Posted on 08/24/2003 3:58:57 AM PDT by JustPiper
COMING TO AMERICA
$7.4 billion expense hurting American kids, group says
An immigration reform group says in a new study it costs states more than $7.4 billion a year to educate illegal aliens, with budget-busted California spending more than any other.
Worse, warns the Federation for American Immigration Reform report, the extra expenditures are taking funds away from American children at a time when "public schools throughout the country are facing some of the most significant decreases in state education funding in decades."
Many Mexican children cross into U.S. from Mexico daily to go to school. (Jon Dougherty/WND photo)
"With state budgets in crisis and children taking the hit, communities' limited tax dollars are being diverted to accommodate mass illegal immigration," said the report. "In some states, the amount of money spent to educate illegal alien children accounts for a substantial portion of the state budget shortfall; in New Jersey, for instance, it accounts for 28 percent of the total state budget deficit."
FAIR says almost two-thirds of states either have cut back or proposed reductions in their child care and early childhood programs.
"In some states, drastic cuts mean lay-offs for teachers, larger class sizes, fewer textbooks, and eliminating sports, language programs and after-school activities," the report noted.
The total cost, FAIR says, is "enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide."
Other immigration reformists have said the cost of providing education and other public services to illegals has steadily been on the rise.
Adding to those costs, says Jim Boulet, Jr., head of English First, a group pushing English as the nation's official language, are translation costs to schools that must hire interpreters for Spanish-only immigrant students.
Plus, Boulet told WorldNetDaily, "Cuban Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish, Chicano Spanish, and additional forms of Spanish all exist within the borders of the U.S., creating vast potential for cross-cultural confusion" and, of course, extra expense, despite "California being an official English state."
According to the FAIR report, California spends the most – $2.2 billion – to educate illegal immigrant children. Ranking second and third, respectively, are Texas and New York.
FAIR analysts said each state's per-pupil expenditure was reported by the U.S. Department of Education. The group said it based its figures on the Urban Institute's estimate of 1.1 million school-aged illegal immigrant children currently residing in the U.S.
The report also says there are efforts underway in several states and Congress to allow illegal aliens to pay deeply discounted, in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities – rates not available to American citizens from out of state.
"As states cut school funding left and right, all of our children – native-born and immigrants alike – are receiving a poorer education as a result of the federal government passing its immigration law enforcement failures on to the states," the report concluded. "The implications for the coming generations of workers, our future economy and our long-term competitiveness in the world cannot be ignored."
Supporters of immigration say the cost to educate immigrant children – legal or otherwise – is a non-issue.
"Regardless of what the dollar figure is, these children have a right to an education," Jim Ferg-Cadima, legislative staff lawyer at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, told The Washington Times. "The issue was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided on the issue."
In the high court's 1982 decision, Plyler v. Doe, justices said in a 5-4 decision the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment forbade public schools from prohibiting any children, regardless of citizenship status, an education.
Other supporters say the cost of educating illegals is minimal compared to the overall $700 billion annual cost of public education. And, they say it is the nation's best interests to educate illegal alien children rather than ignore them.
Still, the costs are continuing to rise and they come at a time when more Americans have become fed up with providing benefits to illegal immigrants.
An Aug. 30, 2001, Harris Interactive poll found 60 percent of Americans opposed a new plan to grant illegals amnesty.
"By decisive margins, the American public believes that illegal immigration is a net drain on public resources and that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will encourage even more people to migrate illegally," the survey said.
A RoperASW poll in March found three in four Americans would reduce the number of immigrants allowed into the country annually. Fifty-eight percent would limit legal immigration to 300,000 a year, and 85 percent viewed illegal immigration as a "serious" problem.
"Illegal immigration is no free lunch," Dan Stein, executive director of FAIR, told the Times. "It's about shifting burdens – lowering labor costs at a tremendous cost not only to American taxpayers but to American kids."
Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies, said U.S. and state governments could reduce costs by enforcing laws on the books.
"The solution is to start enforcing the law – not just at the border, which is politically easy, but also inside the country," he told WorldNetDaily.
Added FAIR spokesman David Ray: "If illegal immigration is not stopped at the border, its negative consequences, including bankrupt emergency rooms and overcrowded schools, quickly become everyone's financial burden."
Monday, Aug. 25, 2003
Bi-partisan bill to reduce illegal immigration introduced Reps. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Nathan Deal (R-GA), Melissa Hart (R-PA) and Allen Boyd (D-FL) have introduced H.R. 2671, the CLEAR Act of 2003 to not only stop the illegal population in the U.S. from growing above its present estimated 10-million level but also begin slowly and steadily reducing the illegal population.
Take Action
Tancredo Introduces Mass Immigration Reduction Act
Sets Realistic Cap on the Number of Immigrants Allowed to Enter the U.S. ; Legislation Based on Recommendation by the Jordan Commission
From the Office of Congressman Tom Tancredo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 27, 2003
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, introduced the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003 or H.R. 946, legislation to limit the number and category of immigrants allowed to enter the country each year. Specifically, the bill establishes a "timeout" that will allow the federal government to control both mass immigration and border security.
“The age of mass immigration began in 1965, with legislation that dramatically increased the number of immigrants allowed into America each year,” said Tancredo. “As a nation of immigrants, each of us can trace our roots to another country, but it is not correct to argue that today's immigration level is comparable to traditional levels.”
Between 1800 and 1965, the annual number of people admitted as immigrants averaged about 200,000. Since 1990, that number has been over ONE MILLION - and that doesn't count illegal immigrants. Additionally, over 30 million people have been added to our population since 1970 as a result of both legal and illegal immigration. The Census Bureau projects that U.S. population will hit 404 million by 2050 and 571 million by 2100.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, commonly known as the Jordan Commission, for Representative Barbara Jordan, recommended a substantial reduction in annual legal immigration flows into the country. The commission recommended an immediate reduction in the amount of people permitted to enter the country each year. Unfortunately, the Congress did not pay heed to the recommendations of the late civil-rights hero, and the nation is beginning to see the consequences.
Current co-sponsors of H.R. 946 include Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), Rep. Jim Duncan (R-TN), and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA).
Nevertheless, the 2000 Census shows that immigrants continue to receive every major welfare program at higher rates than native-born Americans.
To read it all!
Immigrant Welfare Scandal Continues-By Ed Rubenstein
Posted July 30, 2003
By Paula R. Kaufman
Thomas Tancredo is a third-term Republican congressman from Colorado. As chairman of the 65-member Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus he deals regularly with such facts as these:
More than 33.1 million immigrants live in the United States, a number unprecedented in U.S. history. Poverty rates for immigrants and their U.S.-born children are two-thirds higher than for native-born Americans and their children and account for approximately 25 percent of those now living in poverty in this country. Twenty-four of the southernmost U.S. states have accrued almost $1 billion in unpaid medical care - all attributed to illegal immigration.
Tancredo worries about the innumerable U.S. jobs he says have been wiped out by immigration. He outspokenly faults the Bush administration for its open-border policy, which Tancredo believes not only has put Americans out of work but also suppressed their wages.
"I speak to people who lose their jobs to immigration: electricians, carpenters, high-tech workers. They call my office all the time. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs to immigrants, both legal and illegal," Tancredo tells Insight.
He likewise is concerned about the number of people - between 6 million and 10 million - in the United States with dual citizenship. What does this mean for America's sovereignty and the future of the country? Tancredo is not alone in his concern: Polls show that 75 percent of Americans support immigration reform.
Tancredo also blames the immigration crisis on the "liberal agenda," which he sees as encouraging immigrants to retain their language and their political allegiance to a foreign government while seeing themselves as separate and distinct from other Americans. It's a situation, he says, created by the liberal "cult of multiculturalism."
Tancredo warns about what he sees as the continuing encroachment of Mexico in the affairs of the United States. He regards the controversial matricula consular, an identification card issued by Mexico, as an effort to regularize illegal immigration into the United States.
He points out that the suspected murderer of Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff David March, arrested and deported not once but three times, lives openly in Mexico and has not been arrested by Mexican officials. The Colorado congressman seeks changes in the U.S. extradition treaty with Mexico and is considering calling for congressional-oversight hearings on the influence of Mexican cartels on U.S. politics.
What guides Tancredo's attitude toward immigration, he says, is a principle as old as the republic itself - that "we are a nation bonded by a common language, culture, manners and customs."
Insight: The U.S. economy is in a slump and Americans by the millions are out of work, yet the wholesale replacement of our workers by immigrants is under way. What gives?
Rep. Thomas Tancredo: We have a cheap-labor policy. This government has determined that part of its economic policy is to undermine the value of American jobs. We have record-high unemployment rates. We have a stagnating economy. Yet this administration refuses to take any action to reduce the number of immigrants who are coming into the country [illegally], removing Americans from their jobs and replacing them with cheap labor.
To read the Q & A and more on this hot button issue:
Insight Mag
And I have hired them to do exactly that. - The Other Harry
Uh, Harry, I hate to break the bad news to you but knowingly hiring illegal aliens is punishable by a $5,000 fine plus payment of their back taxes owed. We'll send the IRS right over to your house, OK?
When you hire an illegal alien, you might as well be buying foreign goods and services. A large chunk of their illegally earned, untaxed dollars is put into postal money orders and shipped off to Mexico. This is causing a huge, multi-billion dollar balance-of-payments drain for the United States. That money is also not available to be spent for goods and services in the USA which pay for other American jobs in this country.
What you are doing is no different than buying cheap Chinese goods made by slave child labor.
You're a great guy, Harry,...not! You're a sniveling cheapskate who is part of the problem!!
It is why I am for a massive reform in our insurance/tort policy. If they are not willing/able to stop illegal immigrants from driving, they need to pay for insurance. Do not require mandatory insurance. Instead, 5 cents per gallon at the pump. Everybody needs gas. So they gotta pony up like the rest of us. If you choose to get theft insurance, damage insurance, you can do so. If you don't, you are SOL. You are capped for medical bills, and lost wages, with no pain and suffering. If you can't prove your income, you are SOL. It lowers the insurance on everybody but the freeloaders, pisses off the insurance companies, the trial lawyers... and it will never fly.
I snipped almost all your message. But I do agree with just about everything you said.
I like it here. It does get a bit hot in summer. On the other hand, we have great nature and the political climate is much more to my liking than that of Santa Cruz. You can also afford to buy a house here. I paid $92,000 for a house that would have cost me well over $400,000 in Santa Cruz. It needs some work, but I'm getting there.
As to the immigrants, I have often wondered whether something like temporary worker passes might not be a bad idea. We used to have those.
There are a lot of problems. I know about them. But I think they can be fixed. Number 1 on my list would be to require English to be learned and spoken. I think speaking any other language should be prohibited.
You are right about line jumping. I was married to a New Zealander, and we tried to comply with the laws. It was not easy, and we went to a lot of trouble to do it.
Still, "those people" do work hard. I would see them in the fields when I was driving to Sunday brunch, stooped over, picking. Not the easiest of jobs. Not something either of my kids would ever do.
I once wanted a juniper plant removed. I don't know how much you know about juniper plants, but they have very deep roots. They are an absolute bitch to remove. I couldn't do it myself. I tried.
So, I drove down to KMart and hired a couple of the day laborers who hang around out in the front. Two hours and $40 later, the bush was gone. A perfect job.
Now, let's say $10 of that $40 went to buy quart bottles of cervaza. Another $5 went to buy gas for their beat up old car. $5 went to pay rent. The remaining $20 got sent back to Mexico.
There is no harm in any of that. Every dollar that gets sent to Mexico winds up back here. Taxes are ultimately paid on everything. And my juniper bush was gone.
You think I could have hired a couple local school kids to do that job? I could have hired a contractor for $500, but I would not have done that.
You go look in the produce section of your local market and think about this. If there were no illegal immigrants, there would be no produce section.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
