CA passed "Anti-Arizona" law to shield illegals

User Forum Topic
Submitted by ninaprincess on July 6, 2012 - 6:28am

What are these politicians smoking? 3 mil illegals in this state isn't enough and now they want to attract more from Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Mexico?

http://news.yahoo.com/california-senate-...

Submitted by no_such_reality on July 6, 2012 - 12:36pm.

Theyy're thinking they've successfully turned this into a issue about race and by being pro-immigration they'll gain cavorted (I mistyped favor my kindlenmade it cavorted. ) with the soon to be future demographic majority

Submitted by ninaprincess on July 6, 2012 - 7:21am.

With the percentage of low income, lack of education, high crime, and high cost (# of children, obesity) population increasing I think this state is going down the drain. Let's address each of these issues:

1. Most illegals have extremely low income at or near minimum wage.
2. Half of illegal children fail to graduate from HS.
3. Most of the gangsters in this states are illegals or children of illegals. Have you been to Santa Ana, Compton or Los Angeles lately?
4. How often you see illegals with one or two children walking beside them, one in a stroller, one in their arms, and one in the belly?
5. Of course, with their diet consist mostly of KFC , Tamales and sodas they will be obese.

So while they pay almost nothing in Taxes, they send their numerous children to schools with minimal results, they crowded our jails and hospitals and our politicians continue to cater to them. With the Unions already draining our budget, obviously this doesn't work for too long.

Submitted by svelte on July 6, 2012 - 7:36am.

ninaprincess wrote:

1. Most illegals have extremely low income at or near minimum wage.
2. Half of illegal children fail to graduate from HS.
3. Most of the gangsters in this states are illegals or children of illegals. Have you been to Santa Ana, Compton or Los Angeles lately?
4. How often you see illegals with one or two children walking beside them, one in a stroller, one in their arms, and one in the belly?
5. Of course, with their diet consist mostly of KFC , Tamales and sodas they will be obese.
.

Can you please site the source of the above statistics? Thanks

Submitted by ninaprincess on July 6, 2012 - 8:00am.

#1
I could find some sources but I don't need to. I can't imagine the income of people picking fruits, wash dishes, clean hotel rooms, stand around home depots are high.

#2
41 percent of all Mexicans between ages 16 and 19 in the city [of NY] have dropped out of school, according to census data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/nyregi...
This is for all Mexicans, legal and illegal. I am sure the dropout percentage of illegal only is higher.
#3
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/0...
#4
The children of illegal immigrants accounted for 8 percent of all babies, even though those immigrants are about 4 percent of the adult population.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010...
#5
http://johnshopkins.academia.edu/Gilbert...

Submitted by briansd1 on July 6, 2012 - 9:16am.

The bill makes perfect sense to me.

The police's job it to police and fight crime. It's not the police's job to check immigration status.

So what if unauthorized immigrants are of low social-economics. Legalize them so they can get out of the shadows and they'll better themselves and help grow our economy.

Remember, those immigrants are already in California and aren't going anywhere. Better to help them move up than keep them down.

Submitted by deadzone on July 6, 2012 - 9:53am.

briansd1 wrote:

Remember, those immigrants are already in California and aren't going anywhere. Better to help them move up than keep them down.

Well if the government actuall enforced employee verification and punished employers of illegal aliens (as per the existing federal laws), many illegals WOULD return home. But, right now they live in the open with no fear, especially in CA. Plus the liberals keep dangling the Amnesty carrot in front of them so they are even more inclined to wait it out.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 6, 2012 - 10:25am.

deadzone wrote:

Well if the government actuall enforced employee verification and punished employers of illegal aliens (as per the existing federal laws), many illegals WOULD return home. But, right now they live in the open with no fear, especially in CA. Plus the liberals keep dangling the Amnesty carrot in front of them so they are even more inclined to wait it out.

deadzone: Yup, if the gubment did its damn job and enforced the LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS much of this would simply go away (or back over the border.)

But the Dems AND the GOP have more incentive to maintain the status quo ante and continue to buy votes versus risk angering their respective "constituencies."

Submitted by deadzone on July 6, 2012 - 10:35am.

Speaking of Arizona, they are one of only four states that requires ALL employers use E-verify. Does anyone know how/if that is working so far and if it has changed anything?

On the flip side, CA is one of only two states who limts the use of E-verify. Great to knwo we live is such a "progressive" state.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn...

Submitted by briansd1 on July 6, 2012 - 11:01am.

Laws are only enforced within reason and within the resources allocated. Some laws are more vigorously enforced than others.

We don't stop all speeders. And we don't arrest all drunk drivers.

We don't enforce all building code violations. Should we have more inspectors drive around and force homeowners to tear down illegal patio covers?

Maybe some states should enforce their laws that make adultery a crime.

Submitted by harvey on July 6, 2012 - 11:10am.

What I find interesting about those who are against "illegal" immigration is that almost nobody understands the selection process for "legal" immigrants.

Why are some people allowed in, and others aren't?

What's the process, and who controls it?

Who decides which immigrants are "legal?"

And why does everyone assume that the current process is "correct?"

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 6, 2012 - 11:37am.

I am against elderly legal immigrants collecting SSI and Medi-Cal (who were brought into the US ALREADY elderly) by their "deadbeat" children-sponsors. These often "American Citizen" children-sponsors promise under oath to support their parent(s) for life in exchange for permanent residence status in the US. When their grandchildren grow up and their child-care duties are over, the child-sponsor/parent decides to no longer support them. Or even more often, the child-sponsor overspent on a house they could never afford in the first place, leaving the elderly immigrant-relative homeless when they lose it to foreclosure.

Sponsors should be held to their sponsor-oath they took with the INS. If they can no longer support the immigrant-parent or other elderly relative they sponsored, they need to scare up funds from other relatives, if necessary, to send them back their home country.

This situation is VERY common in South County SD, especially among Filipino families. These elderly immigrants brought over for childcare and house and yard upkeep have NEVER worked in the US and thus NEVER contributed ANYTHING to Social Security. By the time they get their "benefits" (after being "dumped" by their sponsors), they've got $550 - $800 mo coming in from SSI, PLUS Medi-Cal/Medicare. Some use a different mailing address (from their sponsor) for purposes of receiving benefits and then later move back in with their sponsor after their sponsor re-establishes another residence after foreclosure.

It's a scam but my Congressman Bob Filner supports all this. He's very tight with the immigrant communities.

Submitted by no_such_reality on July 6, 2012 - 12:12pm.

harvey wrote:
What I find interesting about those who are against "illegal" immigration is that almost nobody understands the selection process for "legal" immigrants.

Why are some people allowed in, and others aren't?

What's the process, and who controls it?

Who decides which immigrants are "legal?"

And why does everyone assume that the current process is "correct?"

There are several methods.

The two most common are sponsorship: either employment or personal.

It should be noted that sponsorship of a non-family member is likely a decade long process.

Then is the lottery.

Then is the special diversity lottery for low-immigration countries. That's mere 50,000 visas a year.

Then there are variations of buying your way in. One way, is investment and 'job' creation. If you create enough jobs (I think 5), you can get in. And a net $500,000 investment. There are 10,000 slots for that.

There may be more.

Most importantly, all require a semblance of being self sufficient show they have funds as to not become destitute in the USA.

The medical check and police check are also required. The police check likely requiring many layers of baksheesh in their country of origin and likely of little contributing value other than limiting low level criminals.

Or, the 'undocumented' route, pay aa smuggler to bring you through a tunnel, through the fence and desert or other ways through the border and into the city and turn you lose, no checks, no docs, no funds.

Submitted by harvey on July 6, 2012 - 12:43pm.

no_such_reality wrote:

There are several methods.

[...]

Most importantly, all require a semblance of being self sufficient show they have funds as to not become destitute in the USA.

Understood. But clearly there are a large number of "illegals" who come here to work, and although very poor, are not destitute.

There seems to be a basic contradiction in the policy. It's based on economics, but there is a large underground economy that the policy ignores.

Quote:
The police check likely requiring many layers of baksheesh in their country of origin and likely of little contributing value other than limiting low level criminals.

I love the term "baksheesh." Doesn't have any direct translation in English, as it's not quite as improper as a "bribe." Fun, if you're a tourist in that part of the world. Of course now we are talking about a different sort of brown person...

Submitted by all on July 6, 2012 - 12:51pm.

harvey wrote:
What I find interesting about those who are against "illegal" immigration is that almost nobody understands the selection process for "legal" immigrants.

Why are some people allowed in, and others aren't?

What's the process, and who controls it?

Who decides which immigrants are "legal?"

And why does everyone assume that the current process is "correct?"

There are three designed methods of changing your status from non-resident to resident:
1. Employment based, where an employer initiates the process. The candidate can be in the US. Transition from H1B is the most common scenario, since H1B is a 'dual intent' visa, i.e. you do not surrender your right to apply for permanent residency when you apply for H1B. You cannot transfer from visitors (B) or from intra-company (L). In theory the candidate can be outside of the country during the process, but the process in most cases takes too long and few companies will do that. The process generally takes one or more years. If you are from India and the position does not require masters degree you might have to wait a decade or two. About 150K adjusts status every year through EB, and that number includes primary applicants (future employees) and immediate dependents. That includes spouse and children under 18 - the cut off is based on the age at the end of the process and there are cases of children who 'aged out' - i.e. turned 18 while waiting.

2. Family based. A citizen can sponsor parents and spouse, subject to no quota. Thanks to the previous amnesty and the rule that says no country can get more than certain % of the total, you can't really sponsor anyone (including unmarried children and siblings) if you are from Mexico or Philippines since the wait time is ~20y. For the rest of the world, the wait time is ~10y for siblings and ~7y for unmarried children. There are 200-250K adjustments/year.

3. Lottery. ~50K visas/year, you have to be from a country that is not 'over-represented' already (like UK, Mexico or China), have highschool diploma or equivalent experience.

If you have AIDS or tuberculosis you can't immigrate.

The only way to adjust status if you overstay your visa (or come here illegally) is to get married to a citizen, or be granted asylum.

There is constant talk about immigration reform, but most recent 'major' change is from Clinton's 1996 welfare reform that removed family-based immigrants from being eligible for certain benefits. Tech companies are pushing for changes on the employment based side, but democrats (Hispanic caucus in particular) are holding EB hostage. The pattern is simple - one year 'they' talk about 'comprehensive solution' which includes amnesty in some form and that is blocked by republicans. Then when the initiative fails 'they' try partial approach, which is blocked by democrats because 'we need comprehensive solution'. Occasionally someone will start talking about Canadian/Australian style of immigration program where a candidate gets points for certain things, like high demand occupation, age, language skills, arranged employment, family ties and the influx is controlled by the cut-off number (when economy is doing good they lower the bar, when it's bad they raise the bar), but that is not supported by the same Hispanic caucus.

Generally, Reagan's amnesty is seen as major cause of the current problems. It clogged the legal family-based channel and it did not solve the problem of new illegals coming. If anything it made it worse since it created a precedent.

Submitted by deadzone on July 6, 2012 - 12:59pm.

Sure there is a huge underground economy that is not taken into account by the immigration policy.

But for the illegal immigration appologists, their main argument is that these are jobs that nobody else will do. Or the argument that without illegals we will pay twice as much for a box of strawberries. In other words, their fundamental assumption is that effectively our society is so dependent on cheap illegal immigrant behavior that that we can't survive without it.

That is a fundamental assumption that I don't agree with. But granted, if the government really decided to enforce immigration employment, they may need to make policy adjustments to offer more seasonal employment Visa for agricultural workers, etc.

But my fundamental viewpoint has always been that any particular business or industry in the U.S. that is reliant on illegal immigrant workers to survive is simply not a viable business and should fail. So what if we can't harvest affordable strawberries? If they are too expenseive here then import them from Mexico. That way Mexican farm workers can actually find work in their own country.. what a concept. The only people truly benefiting from the illegal workers here are the rich business owners.

Submitted by svelte on July 6, 2012 - 1:07pm.

You, madam, are prejudiced.

ninaprincess wrote:

#1 Most illegals have extremely low income at or near minimum wage.
I could find some sources but I don't need to. I can't imagine the income of people picking fruits, wash dishes, clean hotel rooms, stand around home depots are high.

Usually, the first generation of immigrants from ANY part of the world do the lower end jobs. Italians, Irish, Chinese, you name it...they took lower end jobs just to make ends meet in this land of opportunity.

ninaprincess wrote:

#2
"Half of illegal children fail to graduate from HS."
41 percent of all Mexicans between ages 16 and 19 in the city [of NY] have dropped out of school, according to census data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/nyregi...
This is for all Mexicans, legal and illegal. I am sure the dropout percentage of illegal only is higher.

So you exhaggerated. Your original post did not specify it was NYC only - and it stated a figure of 41%, not half.

Second I know a few illegal immigrants. And I can tell you they are the hardest working people I know. They are good, decent, people who work twice as hard as most American citizens that I know. Whether they have a degree or not.

ninaprincess wrote:

#3 "Most of the gangsters in this states are illegals or children of illegals."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/0...

The link to the study sited in the article is broken. You still need to provide a reference...

ninaprincess wrote:

#4
"How often you see illegals with one or two children walking beside them, one in a stroller, one in their arms, and one in the belly"
The children of illegal immigrants accounted for 8 percent of all babies, even though those immigrants are about 4 percent of the adult population.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010...

You fail to mention why babies are a bad thing. And once you do come up with a reason, you need to tell the Catholic Church.

ninaprincess wrote:

#5
"Of course, with their diet consist mostly of KFC , Tamales and sodas they will be obese"
http://johnshopkins.academia.edu/GilbertoLopez/Papers/318437/_Why_are_we_so_Fat_Mexican_Immigrant_Perceptions_of_Obesity_in_Californias_Central_Valley

I see your point. We should ban all overweight people from the country. Let's start by looking through YOUR family tree.

Seriously, posts like this make me want to puke.

As a coincidence, I've been tracing back my family tree this year. Several branches of that tree came across the Atlantic in the early 1600s. They came to a place that did not give them permission to come - they had no visas and the Indian natives fought them tremendously - several of my relatives were killed or injured by Indians. Yet we now sit here full of pomp and prejudice spewing half truths or shaded truths to justify keeping others out.

Submitted by Hobie on July 6, 2012 - 1:17pm.

Nice accurate summary Cra. But remember that the Reagan amnesty was to, 'wipe the slate clean' and to prove that the GOP could reach across the aisle and compromise.

Problem is that the Fed's never followed up with effective border control and enforcement and the problem resurfaced and ballooned.

I think this perceived giving in by the GOP with no benefit is one of the current contributing factors as to why the GOP is not willing to compromise much these days.

Submitted by harvey on July 6, 2012 - 1:11pm.

deadzone wrote:
Or the argument that without illegals we will pay twice as much for a box of strawberries. In other words, their fundamental assumption is that effectively our society is so dependent on cheap illegal immigrant behavior that that we can't survive without it.

Let me rephrase that for you. Removing the hyperbole:

- The group of people we call "illegals" impose an economic cost on our society.

- They also bring economic benefits.

Do the costs outweigh the benefits? You'll get dramatically answers depending upon who you ask.

I'm not convinced that the costs are that high. Even if there is a net cost, I'm also not sure the costs are higher than the cost of trying to prevent it (e.g. the solution could be worse than the problem.)

Submitted by sdduuuude on July 6, 2012 - 2:26pm.

Won't be too long before a good concrete work costs $50 an hour in AZ and $5/hr in CA.

Submitted by Brutus on July 6, 2012 - 4:53pm.

ninaprincess wrote:
With the percentage of low income, lack of education, high crime, and high cost (# of children, obesity) population increasing I think this state is going down the drain. Let's address each of these issues:

1. Most illegals have extremely low income at or near minimum wage.
2. Half of illegal children fail to graduate from HS.
3. Most of the gangsters in this states are illegals or children of illegals. Have you been to Santa Ana, Compton or Los Angeles lately?
4. How often you see illegals with one or two children walking beside them, one in a stroller, one in their arms, and one in the belly?
5. Of course, with their diet consist mostly of KFC , Tamales and sodas they will be obese.

So while they pay almost nothing in Taxes, they send their numerous children to schools with minimal results, they crowded our jails and hospitals and our politicians continue to cater to them. With the Unions already draining our budget, obviously this doesn't work for too long.

And the problem is?????

Submitted by Brutus on July 6, 2012 - 4:56pm.

svelte wrote:
You, madam, are prejudiced.

ninaprincess wrote:

#1 Most illegals have extremely low income at or near minimum wage.
I could find some sources but I don't need to. I can't imagine the income of people picking fruits, wash dishes, clean hotel rooms, stand around home depots are high.

Usually, the first generation of immigrants from ANY part of the world do the lower end jobs. Italians, Irish, Chinese, you name it...they took lower end jobs just to make ends meet in this land of opportunity.

ninaprincess wrote:

#2
"Half of illegal children fail to graduate from HS."
41 percent of all Mexicans between ages 16 and 19 in the city [of NY] have dropped out of school, according to census data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/nyregi...
This is for all Mexicans, legal and illegal. I am sure the dropout percentage of illegal only is higher.

So you exhaggerated. Your original post did not specify it was NYC only - and it stated a figure of 41%, not half.

Second I know a few illegal immigrants. And I can tell you they are the hardest working people I know. They are good, decent, people who work twice as hard as most American citizens that I know. Whether they have a degree or not.

ninaprincess wrote:

#3 "Most of the gangsters in this states are illegals or children of illegals."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/0...

The link to the study sited in the article is broken. You still need to provide a reference...

ninaprincess wrote:

#4
"How often you see illegals with one or two children walking beside them, one in a stroller, one in their arms, and one in the belly"
The children of illegal immigrants accounted for 8 percent of all babies, even though those immigrants are about 4 percent of the adult population.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010...

You fail to mention why babies are a bad thing. And once you do come up with a reason, you need to tell the Catholic Church.

ninaprincess wrote:

#5
"Of course, with their diet consist mostly of KFC , Tamales and sodas they will be obese"
http://johnshopkins.academia.edu/GilbertoLopez/Papers/318437/_Why_are_we_so_Fat_Mexican_Immigrant_Perceptions_of_Obesity_in_Californias_Central_Valley

I see your point. We should ban all overweight people from the country. Let's start by looking through YOUR family tree.

Seriously, posts like this make me want to puke.

As a coincidence, I've been tracing back my family tree this year. Several branches of that tree came across the Atlantic in the early 1600s. They came to a place that did not give them permission to come - they had no visas and the Indian natives fought them tremendously - several of my relatives were killed or injured by Indians. Yet we now sit here full of pomp and prejudice spewing half truths or shaded truths to justify keeping others out.

And how did that "illegal immigration" thing work out for those Native Americans?

Submitted by CA renter on July 6, 2012 - 10:21pm.

Lots of good information about gangs here:

There are approximately 1.4 million active street, prison, and OMG gang members comprising more than 33,000 gangs in the United States. Gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions, although the West and Great Lakes regions boast the highest number of gang members. Neighborhood-based gangs, hybrid gang members, and national-level gangs such as the Sureños are rapidly expanding in many jurisdictions. Many communities are also experiencing an increase in ethnic-based gangs such as African, Asian, Caribbean, and Eurasian gangs.

Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence. Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/public...

This is already outdated. It would be interesting to see current numbers:

Age and race/ethnicity of gang members were measured in the
1996, 1998, and 1999 surveys. In 1996, respondents reported
that 50 percent of gang members were juveniles (i.e., younger
than 18) and 50 percent were adults (i.e., 18 and older). In 1999,
these numbers were 37 percent and 63 percent, respectively. In
1999, respondents reported that 47 percent of gang members were
Hispanic, 31 percent African American, 13 percent white, 7 percent
Asian, and 2 percent “other.”
The distribution of race/ethnicity of
gang members varied little across measurement years.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs...
-------------------------

We can keep pretending that it's not a problem, though. Wouldn't want to offend anyone or seem "politically incorrect," now would we? Perhaps if we bury our heads in the sand, these issues will all fix themselves.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.