Illegal immigration!

The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico do not like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.

The State of Sonora is angry with the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico. It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor - made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.

The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.

The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government.

'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales.

'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,' she said, speaking in Spanish.

'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said.

'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Wrong! The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.

It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona. Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Too strict ?

The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !

And they have the gall to call AZ racists? We're a 100 times more lenient than they are! Too lenient of course.

The latest telephone poll taken by the Arizona Governor's office asked whether people who live in Arizona think illegal immigration is a serious problem?

29% responded, "Yes, it is a serious problem."

71% responded, "No es una problema seriosa"

Bueno!

If there is 14 mexicans in a van. who is driving?

Anwser: The border patrol!

95 % of Warrants in Los Angeles are for Illegal Aliens

83 % of Warrants for Murder in Phoenix Arizona are FOR Illegal Aliens

86 % of Warrants for Murder in Albuquerque New Mexico are for Illegal Aliens

75 % of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque are Illegal Aliens

24.9 % Of All Inmates in California detention centers are Mexican Nationals here Illegally

40.1 % of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican Nationals here Illegally

29 % (630,000) Convicted ILLEGAL ALIENS felons fill our state and federal prisons at the cost of $1.5

Crime Billion Annually

53 % Plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpertrated by illegal aliens

50 % Plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

71 % Plus of all apprehended Cars stolden in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were stolden by illegal aliens or "transport Coyotes"

47 % of cited / stopped Drivers in California have NO License, NO Insurance, and No Registration for the vehicle of that 47 %, over 92 % were Illegal Aliens

63 % of cited / stopped Drivers in Arizona have NO License, NO Insurance, and No Registration for the vehicle of that 63 %, over 97 % are Illegal Aliens

66 % of cited / stopped Drivers in New Mexico have NO License, NO Insurance, and No Registration for the vehicle Of that 66 %, over 98 % were Illegal Aliens

Births

380,000 Plus "Anchor Babies" were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S. Citizens 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid for by American taxpayers.

66 % OF all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid by taxpayers

Illegal immigration Housing

300,000 plus illegal aliens in Los Angeles Country are living in garages

Nearly 60 % of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration Joke TV & Radio Stations

14 out of 31 TV stations in L.C. are Spanish only16 out of 28 TV stations in Phoenix are Spanish only

15 out of 24 TV stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish only

17 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish only 17 radio stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only

Illegal immigration Schools

34% plus of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 24% plus are non-English speaking

39% plus of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 42% plus are non-English speaking

In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English - 3.9 million speak Spanish

Illegal immigration Social Services

43 % of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens

41 % of all Unemployment Checks in the United States are to illegal aliens

58 % of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens

Less than 2 % of illegal aliens are picking crops but 41 % are on welfare

Illegal immigration Population

Over 70% of the U.S. annual population growth (and over 90% of CA, FL, and NY) results from immigration

Employer Profits

The estimated profit to U.S. corporations and businesses employing illegal aliens in 2005 was more than 2.36 trillion

Illegal immigration Taxes

62 % of all "undocumented immigrants" in the U.S. are working for cash and not paying taxes, predominantly illegal aliens are working without a green card

The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 (last known calculation by Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University) was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay), $70 Billion per year. What are the 2006 costs?

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average illegal alien is $55,000 cost to the American taxpayer in a 5-year span. You personally pay $11,000 every year to illegal aliens.

JOBS (per Center for Immigration Studies - September 2006): Between 2000 and 2005, 4.1 million immigrant workers arrived in the U.S., accounting for 86% of the net inrease in the total number of employed persons (16 & older), the highest share ever recorded in the U.S. Of the 4.1 million, between 1.4 and 2.7 million are estimated to be illegal aliens. Also, between 2000 and 2005, the number of young (16 to 34) native-born men employed declined by 1.7 million - at the same time, the number of new male immigrant workers increased by 1.9 million. Do you still believe the employment.html">gov't employment rate stats?

Action: Please share this data with elected officials, particularly those who spew the PCBS about all the "contributions of illegal aliens to our society" AND "our economy would collapse without them"! However, NONE of this will matter IF our borders are not secured OR Pres. Bush succeeds in abolishing them (via his SPP, NAU, NAFTA Hwy), and illegal alien murders, drug smugglers and terrorists continue to be welcomed into our country! Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Under this definition, an illegal immigrant is a foreigner who either illegally crossed an international political border, be it by land, sea or air, or a foreigner who legally entered a country but nevertheless overstay their visa in order to live and/or work therein.

Illegal immigration Global statistics

According to the Report of the Secretary-General on International migration and development, most migrants are in the high-income developed countries, 91 million in 2005. Low and lower-middle income countries, 64 percent in Oman. In Europe, only Luxembourg approaches this level, with 45% of the labor force foreign.

Rate of immigration to the United States relative to sending countries' population size, 2001-2005The European Union allows free migration between member states (with some restrictions on the so-called New Member States, or those which joined in 2004 and 2007). Most is from former eastern bloc states to the developed western European states, especially Italy, Spain, Germany and Britain. Noticeably, some countries seemed to be favoured by these new EU member nationals than others. For example, there are large numbers of Poles who have moved to the UK and Netherlands, while Romanians have chosen Italy and Spain.

According to Eurostat, Some EU member states are currently receiving large-scale immigration: for instance Spain, where the economy has created more than half of all the new jobs in the EU over the past five years.

British emigration towards Southern Europe is of especial relevance. Citizens from the European Union make up a growing proportion of immigrants in Spain. They mainly come from countries like the UK and Germany, but the British case is of especial interest due to its magnitude. The British authorities estimate that the real population of UK citizens living in Spain is much larger than Spanish official figures suggest, establishing them at about 1.000.000, about 800.000 being permanent residents.

In fact, according to the Financial Times, Spain is the most favoured destination for West Europeans considering to move from their own country and seek jobs elsewhere in the EU.

Illegal immigration Causes

Theories of immigration traditionally distinguish between push factors and pull factors. Push factors refer primarily to the motive for emigration from the country of origin. In the case of economic migration (usually labour migration), differentials in wage rates are prominent. Poor individuals from less developed countries can have far higher standards of living in developed countries than in their originating countries. Escape from poverty (personal or for relatives staying behind) is a traditional push factor, the availability of jobs is the related pull factor. Natural disasters can amplify poverty-driven migration flows. This kind of migration may be illegal immigration in the destination country (emigration is also illegal in some countries, such as North Korea).

Emigration and immigration are sometimes mandatory in a contract of employment: religious missionaries, and employees of transnational corporations, international non-governmental organisations and the diplomatic service can expect to work 'overseas'. They are often referred to as 'expatriates', and their employment.html">conditions of employment are typically equal to or better than those applying in the host country (for similar work).

For some migrants, education is the primary pull factor. Retirement migration from rich countries to lower-cost countries with better climate, is a new type of international migration. An example is immigration of retired British citizens to Spain or Italy. Some, although relatively few, immigrants justify their drive to be in a different country for cultural or health related reasons and very seldom, again in relative quantitative terms compared to the actual number of international migrants world-wide, choose to migrate as a form of self-expression towards the establishment or to satisfy their need to directly perceive other cultural environments because economics is almost always the primary motivator for constant, long-term, or permanent migration, but especially for that type of inter-regional or inter-continental migration; that holds true even for people from developed countries.

Non-economic push factors include persecution (religious and otherwise), frequent abuse, bullying, oppression, ethnic cleansing and even genocide, and risks to civilians during war. Political motives traditionally motivate refugee flows - to escape dictatorship for instance.

Some migration is for personal reasons, based on a relationship (e.g. to be with family or a partner). In a few cases, an individual may wish to emigrate to a new country in a form of transferred patriotism. Evasion of criminal justice (e.g. avoiding arrest) is a (mostly negative) personal motivation. This type of emigration and immigration is not normally legal, if a crime is internationally recognized, although criminals may disguise their identities or find other loopholes to evade detection. There have been cases, for example, of those who might be guilty of war crimes disguising themselves as victims of war or conflict and then pursuing asylum in a different country.

Barriers to immigration come not only in legal form; natural barriers to immigration can also be very powerful. Immigrants when leaving their country also leave everything familiar: their family, friends, support network, and culture. They also need to liquidate their assets often at a large cost, and incur the expense of moving. When they arrive in a new country this is often with many uncertainties including finding work, where to live, new laws, new cultural norms, language or accent issues, possible racism and other exclusionary behaviour towards them and their family. These barriers act to limit international migration: scenarios where populations move en masse to other continents, creating huge population surges, and their associated strain on infrastructure and services, ignore these inherent limits on migration.

Illegal immigration Victims

At least 8,175 people have died since 1988 along the European borders, according to the Fortress Europe observatory on the victims of illegal migration to Europe. Among them 2,755 were missing in the sea. In the Mediterranean sea, and through the Atlantic Ocean towards Spain, 6,027 migrants died. In the Sicily channel 1,929 people died along the routes from Libya and Tunisia to Malta and Italy, including 1,118 missing; 33 other people drowned sailing from Algeria to Sardinia. Along the routes from Mauritania, Morocco and Algeria towards Spain, through the Gibraltar strait or off Canary islands, at least 2,929 people died, including 1,206 who were missing. In 2006 alone 6,000 people are reported to have died. 514 people died in the Aegean sea, between Turkey and Greece, including 252 missing and 474 people died in the Adriatic sea, between Albania, Montenegro and Italy, including 136 missing. But the sea is not only crossed aboard makeshift boats. Sailing hidden inside registered cargo vessels 148 men died asphyxiated or drowned.

Sahara is a dangerous obliged passage in order to arrive to the sea. People cross it on trucks as on off-road vehicle along the tracks between Sudan, Chad, Niger and Mali from one side and Libya and Algeria on the other one. Here at least 1,069 people have died since 1996. According to the survivors, nearly every travel counts its victims. So the number of the victims could be higher and higher. The data includes also the victims of the collective deportations practiced by Tripoli, Algeria and Rabat Governments, accustomed to abandon groups of hundreds migrants in open desert border areas.

In Libya serious migrants abuses are also recorded. There is not any official data, but in 2006 Human Rights Watch and Afvic accused Tripoli of arbitrary arrests, beatings and tortures in the migrants detention centers, three of which are financed by Italy. In September 2000 in Zawiyah, in the north-west of the Country, at least 560 foreigners were killed during racist putsches.

In the Dominican Republic, Haitian immigrants are the subject of frequent physical attacks by Dominincan Nationalist mobs. Children and grandchildren of suspected Haitian ancestry are denied birth certificates, citizenship, education and medical care.

Traveling stowaways in the trucks 247 people were found dead in Albania, France, Germany, Greece, Turkey, U.K., Ireland, Italy, the Nederlands, Spain and Hungary.

Along the Greek border with Turkey there are still mine-fields along the Evros river. Here at least 88 people died over the mines trying to enter Greece.

And then: 51 people drowned crossing rivers delimiting the frontier between Croatia and Bosnia; Turkey and Greece; Slovakia and Austria; Slovenia and Italy; 41 people froze to death in the icy mountains at the border in Turkey, Greece and Slovakia; 20 people died under the trains in The Channel tunnel trying to reach England; 11 people burnt after a deportation centre in Holland caught fire; 11 people were killed by Turkish, French and Jugoslave policemen and 8 men were found dead hidden in the undercarriage of the planes.

Illegal immigration Differing perspectives

Immigration is often highly politicized, and in some countries, a major political issue. Opposition to immigration is generally far more prominent than support for it, but that is to some extent countered by economic interests.

Illegal immigration Supporting arguments

Illegal immigration General arguments

The main arguments cited in support of immigration are economic arguments, usually related to labour supply, and cultural arguments appealing to the value of cultural diversity. Some groups also support immigration as a device to boost small population numbers, like in New Zealand, or, like in Europe, to reverse demographic aging trends. The main anti-immigration themes are xenophobia, economic issues (costs of immigration, and competition in the labour market), environmental issues (impact of population growth), and the impact on the national identity and nature of the nation-state itself.

Support for fully open borders is limited to a minority. Some free-market libertarians believe that a free global labour market with no restrictions on immigration would, in the long run, boost global prosperity. There are also groups which oppose border controls on idealistic and humanitarian grounds - believing that people from poor countries should be allowed to enter rich countries, to benefit from their higher standards of living. Others are advocates of world government and wish to eliminate or severely limit the power of nation-states. This includes the nation-state's ability to grant and deny individuals entry across borders, which advocates of world government generally view as arbitrary and unfair distinctions made on what should be one planet earth.

Illegal immigration Economic arguments

More limited support for increased labour migration comes from economists and some business interests in the developed world. Although multinational corporations require free movement of senior staff, they are not necessarily the main users of immigrant labour (though in high-demand, high-pay occupations like engineering, where it takes a long time to educate new professionals, immigrants may make up much of the labour force in countries as varied as Dubai or New Zealand)

Medium and small businesses (restaurants, farms) may be the most dependent on low-wage foreign labour. In specific sectors, there is a business lobby for immigration, usually in the form of green card systems, intended to facilitate specific and limited labour flows. Countries like New Zealand, which has experimented with both qualifications- and job-offer-based entry systems, have reported that under the latter system (where much weight is put on the immigrant already having a job offer), the immigrants actually show a much lower uptake of government benefits than the normal population. Under a mostly qualification-based system, many highly trained doctors and engineers had instead been reduced to driving taxis.

Illegal immigration Opposing arguments

Illegal immigration Economic arguments

Economic needs-driven immigration is opposed by labour-market protectionists, often arguing from economic nationalism. The core of their arguments is that a nation's jobs are the property of that nation, and that allowing foreigners to take them is equivalent to a loss of that property. They may also criticise immigration of this type as a form of corporate welfare, where business is indirectly subsidised by government expenditure to promote the immigration and the assimilation of the immigrants. A more common criticism is that the immigrant employees are almost always paid less than a non-immigrant worker in the same job, and that the immigration depresses wages, especially as immigrants are usually not unionised. Other groups feel that the focus should be not on immigration control, but on equal rights for the immigrants, to avoid their exploitation.

Arguments against the cost of immigration - for instance the provision of schools for the additional population - are prominent in the United States and Canada, see Economic impact of immigration to Canada.

Illegal immigration Nationalistic arguments

Non-economic opposition to immigration is closely associated with nationalism, in Europe a nationalist party is almost a synonym for anti-immigration party.

Although traditionally, economic arguments dominated the United States immigration debate, it has become more polarized in recent years, as evidenced by nationalist demands to deploy the military to the US borders. The emergence of private border militias in the United States has attracted much media attention. Nevertheless, the southern border of the European Union in the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla has at least as many military patrols as the US-Mexico border.

The primary argument of the nationalist opponents in Europe is that immigrants simply do not belong in a nation-state which is by definition intended for another ethnic group. Britain, in this view, is for the British, Germany is for the Germans, and so on. Immigration is seen as altering the composition of the national population, and consequently the national identity. From the nationalist perspective, high-volume immigration simply alters their country more than is desired or even necessary. Some of the support for this nationalist opposition comes from xenophobes who instinctively fear the presence of foreigners, but it is also consistent with the nationalist ideology. Germany was indeed intended as a state for Germans: the state's policy of mass immigration was not foreseen by the 19th-century nationalist movements. Immigration has forced Germany and other western European states to re-examine their national identity: part of the population is not prepared to redefine it to include immigrants. It is this type of opposition to immigration which generated support for anti-immigration parties such as Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the British National Party in Britain, the Lega Nord in Italy, the Front National in France, and the Lijst Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands.

One of the responses of nation-states to mass immigration is to promote the cultural assimilation of immigrants into the national community, and their integration into the political, social, and economic structures. In the United States, cultural assimilation is traditionally seen as a process taking place among minorities themselves, the melting pot. In Europe, where nation-states have a tradition of national unification by cultural and linguistic policies, variants of these policies have been proposed to accelerate the assimilation of immigrants. The introduction of citizenship tests for immigrants is the most visible form of state-promoted assimilation. The test usually include some form of language exam, and some countries have reintroduced forms of language prohibition.

In Latin America, the government of the Dominican Republic promotes the ideology of AntiHaitianismo; an idea that the Dominican Idenity is at risk of extinction if Haitian immigrants are allowed to settle in large numbers in the occupied territory.

Illegal immigration Environmentalist arguments

Environmentalist opposition to immigration is prominent in the United States, which has the largest absolute numbers of immigrants. Responses to immigration are a controversial topic among environmental activists, especially within the Sierra Club. Some oppose the immigration-driven population growth in the United States as unsustainable, and advocate immigration reduction. Other environmentalists see overpopulation and environmental degradation as global problems, that should be addressed by other methods. Most European countries do not have the high population growth of the United States, and some experience population decline. In such circumstances, the effect of immigration is to reduce decline, or delay its onset, rather than substantially increase the population. The Republic of Ireland is one of the only EU countries comparable to the United States in this respect, since large-scale immigration contributed to substantial population growth. Spain has also witnessed a recent boost in population due to high immigration.

Illegal immigration As political issue

The political debate about immigration is now a feature of most developed countries. Some, such as Japan, traditionally had very little immigration, and it was not a major political issue. Some countries such as Italy, and especially the Republic of Ireland and Spain, have shifted within a generation, from traditional labour emigration, to mass immigration, and this has become a political issue. Some European countries, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, have seen major immigration since the 1960s, and immigration has already been a political issue, for decades. Political debates about immigration typically focus on statistics, immigration law and policy, and the implementation of existing restrictions. In some European countries the debate in the 1990s was focussed on asylum seekers, but restrictive policies within the European Union have sharply reduced asylum seekers. In western Europe, the debate now focuses on immigration from the new member states of the EU, especially from Poland.

The politics of immigration have become increasingly associated with others issues, such as national security, terrorism, and in western Europe especially, with the presence of Islam as a new major religion. Some right-wing parties see an unassimilated, economically deprived, and generally hostile immigrant population as a threat to national stability. They fear new events such as the 2005 civil unrest in France. They point to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as an example of the value conflicts arising from immigration of Muslims in Western Europe. Because of all these associations, immigration has become an emotional political issue in many European countries.

Illegal immigration Ethics

Although freedom of movement is often recognized as a civil right, the freedom only applies to movement within national borders: it may be guaranteed by the constitution or by human rights legislation. Additionally, this freedom is often limited to citizens and excludes others. No state currently allows full freedom of movement across its borders, and international human rights treaties do not confer a general right to enter another state. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizens may not be forbidden to leave their country. There is no similar provision regarding entry of non-citizens. Those who reject this distinction on ethical grounds, argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right, and that the restrictive immigration policies, typical of nation-states, violate this human right of freedom of movement. Note that a right to freedom of entry would not, in itself, guarantee immigrants a job, housing, health care, or citizenship.

Where immigration is permitted, it is typically selective. Ethnic selection, such as the White Australia policy, has generally disappeared, but priority is usually given to the educated, skilled, and wealthy. Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, cannot avail of these immigration opportunities. This inequality has also been criticised as conflicting with the principle of equal opportunities, which apply (at least in theory) within democratic nation-states. The fact that the door is closed for the unskilled, while at the same time many developed countries have a huge demand for unskilled labour, is a major factor in illegal immigration. The contradictory nature of this policy - which specifically disadvantages the unskilled immigrants while exploiting their labour - has also been criticised on ethical grounds.

Immigration polices which selectively grant freedom of movement to targeted individuals are intended to produce a net economic gain for the host country. They can also mean net loss for a poor donor country through the loss of the educated minority - the brain drain. This can exacerbate the global inequality in standards of living that provided the motivation for the individual to migrate in the first place. An example of the competition for skilled labour is active recruitment of health workers by First World countries, from the Third World.