the West on an almost daily basis – and immigrants themselves.

Because of my last name, I can call for immigration reform, although I, too, have been labeled a racist – a hurtful claim that is impossible to disprove. As Ventura, Calif., Navy Dispatch editor Samuel Francis wrote in a recent editorial, – ‘Hate’ now includes all opposition to immigration.” Yet, immigration affects us all, and we should be able to talk about it without fear of character assassination.

This trend has its roots in the national news media, where reporters almost invariably report on immigration as being good and those opposed to immigration as being bad or racist. These stories remind us that we are a nation of immigrants, while ignoring that the incredibly high rates of immigration to the United States are largely a recent phenomenon.

From 1915 to 1965, legal immigration ran about 220,000 a year – the number most immigration reform advocates want us to return to, since that number would stabilize our population. Since 1989, legal immigration has averaged about 1,063,000 a year. Another 1 million people a year immigrate illegally, according to one estimate.

[….]

On a personal level, I am concerned about over-immigration because it hurts me and others in a state where the tide of immigrants out of Mexico is crushing native-born Hispanics, flooding already stressed schools, and sharply increasing drug trafficking and violent crime.

The rumored economic boom, despite many news reports to the contrary, has left Hispanics behind. The Federal Reserve recently reported that the median Hispanic net worth fell a whopping 24 percent between 1995 and 1998 due to “an accelerating influx of poor immigrants.” Put another way, when workers ask for a raise, they are often reminded that there are many others who will do the same work for less, including for below minimum wage. We all, native-born and immigrants, know there is no “labor shortage” for many of our jobs.

For that matter, do any American workers at any level see employers clamoring to increase their pay? No, they see industry calling for the right to import more cheap workers.

While I care about the world’s poor – roughly 1.5 billion people fall into that category – I believe we cannot possibly welcome all these mostly economic (rarely political) refugees to the United States. Do advocates of high immigration believe our own slums are empty and that we no longer have citizens needing a fair chance at decent-paying jobs?

We must return immigration to traditional levels. To stop the cross-border flow and the peril the trek brings to Mexican nationals, we must impose sharp penalties for those employers who hire illegal immigrants.

…(read more)…

Another significant reason behind this very important job loss for an important segment of our population is minimum wage hikes. First Milton Friedman then a portion of an article:

Here is the excerpt from the article entitled, “Hey, Dude, Where’s My Job?“:

….Unfortunately, teens are also learning personal lessons about price theory and supply and demand. While America’s youth were busy downloading the latest iTunes, those running the country savaged their job prospects. In July 2009, a month distinguished by the then-highest unemployment rate among teens since at least 1948, the latest of three hikes in the minimum wage pushed through by Congress in 2007 went into effect. As a consequence, the cost to hire part-time or unskilled workers jumped to $7.25 per hour, a full 41 percent increase from the 2007 going rate of $5.15. Some considered the hike overdue; a decade had passed since the prior increase. Others argued that carrying through with such a hefty jump was ill conceived, especially in light of the recession. The bottom line: The sharp rise in the minimum wage has almost certainly contributed to an equally harsh increase in unemployment among those not yet old enough to vote.

Why? Because teens account for a disproportionate number of those paid bottom-of-the-barrel rates. In 2009, for example, teens made up 6 percent of all workers paid by the hour, but 23 percent of those paid at or below the minimum rate. Put another way, some 5 percent of the nation’s hourly workers received minimum wage or less; nearly 19 percent of teens fall into this category. At last count, nearly 26 percent of all teenagers were unemployed, up from 24 percent a year earlier. This is a decidedly worse showing than the rate for adult men, for instance. In June, unemployment for men totaled 9.9 percent, actually down slightly from 10 percent the year before.

That higher minimum wages could lead to lower employment isn’t a shocking concept.

Naturally, the recession caused millions of all ages to lose their jobs. However, the disproportionate hit taken by young people can also, according to a recent study, be laid directly at the door of the hike in minimum wage. Economists William Even of Miami University and David MacPherson of Trinity University compared teen job losses in states impacted by the minimum wage hikes with states that were not affected. (Some states had independently passed a minimum wage as high or higher than the national level, thus rendering the federal hike irrelevant.) They conclude that the increase in minimum wage raised teen unemployment by 114,000….

…(read more)…


 

HotAir h/t:

Now, the 40-year-old is rethinking her lifelong support for the party. She has been without steady work for two years, lost her home and car and began receiving cash assistance from the state for the first time. This year, she says, “I’m willing to take a chance on something different.” Another possibility, she says, is that she won’t vote at all.

Ms. Jones is part of an unmeasured, agitated mass: unemployed Americans who don’t believe the Obama Administration and Congress have done enough to produce jobs. With elections coming up, their unease is especially troublesome for the Democrats, who control both chambers.

A poor economy never bodes well for incumbents. Cook Report, the nonpartisan political newsletter that tracks congressional races, estimates that 73 House seats are vulnerable—including Mr. Schauer’s. This group has two things in common. Almost all (66 of 73) are held by Democrats, and most include counties that have unemployment rates exceeding the national average, according to data assembled by The Wall Street Journal.

…(read more)…

Viral Anthony Weiner Rant Unfounded

Hyscience wrote a good response to this “viral temper tantrum” that has Democrats apparently proud… even though Weiner is upset about hiding legislation. One must keep in mind that it was the Democrats who chose to require a two-thirds majority. They could have passed it with a simple majority if they so chose. They wanted a bunch of other bills passed with it, so they chose to go the two-thirds majority route and didn’t have  all the Democrats on-board. That’s number one. Number two is that the The GOP only wants to make sure the bill is paid for before it passed. This, apparently, is not important to the Democratic party. I have a checking account, does that mean just because I have no money in it but still have blank checks I can write as many as I like? Well?

According to the NY Post, King, a key backer of the bill, had moments earlier accused Democrats of staging a “charade” (emphasis added):

The rift developed over how the bill was put before the chamber.Democratic leaders opted to consider it under a procedure that requires a two-thirds vote for approval rather than a simple majority. The move blocked potential GOP amendments to the measure.

King said Democrats were “petrified” about casting votes on amendments, possibly including one that would ban aid from going to illegal immigrants sickened by trade center dust. King said the bill was more important than “a campaign talking point.”

Also via Eye Blast, Weiner’s attack wasn’t limited to just the house floor because he was also freaking out of Fox News this morning. This debate, or shouting match, between him and Peter King (R-NY) actually better explains exactly why Weiner was all worked up and exactly who he was screaming at the whole time.


….As pointed out over at The Hill, King defended his objection by saying:

“Anthony can rant and rave all he wants on the House floor, he did not answer one point that I made last night,” he said. “I’ve done everything I possibly can. The fact is this should not be a partisan issue, I have been very, very critical of the Republican Party.

“The bottom line is the Democrats control the House and they pulled a procedural gimmick starting ten days ago, and they lost the nerve to bring it to the floor on a real vote,” …

Here’s a take home message for Mr. Weiner. Follow House procedures and stop trying to finagle funding for illegal aliens – then you won’t have to throw embarrassing temper tantrums on the House floor. And, by the way, the American people deserve to know if the bill requires American taxpayer dollars to be paid to illegal aliens – and we deserve to know in “advance” of its passage.

…(read more)…

Well said Hyscience! Well Said

Those Who Clapped for Mexican President Felipe Calderon Are Dumbasses!

Activists Blast Mexico’s Immigration Law

TULTITLN, Mexico — Arizona’s new law forcing local police to take a greater role in enforcing immigration law has caused a lot of criticism from Mexico, the largest single source of illegal immigrants in the United States.

But in Mexico, illegal immigrants receive terrible treatment from corrupt Mexican authorities, say people involved in the system.

And Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona’s that empowers local police to check the immigration documents of people suspected of not being in the country legally.

“There (in the United States), they’ll deport you,” Hector Vázquez, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, said as he rested in a makeshift camp with other migrants under a highway bridge in Tultitlán. “In Mexico they’ll probably let you go, but they’ll beat you up and steal everything you’ve got first.”

Mexican authorities have harshly criticized Arizona’s SB1070, a law that requires local police to check the status of persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. The law provides that a check be done in connection with another law enforcement event, such as a traffic stop, and also permits Arizona citizens to file lawsuits against local authorities for not fully enforcing immigration laws.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said the law “violates inalienable human rights” and Democrats in Congress applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s criticisms of the law in a speech he gave on Capitol Hill last week.

Yet Mexico’s Arizona-style law requires local police to check IDs. And Mexican police freely engage in racial profiling and routinely harass Central American migrants, say immigration activists.

“The Mexican government should probably clean up its own house before looking at someone else’s,” said Melissa Vertíz, spokeswoman for the Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Center in Tapachula, Mexico.

In one six-month period from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped and held for ransom in Mexico – 91 of them with the direct participation of Mexican police, a report by the National Human Rights Commission said. Other migrants are routinely stopped and shaken down for bribes, it said.

A separate survey conducted during one month in 2008 at 10 migrant shelters showed Mexican authorities were behind migrant attacks in 35 of 240 cases, or 15%.

Most migrants in Mexico are Central Americans who are simply passing through on their way to the United States, human rights groups say. Others are Guatemalans who live and work along Mexico’s southern border, mainly as farm workers, as maids, or in bars and restaurants.

The Central American migrants headed to the United States travel mainly on freight trains, stopping to rest and beg for food at rail crossings like the one in Tultitlán, an industrial suburb of Mexico City.

On a recent afternoon, Victor Manuel Beltrán Rodríguez of Managua, Nicaragua, trudged between the cars at a stop light, his hand outstretched.

“Can you give me a peso? I’m from Nicaragua,” he said. Every 10 cars or so, a motorist would roll down the window and hand him a few coins. In a half-hour he had collected 10 pesos, about 80 U.S. cents, enough for a taco.

Beltrán Rodríguez had arrived in Mexico with 950 pesos, about $76, enough to last him to the U.S. border. But near Tierra Blanca, Veracruz, he says municipal police had detained him, driven him to a deserted road and taken his money. He had been surviving since then by begging.

Abuses by Mexican authorities have persisted even as Mexico has relaxed its rules against illegal immigrants in recent years, according to the National Human Rights Commission.

In 2008, Mexico softened the punishment for illegal immigrants, from a maximum 10 years in prison to a maximum fine of $461. Most detainees are taken to detention centers and put on buses for home.

Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the law applies only to people who do it for money.

For years, the Mexican government has allowed charity groups to openly operate migrant shelters, where travelers can rest for a few days on their journey north. The government also has a special unit of immigration agents, known as Grupo Beta, who patrol the countryside in orange pickups, helping immigrants who are in trouble.

At the same time, Article 67 of Mexico’s immigration law requires that all authorities “whether federal, local or municipal” demand to see visas if approached by a foreigner and to hand over migrants to immigration authorities.

“In effect, this means that migrants who suffer crimes, including kidnapping, prefer not to report them to avoid … being detained by immigration authorities and returned to their country,” the National Human Rights Commission said in a report last year.

As a result, the clause has strengthened gangs who abuse migrants, rights activists say.

“That Article 67 is an obstacle that urgently has to be removed,” said Alberto Herrera, executive director of Amnesty International Mexico. “It has worsened this vicious cycle of abuse and impunity, and the same thing could happen (in Arizona).”

(READ MORE)

Sam Donaldson Defends Mexican President Felipe Calderon

Sam Donaldson compared Calderon’s speech against Arizona to Reagan’s speech against the wall separating East and West Germany! As well as comparing it to Clinton speaking out against Tienanmen Square! These progressive Democrats are all about making disproportionate actions and moral stances on freedom and protection all equal on the world stage. Reagan speaking truth to the tyranny of communism and Gorbachev is equal to Arizona trying to protect its citizens. CRAZY!

This transcript is from NEWSBUSTERS (I will recommend a book that I still think is fitting even after all these years):

JAKE TAPPER: There was one other item in the news that I want to touch on before we have to go to a break and that is the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, came to the White House and he came to Congress. And in both places he criticized the Arizona immigration law. Here’s President Calderon:

FELIPE CALDERON, HOUSE CHAMBER, ON THURSDAY: I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores the reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as the basis for law enforcement.

TAPPER: Now I’m the spring chicken at the table, but I cannot remember a head of state from another country coming to the Congress and criticizing American laws.

GEORGE WILL: While he was lecturing America on moral governance, he was doing so against the backdrop of an Amnesty International report saying that migrants, illegals crossing through Mexico “are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses, of persistent failures by the authorities,” that would be Mr. Calderon’s government, I believe, “to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants who’ve made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.”

So he gets up and lectures us on moral governance and gets a standing ovation from Donna’s party. The fact is, Mexico has two big exports: Oil, and their second biggest export is poverty to the United States – from which, in remittances sent back to Mexico, they get $21 billion a year. Mr. Calderon has a stake in illegal immigration to our country.

SAM DONALDSON: President Bill Clinton went to the Great Hall of the People and when Jiang Zemin was President of China. I heard President Clinton say, “what you did in Tiananmen Square was wrong.” He lectured. We all said, that’s terrific because it was the ox being gored on the other side. President Calderon represents Mexico. And he said what a lot of Americans are also saying, that that Arizona law is discriminatory and it ought not to have been on the books.

TAPPER: That law is actually supported by a majority of Americans, according to polling. And I can’t believe that you’re actually comparing it to Tiananmen Square, right? I mean, you’re not?

DONALDSON: Well, I’m not comparing a massacre in Tiananmen Square to what’s happening in Arizona. But you raised the subject of having someone come to another country and lecture them.

TAPPER: And you think it’s okay?

COKIE ROBERTS: Our Presidents certainly do it. Israel about settlements. You know, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” you know.

GEORGE WILL: He didn’t say that in Russia.

TAPPER: A final word Donna.

DONNA BRAZILE: The Democrats basically were, they applauded the fact that we have to fix this problem. Our borders is broken. George, we have a broken, we have a disfunctional-

WILL: They applauded the President of Mexico.

Reading Helps (LOL)

Two weeks ago, Governor Jan Brewer took President Obama to task for making Arizonas unsecured borders and illegal immigration crisis a laughing matter. However, since then, Washingtons comedy of errors has grown far worse, with top cabinet officials admitting that they havent even read Arizonas new immigration law. Broken borders are not a laughing matter, but the failure by Obamas trusted officials to read Arizonas law before commenting and condemning it is laughable. Read the law for yourself at: www.SecuretheBorder.org.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin today launched an effort aimed at educating the country on the federal governments failure to secure our nations southern border and its failure to address the human tragedy that is occurring as a result.

Democrats Clap at Mexican President Misstating the Arizona Law

Here is video of Democrats in the House Chamber, including VP Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others standing to applaud the President of Mexico’s attack on the new anti-illegal immigration law passed by Arizona. In particular, notice Attorney General Eric Holder who was one of the last to stand. He admitted earlier this week he has never read the law, even though he has been criticizing it. Calderon’s contention that the Arizona law is based on “racial profiling’ is not true. In fact, the law forbids “racial profiling.”

John & Ken Talk About Eric Holder and Arizona’s Immigration Law

  • My Vimeo account was terminated; this is a recovered audio from it. (Some will be many years old, as is the case with this audio.)

John & Ken Talk About Eric Holder and Arizona’s Immigration Law — This was uploaded to my Vimeo in May of 2010. Since that time Vimeo started to sensor videos and many years ago I lost my channel there. I did download most of my uploads there and this is one of the “flashbacks” I am saving here.