FAIR acticle about Welfare
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif]Immigration and Welfare[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT]</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif] [/FONT]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants. Many immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. The immigrants we admit are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. As a result, the share of immigrant households below the poverty line (18 percent) is much higher than the share of native households that are poor (11 percent)—nearly twice as high. And immigrant households are more likely to participate in practically every one of the major means-tested programs. Immigrant use of welfare programs (21 percent) is 43 percent higher than non-immigrants’ use (15 percent).<SUP>1</SUP>
Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.<SUP>2</SUP>
Why Are Immigrants On Welfare?
Some people mistakenly think that immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Several years ago, Congress did attempt to render immigrants ineligible for most forms of welfare. However, subsequent backpedaling by Congress and the executive branch has undone most of those reforms. Furthermore, many immigrant families get welfare through the eligibility of their U.S. citizen children. (It is also important to realize that even when immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare programs, the burden of their support is simply shifted over to the state and local welfare agencies.)
Refugees, asylees, and all amnestied illegal aliens are exempt from the public charge requirement.<SUP>3</SUP> Congress has decided that the American people will serve as the sponsors for these immigrants and pick up the tab for their support.
All other immigrants must pass a public charge test and have a U.S. sponsor or sponsors willing to pledge their income to support them. Before a potential immigrant receives an immigration visa, American consular officers are supposed to evaluate whether he or she is likely to become a public charge, and, if so, to deny the visa. The consular officer is supposed to take into account a variety of factors: the amount of support the sponsor can give, the resources and skills of the applicant, and any special conditions (such as age or infirmity) that might affect the applicant’s need for support. The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 set the new legal standard for the evaluation: the sponsor of the applicant must have an annual income of at least 125 percent of the federally designated poverty level. There are several problems with this standard:
As of the 1996 welfare reform bill, the following applies to eligibility for federal and state funded welfare programs:
Despite expectations that the 1996 welfare reform bill would cause significant changes in immigrant welfare use, it has actually remained at the same level. The 1996 welfare reforms failed because while the legislation cut immigrants off from certain welfare programs, the savings that resulted from those cuts were not high enough to offset the increased usage of the remaining programs, due to the continuing high number of immigrants entering the U.S. every year.
While both Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp use have declined by four percent, the decline did not result in any significant savings, as those costs were offset by increases in Medicaid use, which has increased among immigrant households. The total combined value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households from welfare programs remained almost the same, averaging almost $2,000 in 2001, about 50 percent higher than natives. Such high rates of immigrant welfare use, combined with the rapidly increasing immigrant population, has resulted in a four percent increase in the number of immigrant households on welfare, from 14 percent in 1996 to 18 percent in 2000.<SUP>10</SUP>
Outlook for the Future
The highest welfare use rates for immigrants are in New York (30 percent), California (28 percent), Massachusetts (25 percent), and Texas (25 percent).<SUP>12</SUP>
Immigrants are eleven percent of our population, but they are 20 percent of the poor population. Unless our immigration policies are reevaluated and changed accordingly, welfare usage and subsequent costs will remain high.
Instead of addressing the problem, some in Congress have suggested measures that would make it even worse, such as proposals to increase immigrants’ eligibility for benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that making legal immigrants eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would cost an estimated $2.24 billion over ten years.<SUP>11</SUP>
If we are to have any hope of reducing poverty in the U.S., our immigration laws must be revised and returned to the sensible practice of excluding aliens who are likely to become public charges and to deport those who do.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif]Immigration and Welfare[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT]</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif] [/FONT]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants. Many immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. The immigrants we admit are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. As a result, the share of immigrant households below the poverty line (18 percent) is much higher than the share of native households that are poor (11 percent)—nearly twice as high. And immigrant households are more likely to participate in practically every one of the major means-tested programs. Immigrant use of welfare programs (21 percent) is 43 percent higher than non-immigrants’ use (15 percent).<SUP>1</SUP>
Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.<SUP>2</SUP>
Why Are Immigrants On Welfare?
Some people mistakenly think that immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Several years ago, Congress did attempt to render immigrants ineligible for most forms of welfare. However, subsequent backpedaling by Congress and the executive branch has undone most of those reforms. Furthermore, many immigrant families get welfare through the eligibility of their U.S. citizen children. (It is also important to realize that even when immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare programs, the burden of their support is simply shifted over to the state and local welfare agencies.)
Refugees, asylees, and all amnestied illegal aliens are exempt from the public charge requirement.<SUP>3</SUP> Congress has decided that the American people will serve as the sponsors for these immigrants and pick up the tab for their support.
All other immigrants must pass a public charge test and have a U.S. sponsor or sponsors willing to pledge their income to support them. Before a potential immigrant receives an immigration visa, American consular officers are supposed to evaluate whether he or she is likely to become a public charge, and, if so, to deny the visa. The consular officer is supposed to take into account a variety of factors: the amount of support the sponsor can give, the resources and skills of the applicant, and any special conditions (such as age or infirmity) that might affect the applicant’s need for support. The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 set the new legal standard for the evaluation: the sponsor of the applicant must have an annual income of at least 125 percent of the federally designated poverty level. There are several problems with this standard:
- The sponsorship income level, only 25 percent higher than the poverty level, is so low that it does not prevent immigrants from going on welfare; in fact, it almost guarantees it. Say a sponsor begins with an income of 200 percent of poverty level and is, therefore, not considered “legally poor.” But after splitting that income with the immigrant, each will be at 100 percent of the poverty level. Where before we had one non-poor person, now we have two poor people. Since eligibility for some welfare programs kicks in before one’s income drops to 125 percent of poverty level, immigrants can easily wind up on welfare.
- While immigrants who receive welfare can be deported for violating the conditions under which they were admitted, this provision is rarely enforced; in fact, only twelve people have been deported under this provision since 1980.<SUP>4</SUP> Administrative rulings have held that an immigrant cannot be held responsible for receiving welfare unless the welfare agencies have sent the immigrant a bill for their services, demanded payment, and been refused payment.<SUP>5</SUP> Since welfare agencies do not do this, it is virtually impossible for an immigrant to be charged with violating the public charge provisions that can lead to deportation.
- Furthermore, numerous forms of welfare are not considered under the public charge test, including food stamps, pre-natal care, nutrition programs, housing assistance, energy assistance, job training programs, child care services, free or reduced school lunch, public shelters, health clinics, Medicaid, and any cash welfare programs that are not the family’s sole source of income.<SUP>6</SUP> This insulates immigrants from being considered public charges unless they are completely dependent on welfare.
As of the 1996 welfare reform bill, the following applies to eligibility for federal and state funded welfare programs:
- Legal immigrants are barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years after entering the country and barred from SSI and food stamps until citizenship. They are also barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years.<SUP>7</SUP>
- Benefits available to immigrants include school lunch and breakfast programs, immunizations, emergency medical services, disaster relief, and others programs that are necessary to protect life and safety as identified by the attorney general, regardless of immigration status.<SUP>8</SUP>
- Illegal immigrants are barred from the following federal public benefits: grants, contracts, loans, licenses, retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post secondary education, food assistance, and unemployment benefits. States are barred from providing state or locally funded benefits to illegal immigrants unless a state law is enacted granting such authority.<SUP>9</SUP>
Despite expectations that the 1996 welfare reform bill would cause significant changes in immigrant welfare use, it has actually remained at the same level. The 1996 welfare reforms failed because while the legislation cut immigrants off from certain welfare programs, the savings that resulted from those cuts were not high enough to offset the increased usage of the remaining programs, due to the continuing high number of immigrants entering the U.S. every year.
While both Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp use have declined by four percent, the decline did not result in any significant savings, as those costs were offset by increases in Medicaid use, which has increased among immigrant households. The total combined value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households from welfare programs remained almost the same, averaging almost $2,000 in 2001, about 50 percent higher than natives. Such high rates of immigrant welfare use, combined with the rapidly increasing immigrant population, has resulted in a four percent increase in the number of immigrant households on welfare, from 14 percent in 1996 to 18 percent in 2000.<SUP>10</SUP>
Outlook for the Future
The highest welfare use rates for immigrants are in New York (30 percent), California (28 percent), Massachusetts (25 percent), and Texas (25 percent).<SUP>12</SUP>
Immigrants are eleven percent of our population, but they are 20 percent of the poor population. Unless our immigration policies are reevaluated and changed accordingly, welfare usage and subsequent costs will remain high.
Instead of addressing the problem, some in Congress have suggested measures that would make it even worse, such as proposals to increase immigrants’ eligibility for benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that making legal immigrants eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would cost an estimated $2.24 billion over ten years.<SUP>11</SUP>
If we are to have any hope of reducing poverty in the U.S., our immigration laws must be revised and returned to the sensible practice of excluding aliens who are likely to become public charges and to deport those who do.
- Table DP-1-4, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990 and 2000, Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau.
- Steven A. Camarota, “Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2003.
- Immigration and Nationality Act § 102 [8 U.S.C. 1102].
- Immigration and Nationality Act § 237A(5).
- Matter of B-, 3 I.&N.Dec.323 (AG and BIA 1948).
- Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 110.
- Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 411. Exceptions include refugees, asylees, those granted withholding of deportation for their first five years in the U.S., veterans, active duty military, and their spouses and dependents. After the five-year bar on federal benefits, states may offer Medicaid, federal cash (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - TANF) assistance , and services under the SSBG if deeming provisions are applied.
- Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 432.
- Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 401.
- Camarota, op. cit.
- “Graham Faults Administration for Shortsighted Health Care Policy,” press release, U.S. Senator Bob Graham, May 1, 2003.
- Camarota, op.cit.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Whats the name of that song?...God bless Texas?..Yes
Texas GOP Rejects Appeal For Amnesty Based On Attack On NumbersUSA
By Roy Beck, Updated Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA</SPAN>
A business-backed group failed this weekend to persuade the Texas GOP convention to support a back-door amnesty. The group's main pitch to delegates in a furious campaign seemed to be that because NumbersUSA opposes an amnesty -- and because NumbersUSA supposedly is a liberal organization -- Texas Republicans should take the other position and recommend legalizing the nation's illegal aliens.
Instead, the Texas Republican convention:
The leadership of the Texas Republican Party -- including its two U.S. Senators -- are highly influenced by the corrupted economy of Texas in which influential business interests insist that they need large flows of foreign labor (including illegal aliens) to be able to compete with businesses in other states that rely on U.S. workers.
Fortunately, most of the rank and file leaders of the Texas GOP reject the idea that foreign workers are needed during a time of great U.S. unemployment.
The Texas GOP's stance before this weekend had been heavy on Attrition Through Enforcement as the way to deal with illegal immigration. After this weekend, its position is strengthened. The grassroots -- including lots of small business owners -- clobbered the open-borders business interests of Texas.
In the end, supporters of Attrition Through Enforcement -- including a lot of our Texas members -- argued that immigration policies should be based on what is good for Texas rather than on rumors about national organizations like NumbersUSA that also support Attrition policies.
But we do appreciate all of our friends in Texas who defended NumbersUSA in the process.
The charge against NumbersUSA was that we have liberals in our organization, particularly liberals who support environmental causes! Therefore, the argument went, conservatives should never trust anything NumbersUSA says about immigration.
That is interesting because we often see websites and organizations on the left that say our appeals to cut immigration to protect the U.S. environment can't be trusted because we have conservatives in our organization.
Well, the fact is that we have lots of liberals and lots of conservatives -- and also lots of centrists -- who make up our more than 1 million members and also who make up our staff.
How do we keep people from all across the ideological spectrum working together?
The answer is simple: We only work on one issue -- immigration.
NUMBERSUSA IS A PLACE WHERE LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES, CENTRISTS AND LIBERTARIANS WORK TOGETHER ON ONE ISSUE -- AND ONE ISSUE ONLY -- TO BUILD A WINNING NATIONAL MAJORITY FORCE FOR REDUCED IMMIGRATION
Liberals work with us because they see immigration reduction making it easier to achieve various liberal goals (like environmental sustainability, higher pay for the working class, improvements for racial minorities).
Conservatives work with us because they see immigration reduction making it easier to achieve various conservative goals (such as restraining growth in government and taxes, strengthening the rule of law and sovereignty, preserving individual liberty).
And the same can be said of libertarians and centrists who work with us because reducing immigration advances their own particular goals for the U.S.
NumbersUSA doesn't work on any other liberal or conservative or centrist or libertarian goal -- just immigration.
Of course, any ideological group can find out that we have members and leaders from opponent ideological groups. That is the nature of a non-ideological group formed around one issue trying to amass a majority of Americans to win on one issue.
Once NumbersUSA's grassroots mobilization was recognized by the open-borders groups as their single biggest obstacle a few years ago, they have been carrying out well-funded attack campaigns from both the pro-amnesty left and the pro-amnesty right. For example, we get alternately attacked for being connected to pro-life forces and for being connected with pro-choice forces. The fact is that we have a ton of pro-life people in our organization and a ton of pro-choice people. How can they work together with us? Because NumbersUSA doesn't deal with abortion issues.
You can find the same kind of wide divergence of opinions among our members on all kinds of issues. NumbersUSA could never become a political party because our members would have trouble agreeing on anything other than the immigration planks in the platform.
Liberals need to be part of other organizations to pursue their non-immigration liberal agendas. Conservatives need to be part of other organizations to pursue their non-immigration conservative agendas. Etc., etc., etc.
Thankfully most of our members are politically sophisticated and understand the nature of creating a massive nationwide movement to change ONE issue.
We try to encourage and equip our members to advance our immigration goals in whatever Party or organization they find themselves. We're most thankful for the wisdom of the delegates to the Texas Republican Party this weekend.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...s-appeal-amnesty-based-attack-numbersusa.html
Texas GOP Rejects Appeal For Amnesty Based On Attack On NumbersUSA
By Roy Beck, Updated Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA</SPAN>
Instead, the Texas Republican convention:
. . .approved a slate of legislative priorities that calls for bringing Arizona-like immigration laws to Texas, specifically making it a Class A misdemeanor for an undocumented worker to be in the state and requiring law enforcement to verify citizenship when a person is arrested. -- Fort Worth Star Telegram
The delegates took this stand even though their party's governor, Rick Perry, has strongly opposed Arizona's vigorous efforts at enforcement.
The leadership of the Texas Republican Party -- including its two U.S. Senators -- are highly influenced by the corrupted economy of Texas in which influential business interests insist that they need large flows of foreign labor (including illegal aliens) to be able to compete with businesses in other states that rely on U.S. workers.
Fortunately, most of the rank and file leaders of the Texas GOP reject the idea that foreign workers are needed during a time of great U.S. unemployment.
The Texas GOP's stance before this weekend had been heavy on Attrition Through Enforcement as the way to deal with illegal immigration. After this weekend, its position is strengthened. The grassroots -- including lots of small business owners -- clobbered the open-borders business interests of Texas.
In the document is an immigration stance similar to the one in the 2008 platform calling for penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, eliminating funding for cities with "sanctuary" laws and eliminating day labor work centers. With growing impatience, the American people in overwhelming numbers have asked our government to secure our borders," the document says. "They now demand it and we as a party agree with the American people."
-- Fort Worth Star Telegram
NUMBERSUSA TOO LIBERAL? -- Fort Worth Star Telegram
In the end, supporters of Attrition Through Enforcement -- including a lot of our Texas members -- argued that immigration policies should be based on what is good for Texas rather than on rumors about national organizations like NumbersUSA that also support Attrition policies.
But we do appreciate all of our friends in Texas who defended NumbersUSA in the process.
The charge against NumbersUSA was that we have liberals in our organization, particularly liberals who support environmental causes! Therefore, the argument went, conservatives should never trust anything NumbersUSA says about immigration.
That is interesting because we often see websites and organizations on the left that say our appeals to cut immigration to protect the U.S. environment can't be trusted because we have conservatives in our organization.
Well, the fact is that we have lots of liberals and lots of conservatives -- and also lots of centrists -- who make up our more than 1 million members and also who make up our staff.
How do we keep people from all across the ideological spectrum working together?
The answer is simple: We only work on one issue -- immigration.
NUMBERSUSA IS A PLACE WHERE LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES, CENTRISTS AND LIBERTARIANS WORK TOGETHER ON ONE ISSUE -- AND ONE ISSUE ONLY -- TO BUILD A WINNING NATIONAL MAJORITY FORCE FOR REDUCED IMMIGRATION
Liberals work with us because they see immigration reduction making it easier to achieve various liberal goals (like environmental sustainability, higher pay for the working class, improvements for racial minorities).
Conservatives work with us because they see immigration reduction making it easier to achieve various conservative goals (such as restraining growth in government and taxes, strengthening the rule of law and sovereignty, preserving individual liberty).
And the same can be said of libertarians and centrists who work with us because reducing immigration advances their own particular goals for the U.S.
NumbersUSA doesn't work on any other liberal or conservative or centrist or libertarian goal -- just immigration.
Of course, any ideological group can find out that we have members and leaders from opponent ideological groups. That is the nature of a non-ideological group formed around one issue trying to amass a majority of Americans to win on one issue.
Once NumbersUSA's grassroots mobilization was recognized by the open-borders groups as their single biggest obstacle a few years ago, they have been carrying out well-funded attack campaigns from both the pro-amnesty left and the pro-amnesty right. For example, we get alternately attacked for being connected to pro-life forces and for being connected with pro-choice forces. The fact is that we have a ton of pro-life people in our organization and a ton of pro-choice people. How can they work together with us? Because NumbersUSA doesn't deal with abortion issues.
You can find the same kind of wide divergence of opinions among our members on all kinds of issues. NumbersUSA could never become a political party because our members would have trouble agreeing on anything other than the immigration planks in the platform.
Liberals need to be part of other organizations to pursue their non-immigration liberal agendas. Conservatives need to be part of other organizations to pursue their non-immigration conservative agendas. Etc., etc., etc.
Thankfully most of our members are politically sophisticated and understand the nature of creating a massive nationwide movement to change ONE issue.
We try to encourage and equip our members to advance our immigration goals in whatever Party or organization they find themselves. We're most thankful for the wisdom of the delegates to the Texas Republican Party this weekend.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...s-appeal-amnesty-based-attack-numbersusa.html
Last edited:
SO WHY IS EVERYBODY SO UPSET ABOUT ARIZONA???
OK...time to get this in CALIFORNIA!!!.....STOP the press ONE for Spanish & TWO for English!!!"
Simple solutions to not so complex problems!
The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.
In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.
In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.
In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.
Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!
Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010
http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/so-why-everybody-so-upset-about-arizona
OK...time to get this in CALIFORNIA!!!.....STOP the press ONE for Spanish & TWO for English!!!"
Simple solutions to not so complex problems!
The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.
In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.
In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.
In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.
Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!
Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010
http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/so-why-everybody-so-upset-about-arizona
Cathy DixonThis video is from 2007, but I thought you might be interested in seeing it.
From Chad McDonalds wall on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/#!/NumbersUSAforLowerImmigrationLevels
http://www.facebook.com/#!/NumbersUSAforLowerImmigrationLevels
Bingo & Continental breakfast...How lovely
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are preparing to roll out a series of changes at several privately owned immigration detention centers, including relaxing some security measures for low-risk detainees and offering art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends.
The changes, detailed in an internal ICE e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, were welcomed by immigrant advocates who have been waiting for the Obama administration to deliver on a promise made in August to overhaul the nation's immigration detention system.
The 28 changes identified in the e-mail range from the superficial to the substantive. In addition to “softening the look of the facility” with hanging plants and offering fresh carrot sticks, ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.
ICE officials said the changes are part of broader efforts to make the immigration detention system less penal and more humane.
But the plans are prompting protests by ICE's union leaders, who say they will jeopardize the safety of agents, guards and detainees and increase the bottom line for taxpayers. Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston, likened the changes to creating “an all-inclusive resort” for immigration detainees.
“Our biggest concern is that someone is going to get hurt,” he said, taking particular issue with plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches.
The changes outlined in the ICE e-mail are planned for nine detention centers owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, including the 900-bed Houston Contract Detention Facility on the city's north side.
Some of the changes will be implemented within 30 days; others may take up to six months, said Beth Gibson, ICE's senior counselor to Assistant Secretary John Morton and a leader of the detention reform effort.
Other major changes include:
• Eliminating lockdowns and lights-out for low-risk detainees.
• Allowing visitors to stay as long as they like in a 12-hour period.
• Providing a unit manger so detainees have someone to report problems to other than the guard.
• Allowing low-risk detainees to wear their own clothing or other non-penal attire.
• Providing e-mail access and Internet-based free phone service.
Not about punishment
Gibson said the improvements are part of ICE's efforts to detain immigrants in the least restrictive manner possible while ensuring they leave the country if ordered to do so.
“When people come to our custody, we're detaining them to effect their removal,” Gibson said. “It's about deportation. It's not about punishing people for a crime they committed.”
ICE officials have faced pressure from immigrant advocates and some members of Congress to improve the detention conditions for the roughly 400,000 immigrants it houses annually. The agency has relied on a hodgepodge of more than 250 government-run detention centers, private prisons and local jails to accommodate its growing population — with roughly one in four detainees held in Texas.
At the CCA facilities that have agreed to ICE's changes, detainees will see more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars.
CCA also plans to offer movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training, the e-mail states.
Detainees also will be allowed four hours or more of recreation “in a natural setting, allowing for robust aerobic exercise.”
CCA also committed to improving the look of the facilities, such as requiring plants, fresh paint and new bedding in lower-risk units.
Advocates pleased
Some of the improvements offered at the CCA facilities counted as hard-fought victories for immigrant advocates, including plans to improve visitor and attorney access.
“A lot of these measures are what we've been advocating for,” said Lory Rosenberg, policy and advocacy director for Refugee and Migrants' Rights for Amnesty International.
“Many of these points are very important to changing the system from a penal system, which is inappropriate in an immigration context, to a civil detention system.”
Union members said they have concerns about the plans, primarily focusing on safety.
Rebstocksaid some detainees may be classified as low-risk because they have no serious criminal history but still may be gang members that “haven't been caught doing anything wrong yet.”
He also said eliminating lockdowns will make it more difficult to protect detainees from one another.
He said reducing or eliminating pat-down searches could allow contraband into the facilities, including weapons.
Gibson, with ICE, said the agency is developing a sophisticated classification system and will make sure “that our detainees are still safe and sound.”
“As a general matter, it will be the non-criminals who don't present a danger to anyone else who are benefitting from the lowest level of custody,” Gibson said.
‘On the taxpayers' dime'
Rebstock also questioned the cost to taxpayers for the changes.
“My grandparents would have loved to have bingo night and a dance class at the retirement home they were in when they passed away, but that was something we would have had to pay for,” he said. “And yet these guys are getting it on the taxpayers' dime.”
Gibson said CCA is making the improvements at no additional cost to ICE. The agency's contract with CCA for the Houston detention center requires that ICE pay $99 per bed daily for each detainee, slightly lower than the $102 average daily rate ICE pays nationally .
Rosenberg said some of the changes, like new flower baskets, may seem small, but they will combine with the bigger changes to make a difference in the daily lives of detainees.
“Taken together they will go some way to making this system less penal,” she said.
susan.carroll@chron.com http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7043040.html
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are preparing to roll out a series of changes at several privately owned immigration detention centers, including relaxing some security measures for low-risk detainees and offering art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends.
The changes, detailed in an internal ICE e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, were welcomed by immigrant advocates who have been waiting for the Obama administration to deliver on a promise made in August to overhaul the nation's immigration detention system.
The 28 changes identified in the e-mail range from the superficial to the substantive. In addition to “softening the look of the facility” with hanging plants and offering fresh carrot sticks, ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.
ICE officials said the changes are part of broader efforts to make the immigration detention system less penal and more humane.
But the plans are prompting protests by ICE's union leaders, who say they will jeopardize the safety of agents, guards and detainees and increase the bottom line for taxpayers. Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston, likened the changes to creating “an all-inclusive resort” for immigration detainees.
“Our biggest concern is that someone is going to get hurt,” he said, taking particular issue with plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches.
The changes outlined in the ICE e-mail are planned for nine detention centers owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, including the 900-bed Houston Contract Detention Facility on the city's north side.
Some of the changes will be implemented within 30 days; others may take up to six months, said Beth Gibson, ICE's senior counselor to Assistant Secretary John Morton and a leader of the detention reform effort.
Other major changes include:
• Eliminating lockdowns and lights-out for low-risk detainees.
• Allowing visitors to stay as long as they like in a 12-hour period.
• Providing a unit manger so detainees have someone to report problems to other than the guard.
• Allowing low-risk detainees to wear their own clothing or other non-penal attire.
• Providing e-mail access and Internet-based free phone service.
Not about punishment
Gibson said the improvements are part of ICE's efforts to detain immigrants in the least restrictive manner possible while ensuring they leave the country if ordered to do so.
“When people come to our custody, we're detaining them to effect their removal,” Gibson said. “It's about deportation. It's not about punishing people for a crime they committed.”
ICE officials have faced pressure from immigrant advocates and some members of Congress to improve the detention conditions for the roughly 400,000 immigrants it houses annually. The agency has relied on a hodgepodge of more than 250 government-run detention centers, private prisons and local jails to accommodate its growing population — with roughly one in four detainees held in Texas.
At the CCA facilities that have agreed to ICE's changes, detainees will see more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars.
CCA also plans to offer movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training, the e-mail states.
Detainees also will be allowed four hours or more of recreation “in a natural setting, allowing for robust aerobic exercise.”
CCA also committed to improving the look of the facilities, such as requiring plants, fresh paint and new bedding in lower-risk units.
Advocates pleased
Some of the improvements offered at the CCA facilities counted as hard-fought victories for immigrant advocates, including plans to improve visitor and attorney access.
“A lot of these measures are what we've been advocating for,” said Lory Rosenberg, policy and advocacy director for Refugee and Migrants' Rights for Amnesty International.
“Many of these points are very important to changing the system from a penal system, which is inappropriate in an immigration context, to a civil detention system.”
Union members said they have concerns about the plans, primarily focusing on safety.
Rebstocksaid some detainees may be classified as low-risk because they have no serious criminal history but still may be gang members that “haven't been caught doing anything wrong yet.”
He also said eliminating lockdowns will make it more difficult to protect detainees from one another.
He said reducing or eliminating pat-down searches could allow contraband into the facilities, including weapons.
Gibson, with ICE, said the agency is developing a sophisticated classification system and will make sure “that our detainees are still safe and sound.”
“As a general matter, it will be the non-criminals who don't present a danger to anyone else who are benefitting from the lowest level of custody,” Gibson said.
‘On the taxpayers' dime'
Rebstock also questioned the cost to taxpayers for the changes.
“My grandparents would have loved to have bingo night and a dance class at the retirement home they were in when they passed away, but that was something we would have had to pay for,” he said. “And yet these guys are getting it on the taxpayers' dime.”
Gibson said CCA is making the improvements at no additional cost to ICE. The agency's contract with CCA for the Houston detention center requires that ICE pay $99 per bed daily for each detainee, slightly lower than the $102 average daily rate ICE pays nationally .
Rosenberg said some of the changes, like new flower baskets, may seem small, but they will combine with the bigger changes to make a difference in the daily lives of detainees.
“Taken together they will go some way to making this system less penal,” she said.
susan.carroll@chron.com http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7043040.html
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." -Mark Twain
Sons of Liberty Riders Rally Video
http://americanlibertyriders.ning.com/
Sons of Liberty Riders Rally Video
http://americanlibertyriders.ning.com/
Wake up you stoopid Americans
<TABLE id=post55373 class=tborder border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=alt2><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=6 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2>
</TD><TD noWrap>Cruisingfool
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_55373", true); </SCRIPT>
Senior Member
</TD><TD width="100%"> </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,275
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / user info --></TD></TR><TR><TD id=td_post_55373 class=alt1><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->US lawmakers start attacking 'birth tourists'
By Jane Han
The Korea Times, June 10, 2010
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...113_67444.html
New York -- Every year, thousands of pregnant Korean women arrive in the U.S. with a big, round belly and leave with a flat stomach, carrying in their arms a newborn baby with American citizenship.
Labeled 'birth tourists,' these moms consider the costly trips a privilege and money well spent. But for a growing number of Americans, they are ill-intended visits that take advantage of loopholes in the U.S. immigration system.
And now, with millions of foreign birth tourists coming from everywhere from Turkey to Taiwan with the same purpose, conservative lawmakers in the U.S. are pushing legislation that would stop automatically granting citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, as stated in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Republican Rep. Gary Miller has introduced a bill that would prevent children from becoming citizens at birth if they are born to illegal aliens, a move that many say challenges the fundamental tenet of the country's constitution.
His bill also specifically takes aim at birth tourists and the increasing numbers of businesses that help pregnant women give birth in the U.S.
Dozens of Korean businesses in major U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, New York and Seattle, are also prominent in this industry.
For anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000, they offer a comprehensive service that covers airfare, city tours, pre- and post-partum care - including customized meals three times a day and general maid services - and even English lessons for the new mom.
Packages offered by Turkish businesses are also known to be high-end.
For about $40,000, women can stay at a luxury hotel on New York's Upper East Side with all their needs taken care of.
'They sell packages for women to come to the U.S., have their baby and then give all the necessary paperwork, babysit the child for a week or two so they can go on vacation then pack them up and send them home with an American citizen,' Miller said in a recent television interview.
He called for a national debate on the issue, stressing that 'more and more Americans are looking at this whole issue and saying, 'This is wrong and has to be stopped.''
In fact, a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports showed that 58 percent of 1,000 likely U.S. voters said 'no' to giving citizenships to children of illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, 33 percent still said a child born of a woman who enters the U.S. as an illegal alien and gives birth should automatically be a U.S. citizen.
According to the National Center of Health Statistics, the number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers increased 53 percent between 2000 and 2006.
Miller's bill is garnering support from select Republican lawmakers, but it drew immediate opposition from critics who say the move is threatening the nation's basic principles.
'The bill is unconstitutional,' Democratic Rep. Joe Baca said in media interview. 'If you were born in the United States, you're an American.'
Other Democratic lawmakers and civic groups are ready to fight the case, while businesses are also voicing their opinions.
'We're not doing anything illegal,' said a manager of one birth tourism package provider based in Los Angeles. 'We're a registered business breaking no laws so we shouldn't be scrutinized.'
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Oath Keepers
FIRECoalition
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.fightpc.net/showthread.php?t=34405
<TABLE id=post55373 class=tborder border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=alt2><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=6 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2>
Senior Member
</TD><TD width="100%"> </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,275
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / user info --></TD></TR><TR><TD id=td_post_55373 class=alt1><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->US lawmakers start attacking 'birth tourists'
By Jane Han
The Korea Times, June 10, 2010
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...113_67444.html
New York -- Every year, thousands of pregnant Korean women arrive in the U.S. with a big, round belly and leave with a flat stomach, carrying in their arms a newborn baby with American citizenship.
Labeled 'birth tourists,' these moms consider the costly trips a privilege and money well spent. But for a growing number of Americans, they are ill-intended visits that take advantage of loopholes in the U.S. immigration system.
And now, with millions of foreign birth tourists coming from everywhere from Turkey to Taiwan with the same purpose, conservative lawmakers in the U.S. are pushing legislation that would stop automatically granting citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, as stated in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Republican Rep. Gary Miller has introduced a bill that would prevent children from becoming citizens at birth if they are born to illegal aliens, a move that many say challenges the fundamental tenet of the country's constitution.
His bill also specifically takes aim at birth tourists and the increasing numbers of businesses that help pregnant women give birth in the U.S.
Dozens of Korean businesses in major U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, New York and Seattle, are also prominent in this industry.
For anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000, they offer a comprehensive service that covers airfare, city tours, pre- and post-partum care - including customized meals three times a day and general maid services - and even English lessons for the new mom.
Packages offered by Turkish businesses are also known to be high-end.
For about $40,000, women can stay at a luxury hotel on New York's Upper East Side with all their needs taken care of.
'They sell packages for women to come to the U.S., have their baby and then give all the necessary paperwork, babysit the child for a week or two so they can go on vacation then pack them up and send them home with an American citizen,' Miller said in a recent television interview.
He called for a national debate on the issue, stressing that 'more and more Americans are looking at this whole issue and saying, 'This is wrong and has to be stopped.''
In fact, a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports showed that 58 percent of 1,000 likely U.S. voters said 'no' to giving citizenships to children of illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, 33 percent still said a child born of a woman who enters the U.S. as an illegal alien and gives birth should automatically be a U.S. citizen.
According to the National Center of Health Statistics, the number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers increased 53 percent between 2000 and 2006.
Miller's bill is garnering support from select Republican lawmakers, but it drew immediate opposition from critics who say the move is threatening the nation's basic principles.
'The bill is unconstitutional,' Democratic Rep. Joe Baca said in media interview. 'If you were born in the United States, you're an American.'
Other Democratic lawmakers and civic groups are ready to fight the case, while businesses are also voicing their opinions.
'We're not doing anything illegal,' said a manager of one birth tourism package provider based in Los Angeles. 'We're a registered business breaking no laws so we shouldn't be scrutinized.'
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Oath Keepers
FIRECoalition
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.fightpc.net/showthread.php?t=34405
Losing Arizona to Mexico??
http://www.hotneus.com/the-u-s-gov-giving-parts-of-arizona-back-to-mexico.html
http://www.hotneus.com/the-u-s-gov-giving-parts-of-arizona-back-to-mexico.html
Daheavy Ill post this around & at www.fightpc.net Immigration forum...Thanks
Area residents flee, while immigrants move in
By: David Sherfinski
Examiner Staff Writer
June 13, 2010
<TABLE style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; CLEAR: both" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; CLEAR: both" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250><TBODY><TR><TD>(Examiner file)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; CLEAR: both" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250><TBODY><TR><TD>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://www.scan.nowpublic.com/widget/23367/bundle.js"></SCRIPT><IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" id=NP--59606 class=nowpublic-scan-frame frameSpacing=0 height=0 border=0 src="http://www.scan.nowpublic.com/widget/23367/content?article_id=96185849%3Blocal&property=cmg_examiner&keywords=local&ord=267474171&title=Area+residents+flee%2C+while+immigrants+move+in+%7C+Washington+Examiner&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Flocal%2FArea-residents-flee_-while-immigrants-move-in-96185849.html&domain=www.washingtonexaminer.com#NP--59606" frameBorder=0 width="100%" scrolling=no></IFRAME></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Washington-area residents moved out of the District and the inner suburbs over the past decade, while thousands of immigrants poured in.
More than 40,000 District residents left the city between 2000 and 2009, according to new census data. More than 100,000 Fairfax County residents left the county, while about 86,000 immigrants moved in. Across the Potomac River in Montgomery County, nearly 90,000 immigrants moved in and 67,717 residents left.
"Wherever there [are] economic options and prosperity, there will be opportunities for newcomers," said Alan Kraut, a professor of immigration history at American University.
The majority of most local jurisdictions' population increases were "natural," or births outnumbering deaths. In some outer Virginia suburbs, however, migration — both domestic and international — accounted for most of the population growth.
Loudoun County's population grew by more than 100,000 during the first decade of the 2000s, as 95,450 people moved in — 7,556 immigrants and 87,884 domestic migrants.
Of the 53,569 people who moved into Prince William County, 43,165 were domestic movers and 10,404 were international migrants.
Further out in the Virginia exurbs, just over 10,000 people moved into Fauquier County and about 22,000 people moved into Stafford County -- the vast majority of whom were citizens.
Still, the push to the outer 'burbs is part of a more general migration trend tied to economics, Kraut said.
"Not many immigrants can afford to live in the Dupont Circle area, but they can afford to live in Fauquier," he said.
The draw of the relatively inexpensive outer suburbs led to a population spike in general over the decade. Loudoun and Prince William counties, for example, were among the top 100 fastest-growing counties in the country. Loudoun ranked in the top five with a net increase of 77.6 percent, or 131,572 people.
Fauquier, which borders Loudoun and Prince William, added12,825 residents over the past decade. Nearly 80 percent of that growth came from people moving in. Spotsylvania and Stafford counties each added about 30,000 people.
The Hispanic population comprises a hefty chunk of the area's international influx. The District's Hispanic population grew from 44,953 in 2000 to 53,025 in 2009. In Fairfax County, the population swelled from 106,951 to 157,096 over the same period, and Montgomery County's Hispanic population grew from 100,604 to 156,779.
"The suburbs are no doubt changing," said Sabiyha Prince, assistant professor of anthropology at American University. "Montgomery County is much more diverse now."
While the District's overall population grew by 27,602 from 2000 to 2009, Prince said that the percentage of blacks in the District has been falling since the 1970s, with more white Americans moving in.
Indeed, D.C.'s black population dropped to about 324,000 in 2009 from just under 350,000 in 2000, according to new census data. Meanwhile, the District's white population has climbed from 197,163 in 2000 to 243,617 in 2009.
Prince said that while international migrants enjoy diplomatic support, such as the plethora of embassies in Washington, the city'sgentrification is contributing to the movement outward.
"As things become more costly in the city, people start to go out and find housing elsewhere," she said.
dsherfinski@washingtonexaminer.com
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...mmigrants-move-in-96185849.html#ixzz0qzT1tq8e
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Area-residents-flee_-while-immigrants-move-in-96185849.htmlBy: David Sherfinski
Examiner Staff Writer
June 13, 2010
<TABLE style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; CLEAR: both" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; CLEAR: both" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250><TBODY><TR><TD>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://www.scan.nowpublic.com/widget/23367/bundle.js"></SCRIPT><IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" id=NP--59606 class=nowpublic-scan-frame frameSpacing=0 height=0 border=0 src="http://www.scan.nowpublic.com/widget/23367/content?article_id=96185849%3Blocal&property=cmg_examiner&keywords=local&ord=267474171&title=Area+residents+flee%2C+while+immigrants+move+in+%7C+Washington+Examiner&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Flocal%2FArea-residents-flee_-while-immigrants-move-in-96185849.html&domain=www.washingtonexaminer.com#NP--59606" frameBorder=0 width="100%" scrolling=no></IFRAME></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Washington-area residents moved out of the District and the inner suburbs over the past decade, while thousands of immigrants poured in.
More than 40,000 District residents left the city between 2000 and 2009, according to new census data. More than 100,000 Fairfax County residents left the county, while about 86,000 immigrants moved in. Across the Potomac River in Montgomery County, nearly 90,000 immigrants moved in and 67,717 residents left.
"Wherever there [are] economic options and prosperity, there will be opportunities for newcomers," said Alan Kraut, a professor of immigration history at American University.
The majority of most local jurisdictions' population increases were "natural," or births outnumbering deaths. In some outer Virginia suburbs, however, migration — both domestic and international — accounted for most of the population growth.
Loudoun County's population grew by more than 100,000 during the first decade of the 2000s, as 95,450 people moved in — 7,556 immigrants and 87,884 domestic migrants.
Of the 53,569 people who moved into Prince William County, 43,165 were domestic movers and 10,404 were international migrants.
Further out in the Virginia exurbs, just over 10,000 people moved into Fauquier County and about 22,000 people moved into Stafford County -- the vast majority of whom were citizens.
Still, the push to the outer 'burbs is part of a more general migration trend tied to economics, Kraut said.
"Not many immigrants can afford to live in the Dupont Circle area, but they can afford to live in Fauquier," he said.
The draw of the relatively inexpensive outer suburbs led to a population spike in general over the decade. Loudoun and Prince William counties, for example, were among the top 100 fastest-growing counties in the country. Loudoun ranked in the top five with a net increase of 77.6 percent, or 131,572 people.
Fauquier, which borders Loudoun and Prince William, added12,825 residents over the past decade. Nearly 80 percent of that growth came from people moving in. Spotsylvania and Stafford counties each added about 30,000 people.
The Hispanic population comprises a hefty chunk of the area's international influx. The District's Hispanic population grew from 44,953 in 2000 to 53,025 in 2009. In Fairfax County, the population swelled from 106,951 to 157,096 over the same period, and Montgomery County's Hispanic population grew from 100,604 to 156,779.
"The suburbs are no doubt changing," said Sabiyha Prince, assistant professor of anthropology at American University. "Montgomery County is much more diverse now."
While the District's overall population grew by 27,602 from 2000 to 2009, Prince said that the percentage of blacks in the District has been falling since the 1970s, with more white Americans moving in.
Indeed, D.C.'s black population dropped to about 324,000 in 2009 from just under 350,000 in 2000, according to new census data. Meanwhile, the District's white population has climbed from 197,163 in 2000 to 243,617 in 2009.
Prince said that while international migrants enjoy diplomatic support, such as the plethora of embassies in Washington, the city'sgentrification is contributing to the movement outward.
"As things become more costly in the city, people start to go out and find housing elsewhere," she said.
dsherfinski@washingtonexaminer.com
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...mmigrants-move-in-96185849.html#ixzz0qzT1tq8e
Rx bash? No...Ive been to Seattle tho....Ive been on the space needlelolI donno maybe you can get it with a little work
happy B.Day! Ah I see you're in Toledo. Are you going to this big bash thing?hope this doesn't double post, I just wrote a quick reply already but I think I hit cancel instead.
...Your right It rains a lot out there....You picked the best sports capping site on the net & Politics..Stick around we need some pretty Ladies around here all we have is Devilwoman...Congratulations...RR
Special thanks to the more than 3,000 of you that took the time to complete our survey about a possible name change for ALIPAC last week.
Here are our poll results and our decision.
We have decided to keep the name Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee because so many of you feel that name has the national recognition and reputation we need to stop Amnesty, elect candidates, and pass or block legislation.
However, we do plan to add a provision to the ALIPAC Platform next week indicating that our organization officially supports reducing current legal immigration levels from the historic high of 1.6 million per year down to more traditional and sustainable levels...
This official change will be released nationally via a national press release and we will explain that the mounting evidence that legal immigrants are being used to replace innocent American workers at a time when we have over 25 million unemployed and underemployed American workers is destructive and harmful to America.
ALIPAC's primary focus will remain on securing the borders and stopping and reversing illegal immigration.
While approximately 10% of our supporters do not favor this change, we hope those of you in that category will continue to support us. We should gain many more supporters by making this change to our platform, since numerous national polls are showing over 80% of Americans now want legal immigration levels reduced.
In fact, our internal poll tells us the following. Of the 3,000 ALIPAC supporters who participated....
2.9% Think current legal immigration levels should be raised.
7.9% Think current legal immigration levels should remain the same.
19.4% Think current legal immigration levels should be reduced.
22.3% Think current legal immigration levels should be drastically reduced.
46.3% Think all immigration should be restricted until this crisis has been stabilized
ALIPAC's official platform will be changed to reflect the views of approximately 88% of our supporters who want legal immigration levels reduced to more traditional and sustainable levels next week.
If you have any suggestions about how this platform addition should be worded, please email your suggestions to WilliamG@alipac.us
While ALIPAC will always strive to do more and to represent your interests, we are pleased to report our poll shows high satisfaction rates for our performance.
Here are the results of our poll about ALIPAC's performance...
"How would you rate your level of satisfaction with ALIPAC's performance in the fight against illegal immigration and Amnesty?"
Highly satisfied - 66.6%
Somewhat satisfied - 24.9%
Neutral - Neutral - 5.2%
Somewhat dissatisfied - 1.1%
Highly dissatisfied - < 1%
No Answer - 1.3%
A 91.5% satisfaction rate is a strong accomplishment for any national organization, but we must do more to reverse illegal immigration and get more Americans participating through ALIPAC!
One thing our poll did prove is that we must do a better job of getting those of you who receive our e-mail alerts and support ALIPAC's efforts to participate as donors and volunteers.
Currently, only 22.7% of our poll respondents identified themselves as yearly donors to ALIPAC. Almost 50% of respondents indicated they never respond to ALIPAC's activist alerts calling for volunteers to take action.
We have grown rapidly over the past year thanks to great support from Tea Party folks and our special events and programs, but we must find ways to get more of our 30,000 ALIPAC supporters engaged as volunteers and donors.
We have read and reviewed all of your comments on the poll as well and we thank you for the wonderful support.
We will make our official announcement about our platform change next week.
Sincerely,
William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team
http://www.alipac.us
[/FONT]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Immigration Poll you can vote on
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=20 width=708 bgColor=#cccccc><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,verdana,serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; PADDING-TOP: 10px" align=left>
Dear Jim: Thank you for your continued support of WorldNetDaily.com. WND occasionally sends emails like this one to introduce major advertisers to our loyal readers and valued customers. Please take a few moments to consider their message.
Thank you again, from the team at WorldNetDaily.com!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff><CENTER><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=558 bgColor=#ffffff align=center><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=500 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD height=10>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD height=20>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Poll URL http://www.personalliberty.com/poll/immigration-reform/index.php?SC=BEL2324
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=20 width=708 bgColor=#cccccc><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,verdana,serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; PADDING-TOP: 10px" align=left>
Dear Jim: Thank you for your continued support of WorldNetDaily.com. WND occasionally sends emails like this one to introduce major advertisers to our loyal readers and valued customers. Please take a few moments to consider their message.
Thank you again, from the team at WorldNetDaily.com!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff><CENTER><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=558 bgColor=#ffffff align=center><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=500 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD height=10></TD></TR><TR><TD>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Patriot,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PersonalLiberty.com, America's #1 news site for independent-minded individuals is conducting an urgent immigration poll. We want to know if you think America should follow Arizona's lead when it comes to immigration reform.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif]The results of the poll will be available to you after you submit your vote and we'll also share the poll results with major media outlets across the country. Thousands will vote, so take a moment right now to stand up and be counted... your opinion matters![/FONT]
<CENTER>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PersonalLiberty.com, America's #1 news site for independent-minded individuals is conducting an urgent immigration poll. We want to know if you think America should follow Arizona's lead when it comes to immigration reform.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif]The results of the poll will be available to you after you submit your vote and we'll also share the poll results with major media outlets across the country. Thousands will vote, so take a moment right now to stand up and be counted... your opinion matters![/FONT]
</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD height=20></TD></TR><TR><TD>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yours for the truth,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif]Bob Livingston[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Editor, Liberty Alerts[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif]www.PersonalLiberty.com[/FONT]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif]Bob Livingston[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Editor, Liberty Alerts[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif]www.PersonalLiberty.com[/FONT]
Poll URL http://www.personalliberty.com/poll/immigration-reform/index.php?SC=BEL2324
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4242872&w=400&h=249"></script><noscript>Watch the latest news video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>
