75% of Americans oppose bank accounts for illegals

TIME-OUT PROJECT ^ | May 15, 2003 | Project USA

[CIBvet]

A new Roper poll shows that 3 out of 4 Americans oppose allowing financial corporations to open bank accounts in the United States for foreign nationals illegally in the country. Nevertheless, Bush Administration officials, like U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, are coordinating efforts between the Mexican government and the U.S. banking industry to step up the practice.

Ms. Marin, who "entered" the United States from Mexico when she was a teenager, recently returned from a trip to Mexico City where she met with Mexican officials to negotiate policies favorable to Mexicans. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Marin was attempting to "drum up support for a Partnership for Prosperity program meant to tear down logistical and financial barriers that make it difficult for Mexicans working in the United States to send money home."

Critics say this is just another example of the Bush Administration's support for illegal immigration, but note that the Treasury Department, under Ms. Marin, has been particularly aggressive in encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

Recently, for example, the Treasury granted $1.3 million to an ethnically focused financial institution in North Carolina to help it open more branches. According to the Wall Street Journal, the business openly caters to illegal aliens and provides them banking services.

Treasury officials have begun trying to sell the effort to help illegal aliens send money out of the country as "pro-security," arguing that the law enforcement community can better track illegal alien money if it's in a bank.

However, the effort is not backed by Homeland Security; it is backed by banks, which have a clear profit motive, and by the Mexican government, which seeks an incremental amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States.

The Bush Administration should rebuff the big corporations and Mexico. The American government has a duty to enforce American laws, rather than encourage foreign nationals to break them.

____________________________
Americans Favor Tough Approach to Illegal Immigration (Roper Poll)
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/03-01-03-06.html#030515

North Carolina credit union banks on immigrants (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/09/financial1021EDT0047.DTL

U.S. treasurer says free flow of remittances can stimulate economies in Mexico's poor areas
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/09/international1801EDT6288.DTL

+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+

The first border death of the approaching summer season has now been reported, and, if this year is like previous ones, we can expect hundreds more of these tragedies before autumn.

Those who provide the magnets in the United States that lure illegal aliens across our dangerous borders carry some responsibility for the deaths. The Bush Administration, for example, rather than implement a firm and humane interior enforcement policy, which would largely end the border deaths, continues to put ethnic politics and corporate profiteering above the law and the will of the American people.

While the White House might get some political mileage out of allowing Rosario Marin, who, the White House often notes, is the "highest serving Latina" in the administration, to serve as U.S. Treasurer, selfish political advantages cannot take precedent over the public good. With three-quarters of all Americans opposing bank accounts for illegal aliens, the White House must reign in the Treasury Department no matter how ethnically dedicated Ms. Marin is to "her people," and no matter how much money banking corporations are making off illegal alien bank accounts.

Please call the White House comment line and say, "I am very disappointed by the Bush Administration's continued support for illegal immigration. Please tell George Bush I want the Treasury Department to stop pushing for bank accounts for illegal aliens."

White House comment line (9-5 EST, M-F) 202-456-1111
(This is important. If you can, please call several times this week.)

+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+

"Form follows profit" is the aesthetic principle of our times.

Richard Rogers

+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+

I wanted to let you know that I have taken your suggestion to call the White House comment line twice this week. Both operators told me that they are familiar with the issue (and agreed with our stance!) and seemed encouraged about my call.

Thank you,

Matt ____________________________ Permanent archive link:

[liberalnot]

if you love your country, then you need to have at least 3 children.

[Diddle E. Squat]

A new Roper poll

So that's what Mr. Roper has been doing since 'Three's Company' ended.

[frodolives]

If they keep money in dollars in American banks, instead of swapping them for pesos and dragging them south of the border, doesn't that mean more dollars to be loaned to Americans, to build homes, factories, and businesses here in the USA? What, you'd rather they should invest in Rupees? Euros? Dinars?

[Brownie74]

Thanks for the heads up.

My congresscritters are getting tired of hearing from me.

[FITZ]

They do that in Mexico ---more like 9 kids ---how's it helping them?

[liberalnot]

i don't understand your question.

"them" = ?

[FITZ]

I really don't think the Mexicans are coming to the US because they read somewhere that Americans are having only 2 kids, they aren't coming because they heard the stock market here is doing well and because California and Texas figured out a way to balance their budgets. They didn't read that unemployment is way down in the USA. Anchor babies aren't born here for any of those reasons and poor uneducated, jobless people having kids at our expense only adds to our problems. US taxpayers must now pay for the costs of raising their own families plus the costs of all those needing welfare and food stamps.

[FITZ]

Them was the ones in Mexico. How is Mexico becoming a better richer place because they have so many kids?

[liberalnot]

i didn't say what you said i said.

i was talking about americans--if you want to stop illegal immigration, then have more than 3 kids per family.

i remember back in the 1950's, u.s. officials loaded up illegals on the railroads and sent them back across the border.

why not today? 2 reasons:

1. the american birthrate dropped in the 1970s due to the baby boomer generation of feminists.

abortion claimed how many millions?

affluent families don't require high school kids and college kids to work today, as they did in the past. bill handel's famous remark at kfi los angeles: "my kids aren't flipping burgers". that's right. that's for other people--illegals and their offspring.

in sum, a deficit birthrate, abortions, and a teens that don't work part time created a need for workers.

2. our culture changed. the last half of the 20th century politically was dominated by baby boomer leftists who made returning illegals unpopular.

consider this, john and ken of radio kfi los angeles attack illegals nearly everyday on their program. but guess who has a nanny! and where do nannies in los angeles come from? probably from illegals or children of illegals.

[FITZ]

How will hearing that Americans are having 3 kids stop them from crossing the border?

[FITZ]

The Mexican illegals should go to China where they're only having one child ---and a very booming economy.

[FITZ]

I think what draws some of the illegals is actually our welfare system ---at least here where you'll find more immigrants sitting in hospital waiting rooms and living in government housing projects than out in the fields picking chili ---a relative handful are farmworkers here.

Plus it's easy to come, it's easy to buy fake Social Security cards, it's easy to bring their families and get in on the school free lunches, WIC, and free medical care. If everything wasn't so easy to get for free or fraudulently, many wouldn't come.

[liberalnot]

come on, is that realistic?

you never answered my question of weeks ago, who created this problem to begin with?

answer: we americans did. we did not have enough children.

question: why didn't we push our politicians to do something in the 1980's?

probably because everyone was making too much money from the cheap labor. remember the zoe baird mess? it was really the truth.

last night john and ken were attacking illegals on kfi, but then one of them mentioned his family employed a nanny!!!

give me a break. they can't have it both ways.

you never answered my question from weeks ago, would a national sales tax recover some of the injury to the average american taxpayer?

also, last evening a guy called into the john and ken show, mad as hell about their attack on governor grey davis. he didn't make much sense, until his final moments on the show when he admitted that as a restaurant owner, he does not want to pay the health care of his employees!!!

this is what we're dealing with.

[liberalnot]

it's quite possible that if you had an economist calculate the pluses and minuses that the costs you describe are balanced by the children they produce for our economy and the cheap labor and taxes they do pay.

remember, as i pointed out above, why were not illegals tolerated in the 1950s?

answer: because we had an adequate labor force. we did not need outsiders. and, culturally america was homogenous.

but the baby boom generation and feminists changed all this. the birth rate actual fell to less than replacement in the late 1970's--about 18 years after the boomer generation came to adulthood, and precisely the time when teens would be out looking for part time work.

and how many millions of americans were aborted?

as i pointed out above, many middle class parent no longer require their high school or college kids to work. again, as bill handel of kfi says, "my kids aren't flipping burgers".

[longtermmemmory]

easier to send money home? I don't think so.

the problem with modern immigrants is that they are here to get as much out of the united states and then retire back in the old country. The do not have any interest or intent in investing in the USA. There is no making their surroundings better, its just take take take. There is no gratefulness to being in the USA. Its a steal as much as possible in the USA. They are nothing more than slow motion looters.

[FITZ]

We might have created the problem ---but having children has nothing to do with it. The welfare system has much more to do with it.

[liberalnot]

true, the welfare system is a problem.



but how can you deny that the u.s. birth rate fell in the 1970's?

[FITZ]

describe are balanced by the children they produce for our economy and the cheap labor and taxes they do pay.

Unless they're taking out health insurance policies and paying the tuition for their children, each one of their children costs the US taxpayer at least $3000-5000 at birth, most qualify for WIC and food stamps plus all the free lunches at school, Head Start preschool programs, School alone will cost $6000-7000 a year per child ---often more because they need extra help and expensive bilingual programs ---for 13 years ---that's about $80,000 per child just on school alone. Medicaid for doctor's visits and any hospitalizations, emergency room visits --- the costs come out to be quite high.

[FITZ]

Actually I know quite a few kids who work ---you can go to some areas of the country and find middle class kids working in McDonalds.

[longtermmemmory]

florida orange growers were facing labor problems with an various attempts to unionize/increase labor costs. The growers invested and developed a mechanical means of picking organges. Result, less labor workers needed. That is the direction we will be going as the large corporate farms become the only type of farms.