Race

The Destruction of U.S. Border States

07/07/10     By Louis Thomas McFadden, American Free Press, 07/05/10 Issue 27

     While the 1980s and 1990s were dominated by optimistic reports and government statements on the contributions of illegal aliens, reality had to be faced soon. The three states—California, Texas and New York—harboring the most illegal aliens in America financially collapsed by the weight they chose to carry. They built up giant welfare programs, they paid for the education and incarceration of the aliens who filled their schools and jails and they watched the closures of large numbers of hospitals that were forced to care for the aliens by law. Some counties in Arizona spent as much as 30 percent of their health budget on illegals.

     The constant injection of millions of illegal aliens have weakened and undermined the financial balance of all the U.S. border states to a degree where most of them are presently close to bankruptcy and suffer the financial effects of lowered credit ratings. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that the approximately two million illegal aliens cost $4.7 billion a year in Texas alone. The estimate incorporates the medical, educational and incarceration expenses spent on the aliens but no one can place a dollar value on a degraded society where the White working class was literally chased out of state by the dramatic reduction of wages and businesses that moved away. Orderly cities were replaced by chains of crime-ridden third world slums.

     There are 1,880,000 jobs lost by Americans to illegal aliens every year (FAIR) and the aliens’ lower wages are subsidized by taxpayer resources making big business the ultimate winner and American society the ultimate loser in this game. Walmart was employing close to 1.2 million people in 1993 and regularly educated her low paid employees on how to tap into welfare and Medicaid resources to subsidize their income. Federal agents raided 61 stores in 21 states in 1993 and arrested hundreds of illegal aliens hired by the company.

     In 1994 California paid $215 million to deliver 74,987 anchor babies for illegal aliens and the total number in the U.S. was approximately 300,000 for that year. After birth comes education, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, incarceration and the millions of relatives who cannot resist the invitations.

     By the early 1990s the situation was clearly getting out of hand in California and the “Save Our State” (SOS) Proposition 187 was set into motion by Ron Prince, an accountant in Orange County in 1994.At the time around half of all illegal aliens arrested along the 2,200-mile U.S.-Mexican border were arrested on a 14-mile stretch in San Diego, Calif. Proposition 187 was approved by 59 percent of the voters—over five million votes—after thousands of citizens donated their time to collect the hundreds of thousands of signatures to place it on the ballot. The main goal was to take public benefits away from illegal aliens and deny schooling to their children—a reasonable action if we consider the state’s white population was being dissolved and replaced by the aliens. However, Proposition 187, which reflected the will of the majority of the voters, was sabotaged by Federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, who declared the measure unconstitutional, and Gov. Gray Davis, who stopped appeals in the legal process. As a result, a number of absurd cases surfaced in the following years. After waiting at the San Diego border crossing, a woman ran across the border, grabbed a lamppost and delivered a new “American citizen” in front of a video camera. Mexicans were running across the border on the I-5 freeway in California along the center divider among the moving cars and crossed the border by the hundreds in front of federal agents. An agency of the California government paid for billboard advertisements in Mexico that promised free medical care in California to all.

     This is how California, the Golden State of the 1980s, was turned into the Slumlord State of 2010, constantly fighting off creditors, unable to pay state employees and dancing on the edge of a knife to avoid bankruptcy.

America Should Emulate Mexico’s Stiff Immigration Laws

05/29/10     Vince Ryan, American Free Press, 05/17/10 Issue 20

     After watching the federal government do little at great cost to stop the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico into the United States, Arizona, a state highly invaded by illegals, took tough and decisive action.

     On April 23, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed S.B. 1070 into law. Among other things the new law requires residents to show proper identification to prove they are in the state legally. Clergymen and women of the major religious faiths decried the new law. And angry protesters stormed the state capitol in Phoenix.

     Bishop John C. Wester of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed concern for all immigrants in the United States and labeled the law “draconian.” United Methodist Bishop Minerva Carcaño said that through their social services, schools, congregations and workplaces, religious leaders “witness the human consequences of an inadequate, outdated system.” Episcopal Bishop Kirk Smith said the law “offends the dignity of all Arizonans. The tendency to scapegoat a vulnerable population for Arizona’s economic stagnation and federal inaction on immigration issues is an unworthy and counterproductive response to the problems we face.”

     Gov. Brewer said that “racial profiling is illegal,” and that the law stipulates police need not ask about residency status if it would impede the case. Robert Kuhn, a Phoenix resident who belongs to the Minutemen, a border watch group, said: “The federal government won’t enforce the border, so states have to take it into their own hands.” Kuhn added that he has seen drug and human smuggling. “Undocumented immigrants are dragging on our society. They have no right to do it.”

     While the U.S. southern border is wide open for those going into the United States from Mexico, those who wish to immigrate to Mexico are taken seriously.

     The nationally syndicated columnist and author of the best seller Culture of Corruption Michelle Malkin paints a picture of the tough enforcement of Mexican immigration law compared to the wishy-washy American brand:

     • The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

     • If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.”

     In addition, those seeking Mexican citizenship must have clean criminal histories, provide a birth certificate, a bank statement and pass an exam showing they will be able to provide for their healthcare.

     • Illegal entry is a felony, punishable by two years imprisonment. Document fraud and alien marriage fraud are also subject to fine and imprisonment.

     • Foreigners can be expelled from Mexico without due process of law. And reentry after expulsion merits 10 years imprisonment.

     • All law enforcement officials must enforce immigration laws and deportations. The military must assist them, and native-born Mexicans can make citizen’s arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

     • The National Catalog of Foreigners tracks outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, and they must carry identity cards.

     There is no public outcry in Mexico for “comprehensive immigration reform,” because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited. Non-citizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

     The Mexican Congress has severely limited foreign nationals and companies from the fields of investment, education, mining, civil aviation, electric energy and firearms. The Mexican government has severely abused illegal aliens from Central America.

     The police are totally corrupt, and bribery has been extorted from illegal aliens there for years. Mexico has been demanding the United States grant illegal aliens amnesty, something its own government never does.

     Mexican President Felipe Calderon has no right to accuse Arizona of intolerance, hate, discrimination and abusive law enforcement when the record shows that he and his government are acting against people who are presumed guilty until proven innocent, which hardly ever happens.

     The United States still has a Constitution with a Bill of Rights for everybody. Those foreigners who choose the United States are still among the most fortunate. And those who have chosen Arizona legally may be getting the best deal of all.

Challenging the Obama Mythology

08/29/08

On countless occasions we have heard the mantra being chanted that Barak Obama is such a great orator. Clearly, it is stylish and faddish to weigh in obediently to this effect although no standards are ever cited as to how such a conclusion is being arrived at. In reality, Obama is merely average in his oratorical skills. To many, his vocal intonations are at best, annoying and at worst, they grate on the nerves. Furthermore, when called upon to respond extemporaneously and no longer able to read directly off the teleprompter the words others have drafted for him, Obama often comes across as something far less than an articulate intellectual.

What is clearly at play in the Obama phenomenon is the deeply embedded psychological desire on the part of large numbers of modern individuals to be able to fawn upon and heap accolades on a black leader. Without even realizing it, untold numbers of contemporary Caucasians are afflicted by a syndrome known as white guilt. They have been conditioned and brainwashed into believing that their race is somehow overly exploitative and that, in a collective sense, it has somehow inflicted significant injustice upon the world’s various colored populations and races. Like Orwellian thought crime, white guilt is doubly insidious because individuals suffering from such may not even realize they are guilty of possessing or manifesting such debilitating characteristics and defects.

Barak Obama, the Magic Negro, enables one and all to indulge in the joint exercise of purging themselves of the odious stigma of the inherent genetic liabilities that accrue from merely being white.  (See http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story on the Magic Negro) Though he himself is one-half Caucasian, Obama is sufficiently black to be classified as African American while simultaneously being light skinned enough to minimize the extent to which he might otherwise incite those nasty racist inclinations which everyone knows smolder just beneath the surface of all white people.

Were it possible for Barak Obama to be evaluated objectively on his skills, merits and abilities alone, he would simply be rated as slightly above average. Unfortunately, it is not possible for such an evaluation to occur apart from all the psychological baggage and considerations that are unavoidably linked to matters of race and ethnicity in modern America.