Another "inconvenient truth" about illegal immigration...disease

Last month, 50 students and teachers at Lilburn Middle School in Gwinnett County, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta , tested positive for tuberculosis exposure, and four have been confirmed to have an active case of TB.. While that news may be shocking to most, it is nothing new. In October 2009, about 200 students at the county’s Norcross High School underwent testing, after TB was discovered at the school.

Of course, Atlanta is a known ‘sanctuary city’ for illegal aliens.

It is often said that the flood of illegal immigrants into this country is reaching 'epidemic proportions.' While that statement is true, it is just as true that the illegal immigrants pouring over the U.S./Mexican border are endangering this country with actual epidemics. Tuberculosis, hepatitis, dengue fever, chagas, and even leprosy are being imported into the U.S. inside the bodies of illegal aliens.

http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/another-inconvenient-truth-about-illegal-immigration-disease

CAN OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AFFORD MASS IMMIGRATION?

According to the US Census Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security, in 2007, 59% of illegal aliens, 43.8% of foreign-born non-citizens and 33.2% of the foreign-born population as a whole, lacked medical insurance. This has led the Hispanic lobby, “La Raza”, to demand that illegal immigrants be included in upcoming health care reform. But given the fiscal constraints necessarily imposed on a government which President Obama concedes is essentially “broke”, it is questionable whether generosity of this scale is affordable. The experience of a number of states who have born the brunt of medical treatment for undocumented residents reveals the tip of the approaching iceberg.

In California close to 3 million illegal residents, comprising 7% of the state’s population, incurred between $4-6 billion in costs, primarily for prisons, jails, schools and the emergency wards which must treat them.

A survey conducted by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimated that $677 million was spent on health care for illegal aliens, of which $597 was spent in the fiscal year before August 31/2006.

http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com/2009/07/can-our-health-care-system-afford-mass.html

European Patriots March Against Mass Immigration and Remember Swedish Martyr Daniel Wretström R.I.P.

For most people involved in the white nationist movement in northern Europe Daniel Wretström’s name raises many thoughts and feelings. Daniel Wretström was a young Swedish Nationalist boy who was a victim of brutal assault and murder at the evening of the 9th of December 2000. Those who attacked and killed him were a group of criminal foreigners, who basically got away with Wretström’s brutal murder. The main suspect and the principal accusee of the first-degree murder of Wretström, one Khaled Odeh, who slit Wretström’s throat, was sentenced to a psychiatric clinic. Odeh was pronounced “mentally ill” and so he was not held responsible for Wretström’s death. Of course, Odeh knew all the time that his ultra-violent assault could lead to someone’s death. Odeh also knew what would happen if he slit the throat of a living man! Odeh had whipped himself into a rage against the “evil racist” and decided to kill him, and Odeh knowingly killed Daniel Wretström. Daniel Wretström’s life ended in a long, slow nightmare of brutality back then in Salem near Stockholm, seven years ago.

http://www.davidduke.com/general/european-patriots-march-against-mass-immigration-and-remember-swedish-martyr-daniel-wretstrom-rip_6359.html

Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe

“Thanks to your democratic laws, we will overtake you; thanks to your religous laws, we will rule over you.” –Imam of Izmir (Citation according to Gernot Facius, DIE WELT, 6 October 2001)

The Example of Denmark

The Islamization of Europe is in full swing. The majority of Europeans are helpless against this development. They are informed neither about the true essence of Islam, nor about the background of Islamic politics on European soil. The Muslims have not come to integrate into European societies. Their goal is the transformation of Europe into an Islamic realm where only Shari’a, the law of Islam, will rule.

(An Essay by Michael Mannheimer, Second Revision, Germany, German original published in August 2009 (see also PI-PDF). The PDF-version of the English translation by Anders Denken, you find here. Contact: M.Mannheimer@gmx.net)

This series of documents brings important information to light with regard to this issue with the hope that the expanionist desires of the Muslims and their supporters in the Western Elite will be met with much needed resistance.



http://www.pi-news.org/2010/03/eurabia-the-planned-islamization-of-europe/

Divisive Politics of Mass Immigration in sending and receiving countries

Political outcome of poaching skilled and educated elites

The poaching of skilled and educated people from other overpopulated countries is a way of removing a class of people in those countries, who might otherwise lead their compatriots to struggle against overpopulation and exploitation by corporations and crooked governments and religions.

It serves a base political purpose and helps keep people of the third world in misery.

What is more, when large volumes of skilled and educated people come to a new country, they naturally focus initially on establishing themselves and their families. It takes quite some time to establish oneself materially. They do not tend to focus on the political well-being of their new country any more than they did on the political well-being of their old country. It may not be until the second generation that most immigrants become spontaneously politically active.

http://candobetter.org/node/1627

The folly of mass immigration

The argument of the ‘People Flow’ report that mass immigration is normal, irreversible and beneficial to host societies is a damaging illusion. Rather, the current experience of developed western countries, faced with huge inflows of people – refugees, asylum-seekers, economic migrants – from poorer parts of the world, is unprecedented and damaging. The process can and should be stopped, in the interests of the rich diversity of nations it will otherwise crush.

A failure of vision

The desire to regularise, and thus sanction, irregular immigration is founded on four assumptions. First, that mass immigration is a normal part of human life; second, that it cannot be controlled; third, that almost all immigration is beneficial to the host society; and fourth, that immigration is a right not a privilege and that the host society has no right to choose who can live amongst it.

Together, these assumptions take the politically fashionable and emotionally comfortable route of focusing almost exclusively on the needs and desires of actual and potential immigrants, and almost completely ignoring the needs and desires of both Europeans and sending countries. Thus, they fall into the trap of so much of the current immigration debate – failing to imagine and project a vision of the sort of world that it might be desirable to create in the long term.

The active promotion of mass immigration does nothing to stem its causes. On the contrary, by fuelling the brain drain from the developing to the developed world, it increases the former’s dependency on the latter. It intensifies a world of flux, divided families, splintered communities, cultural alienation and ethnic resentments – a world where those who can, live in the west, while those who cannot live in the rest.

A different, humane vision is needed, one of a world of “sustainable societies”. This involves capacity building in the developing world so that most people are able to live in their society rather than feeling they have to leave it. Such a world will be enabled to celebrate the diversity between nations, rather than demographically engineering nations to look alike.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1193.jsp

'Economic benefits of mass immigration are close to zero'

Claims that mass immigration has benefited the economy have been 'wildly overstated' by the Government, experts said yesterday.

Record levels of migration have brought virtually no economic benefit to Britain, the House of Lords was told.

Ministers have repeatedly insisted that newcomers contribute £6billion a year to the country's balance sheet.

But an authoritative report by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, debated yesterday, blew apart Labour's claims that the wave of immigration from Eastern Europe had enormous benefits.

Instead, it was worth just 58p each week on the living standards of the native population – about the price of a Mars bar.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085759/Economic-benefits-mass-immigration-close-zero--Lords-told.html

Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants

The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends.

The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

How Mass Immigration Impedes Assimilation

One of the most immediate effects of the overly high immigration level our country has today is the growth of groups of people who are not well assimilated into our larger national culture. This exacerbates ethnic separatism and related problems.

The civic involvement upon which our free society is founded is weakened:

“Inability to speak English impairs the capacity of a citizen to digest political speech, to serve on juries, to participate in judicial proceedings, to serve in the armed forces, and to participate in a military mobilization. From the viewpoint of society, the fact that some citizens will escape the obligations and miss the opportunities of America will only enhance the prospect for isolation and ethnic strife.”1

Business and social transaction costs rise, as time, effort, and money are spent overcoming language and cultural barriers. Communication becomes difficult, often due to language barriers.2

“But as more and more commerce is fouled by fast-food clerks who mistake orders, taxicabs drivers who misunderstand directions and telemarketers who can’t explain why they called, sociologists and consumer behaviorists detect a palpable, collective complaint that’s evolved into one of the most politically incorrect questions of the ’90s: Can’t anyone here speak English? ... Poor English skills among foreign-born residents cost more than $175 billion a year in lost productivity, wages, tax revenue and unemployment compensation, says Ohio University economist Lowell Gallaway.”3

Furthermore, in today’s economy, notes Cornell University labor economist Vernon Briggs:

“it’s accentuated because 80 percent of the workforce is employed in service jobs. A lot of these jobs are filled by immigrants. But by definition, service means communication. If workers can’t communicate, it certainly effects quality of life.”4

Language aside, cultural differences alone can create problems. In November 1996, an Iraqi immigrant was jailed in Nebraska for forcing his 13- and 14-year-old daughters to marry men more than twice their age, who were also jailed for statutory rape. The men explained that they were following the tradition of their country and did not understand our government’s reaction.5

As a natural result of cultural conflict, ethnic strife and separatism grow:

“American secessions have rarely been viewed with alarm [but] in the 1990s...we are more inclined to consider them a serious threat to national unity, especially since that unity is being stretched to the breaking point by ethnic revanchiste movements fueled by Third World immigration. ... In any major city, the peace is disturbed by Latino, black, and Asian nationalist gangs, which in some cases are only the shock troops of ethnic movements seeking the racial dismemberment of the United States. In refusing to control immigration, the Federal Government is writing a script for ethnic civil war. Why?”6



http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters641a

Mass Immigration – and Exploitation

FrontPagemagazine.com

Frontpage interview’s guest today is Dr. Stephen Steinlight, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies.


FP: Who are the real victims of mass immigration?

Steinlight: I’m grateful you have used the phrase “victims of mass immigration” because this transformational social engineering has produced and is producing millions of victims. The mass immigration we’re experiencing by the uneducated and unskilled is having a disastrous impact on the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens: the unemployed, partially employed, the elderly still working, African American males, recent legal immigrants, young people entering the job market, and all working-class or lower-middle class Americans with no more than a high school education. These consequences are not debatable: a wealth of data from the most prestigious social science research bodies has established them as fact. Among the most significant literature is the National Research Council of the American Academy of Science’s study New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigrants; the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Immigration and African-American Employment; and the Russell Sage and Ford Foundation’s Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality, among other seminal work. The mass of uneducated and unskilled immigrant workers is lowering wages and worsening working conditions for millions of Americans while creating feverish competition for the shrinking stock of low-income urban housing with resultant social conflict, most often between black and brown.

FP: The raid at AgriProcessors can be seen as an American-Jewish story, right? Expand on the significance here in terms of Jewish politics in America etc.

Steinlight: What gives the raid at AgriProcessors added frisson is the fact that this exploitative, corrupt enterprise happens to be the largest producer of kosher meat in America and thus plays an integral role in the religious lives of observant Jews – from the small percentage of Reform Jews that keep kosher to most Conservative Jews to all Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox. The raid is thus inescapably an American-Jewish story, even in the literary sense. I’ve noted elsewhere that AgriProcessors thuggish “pious owners” could emerge straight from the pages of Michael Chabon and do excellent impersonations of the members of the Shpilman-Rudashevsky criminal consortium in the Yiddish Policeman’s Union. The raid and its aftermath will undoubtedly raise consciousness about illegal immigration among ordinary members of the American-Jewish community. In fact, leaders within the Conservative Movement have called upon rabbis to devote sermons to the subject during the coming High Holidays, at least insofar as it affects Jewish religious practice and values.

In the realm of religious practice, many in the Conservative Movement have called for an additional requirement for meat to be certified as kosher: a hechsher tzedek, a “certification of justice,” meaning the workers who produce it are treated fairly. An official consumer certification would be something new, but the concept is as old as the teaching of the Hebrew prophets who derided religiosity or shows of faithfulness to the letter of Jewish law unaccompanied by allegiance to its spirit: doing justice to one’s fellow human beings, especially to the humble and to one’s workers. There is also a significant body of rabbinical commentary and literature that has historically mocked as “unkosher” meat and such ritual foods such as matzoth produced under inhumane conditions.

But apart from widespread Jewish expressions of abhorrence regarding the exploitative conditions at AgriProcessors, what of the more comprehensive politics of the issue? What of the wholesale violation of the rule of law by illegal immigrants? What of threats to American national security and sovereignty? What about the impact of illegal and impoverished immigrants on the most vulnerable Americans? It’s difficult to predict how the ICE raid at AgriProcessors will ultimately affect the views of ordinary American Jews, but there’s good reason to believe it will provide an opening for greater and fuller consideration of all these issues, issues that are already on the radar screen of a great many ordinary American Jews.

One thing is crystal clear, however: nothing can change the Weltanschauung of the American-Jewish establishment, a body of politically correct Lib-Left agencies (exemption here for robust American military and diplomatic support for Israeli policies as well as a strong US military presence abroad) that monolithically favor open-borders immigration and offer apologias for illegal immigration even while their own institutional policy statements draw a distinction between supporting “generous legal immigration” rather than “illegal immigration.” Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The establishment is forever stuck in mythic nostalgia about immigration, wanting to uphold the fairy tale that there was one Great American saga of our Nation of Immigrants of which the Jews were a part, indeed a prototypical example. But just as America is more than a nation of immigrants – it was first a settler society and out of that settler society emerged our Founders and our great, enduring founding documents – Jewish immigrant experience was also sui generis, even during the Great Waves from Europe. Jews were essentially refugees, not immigrants. Like most other immigrants they were poor, but poverty was not the precipitating cause of their departure from their countries of origin. They were the only group that migrated in only one direction: no one returned to the vicious, often lethally anti-Semitic countries they left. The Jewish Establishment draws outrageously false analogies equating legal Jewish immigrants who fled religious persecution and political oppression in East/Central Europe to that of illegal economic immigrants who currently live double lives here and in their countries of origin.

The establishment also fails to note the distinction between their own forbears who whole-heartedly embraced Americanism (my father who fled the Petliura pogroms in Ukraine among them) and who learned English within a few years of arrival – to the current wave of illegal aliens and immigrants most of whom remain transnationals with divided loyalties and identities and evince little enthusiasm about joining the American polity. It is particularly striking that though Mexicans are by far the largest immigrant group, only 17% have chosen to naturalize. Nothing could be further from the attitudes of our parents and grandparents. When confronted with these false analogies, Establishment hacks inevitably fall back on Scripture and engage in “eisegesis” (reading their own policy preferences into the text), wrenching Leviticus 19:33 out of context by failing to note the clear distinction in the Biblical Hebrew between sojourners and permanent residents. It’s also worth mentioning that God has no office on Capitol Hill and doesn’t engage in partisan politics, and Leviticus is not a policy paper on immigration in America in 2008.

While the American-Jewish establishment purports to represent America’s Jews – it gets away with this trick much too often on Capitol Hill – no one elected them to do so, and we should not take them at their word. Their arrogant pretensions are becoming ever more transparent. Its principal organizations have aging, diminishing memberships. When I worked at the American Jewish Committee a standing joke among the staff was that a “young leadership group” meant any body of members not on life-support.

Many Jewish philanthropists prefer to have buildings named for them at their alma maters or donate to elite cultural institutions rather than fund Jewish organizations, and the so-called “defense agencies” seem to have no clear idea what they’re defending Jews against. Some appear more concerned about Mormon conversion of dead Jews than Jihadism. Their anachronistic agendas and secular liberalism fail to resonate with those younger American Jews who are more religious and thus more politically conservative, while their sometimes visceral tribal defensiveness turns off the more assimilated and hip.

It’s also true with regard to the issue of immigration that there’s a large divide between the “elite” and ordinary Jews, as is the case within American society at large. Immigration is indeed the “perfect policy storm,” as was famously said at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, one that divides the American people more profoundly from the political and financial elite than any other issue.

CIS has permitted me to make a mission of speaking to and with ordinary American Jews across the country about immigration policy, and I’ve addressed more American Jews on this subject than anyone else. I’ve spoken to thousands of American Jews at scores of synagogues, community centers, local chapters of national Jewish organizations, in retirement communities, etc. I’ve written extensively for the Jewish press. When I speak the audiences are overwhelmingly with me. They are wonderfully teachable, even in old age, prepared to let facts about changing demography, threatened sovereignty, exploding population, and dangers to the environment and our quality of life overcome long-standing ideological preconceptions and commitments.

They are also patriots, not post-Americans. They care deeply about the impact of mass immigration on the country they love. They remember keenly – if the American-Jewish Establishment’s arrogance has caused it to forget – that America is Exceptional, that it has provided them a home like no other in Jewish history. Except for Israel, there is no other country on earth where a Jew is not a more or less tolerated guest in another man’s house. With the exception of a relative handful of “Post Americans” by choice, the great majority of America’s Jews feel fully at home in the United States. They see its interests and theirs as one. It will take time and patient effort, but I am convinced they will ultimately relegate the establishment’s worldview – perhaps its fealty to a politically correct “Post American” view of immigration first – to the dustbin of history.



http://www.cis.org/massexploitation

Japan Simply Rejects Mass Immigration

The United Nations, which is staffed largely with Third-Worlders, loves to publish reports about how the West is withering away and can save itself only with immigration from, of course…..the Third-World.

Japan is another rich country the UN wants to help repopulate. If current trends continue, it says, there will be only 90 million Japanese by 2050. The Japanese government says the correct figure is about 103 million, but no one doubts the long-term trend is down. There will be fewer Japanese and more old people.

The New York Times recently carried a typically condescending article telling us that the question is “whether this country remains an economic powerhouse or its population shrivels and the slow fade of the Japanese economy turns into a rout.” Quoting a UN study, the Times claimed Japan needs 17 million new immigrants by 2050 in order to “restore demographic equilibrium.” The Japanese, suggested the article, will have to get over their dislike of foreigners and become multicultural – just like America!

Does Japan face a crisis? The current population is 126.6 million, the highest it has ever been, and is still slowly rising—about a tenth of a percent last year. In 2002 there were 1,152,000 births, so the Japanese are not exactly vanishing. Still, the average Japanese woman is now having only an estimated 1.3 children in her lifetime, so barring more births or immigration the population will eventually shrink.

The average Japanese reaction: “So what?” Japan is about the size of California but with the equivalent of nearly half the population of the United States crammed into it. A drop from today’s 127 million to 100 million or even 75 million would make for a more comfortable number.

And even 75 million would be more than the current populations of Britain or France. The Swedes don’t sit around feeling sorry for themselves because there are only nine million of them.

The alleged problem is not simply in the numbers, but in the age distribution—the prospect of lots of old people having to depend on a small labor force for their pensions. But this is not so daunting for Japan as for some other countries. Japanese have the quaint idea that the primary social support organization is the family. Their retirement programs are not as generous as in Europe, and require a smaller work force. For decades, Japanese have had high savings rates for just this reason: they look to their own resources. Although we Americans fancy ourselves “rugged individualists,” we are more dependent than Japanese on government handouts.

http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/japan-simply-rejects-mass-immigration/

Some Truths About Immigration

The trouble for the government is that while promoting mass immigration might make people feel cosmopolitan and modern, and calling critics racist may make people feel virtuous, few of the consequences of mass immigration have been thought through. The long immigration silence has meant that all negative consequences of migration have been suppressed, and only the positive aspects talked about. If you blind yourself to all negative consequences of a complex policy, you are bound to conclude that it is a thoroughly good thing and want as much of it as possible. Civil servants sat with ministers discussing all the good things about immigration without anyone daring to think any of the bad things, and they concluded that the borders should be pushed wide open.

Likewise, the government refused to accept that mass immigration from disease-prone countries brings in diseases until a piece I wrote for this magazine caused a storm of protest (and the usual smearing), and the government was provoked into reviewing the need for immigrant health tests. But there are many other issues that the government still refuses to face up to:

1. Mass immigration hugely exacerbates the housing crisis. When Migration Watch produced a report last week saying that levels of immigration would require 1.8 million extra homes by 2021, the government threw insults, said the figures were plucked out of thin air and refused to produce its own forecasts. In fact, Migration Watch simply used the government's own housing methodology, and the Housebuilders Federation says immigration is a leading driver in the demand for new housing. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, responsible for housing, is taking away the rights of communities to refuse to have housing imposed on them, and yet refuses to admit that there is any connection between immigration and housing demand. The amount of housing needed is so vast that it will be impossible for the government to build its way out of this crisis. Like importing an HIV epidemic from Africa, this is an issue that won t go away.

2. Britain is already overcrowded: it is one of the most densely populated islands in the world; twice as densely populated as France and eight times as densely populated as America ―and increasing population density damages quality of life. Already, we can t find space for new airports, roads, prisons and asylum centres. It is not just millions of new houses, but the new infrastructure of roads, hospitals, schools, water supplies and other utilities. Our public transport system is ridiculously overstretched and roads are excessively congested. The government has embarked on a programme of population growth through immigration that will push the population up from 60 million to 66 million by 2031 but it refuses even to talk about the consequences of this.

3. Mass immigration -as opposed to limited immigration of skilled workers to meet shortages- damages the employment prospects of those already here, particularly the unskilled. The Home Office commissioned an economic study on the impact of immigration, which found that an increase in immigration amounting to 1 per cent of the non-immigrant population would lead to an increase of 0.18 percentage points in the non-immigrant unemployment rate. However, in an extraordinary act of politically correct immigration denial, the immigration minister Beverley Hughes issued a press release saying, ‘The research shows that it is simply not true that migrants “take the jobs” of the existing work force’.

However, London, where most immigrants come, has become the unemployment black spot of Britain, with 7 per cent joblessness, higher than any region of the UK. There is such a large pool of cheap labour that, for the first time ever, national chains such as McDonald s and Burger King are no longer paying their highest rates in central London. Shop shelf-fillers now earn 10 per cent less in London than the average for the rest of the country. The world s leading expert on the economics of migration, Professor George Borjas of Harvard University, complains that everyone is happy to accept that increasing labour supply reduces wages in all circumstances except when it comes to immigration, when they enter denial.

4. Imposing mass immigration on a society that doesn’t want it damages relations between the communities that are already here. If people are opposed to the immigration policy, they are likely to be opposed to the people it brings in and will often confuse immigrants with those born here. The old wisdom that a firm but fair immigration policy is essential for good race relations has been forgotten by the government. Refusing to address legitimate concerns forces voters into the hands of extremist parties such as the British National party.

5. Mass immigration increases inequality in society by increasing the wealth of those who employ immigrants (who tend already to be rich) and reducing that of those who compete with them (who tend to be poor). The US government has estimated that half the rise in income inequality in the US is due to mass immigration.

6. Mass immigration is no solution to an ageing society, because immigrants grow old at just the same pace as non-immigrants. One of the country's top pension experts, Professor David Miles, said that trying to solve the pension crisis by importing more people is “madness”.

7. Mass migration of unskilled workers promotes low-skilled, low-wage industries and reduces economic productivity. Alan Greenspan told the Senate earlier this year that labour shortages in the US in the last century, when immigration was very low, forced companies to innovate and was the main reason why productivity in the US overtook that of Europe. Importing unskilled labour did nothing to save the textile mills of the north of England, and this disastrous policy has left behind impoverished, bitterly divided communities.

8. Much if not most of the supposedly temporary migration such as student visas, holiday working visas and seasonal agricultural workers is permanent because the dream of life in the West is so powerful for so many from the poor parts of the world. The government has no controls to ensure that those it invites in actually leave.

9. White flight is ghettoising Britain’s cities and fragmenting communities. A totally unpublicised report commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister last year found that white flight was now a leading cause of internal migration in the UK. In London as a whole, white Britons account for just 60 per cent of the population, and for fewer than half the population in six London boroughs. Mass immigration from the Third World to the cities exacerbates white flight, but the government refuses to face up to the consequences. Professor Robert Putnam, author of the celebrated Bowling Alone, which is about the decline of community spirit in the US, has found that the more ethnically diverse a population, the less sense of community there is.

The government may not face up to these issues, but an increasing number of people are doing so. Bob Rowthorn, the left-wing professor of economics at Cambridge, dismisses all the economic arguments and opposes mass immigration on the grounds that all people have a right to decide their culture; Geoff Dench of the left-wing Institute of Community Studies in London's East End opposes mass immigration because of the welfare loss to the white working class, and because it is so damaging to race relations; Professor Lord Layard, the designer of Labour s welfare-to-work programme, has warned of the damaging impact on the unskilled; Ruth Lea, the head of policy at the Institute of Directors, has called on government to reduce immigration ―she insists businesses must look beyond the short-term profits of cheap labour, and look at the long-term social and economic consequences.



http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_england_immigration_truths_browne_a.htm

Jewish involvement in shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965:

- A Historical Review of the 1965 Open Immigration Law.

http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-USA.php

http://www.wake-up-america.net/jews_and_immigration.htm

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf

YouTube - The Jewish Role in U.S. Immigration Law Pt. 1 of 2

YouTube - The Jewish Role in U.S. Immigration Law Pt. 2 of 2

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.

Verify at: http: //www.drdsk.com/articles.html

The total cost is a whopping $ 338..3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

http://www.xerraireart.com/blog/2010/01/31/the-cost-of-illegal-immigration/

Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost?



The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year.

Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin says his state loses between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion each year on illegal immigrants. In addition to the fiscal costs of incarcerating and educating illegal immigrants and their families, Arizona also faces a variety of other indirect costs, says Martin, who favors Arizona's controversial new immigration law.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317&page=1

Cost of Illegal Immigration Rising Rapidly in Arizona, Study Finds

Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion in 2009, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.

Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.

FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.

FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.

Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.

FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/immigration-costs-rising-rapidlty-new-study-says/

How much does illegal immigration cost Georgia?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) conducted a study to analyze the impact of illegal immigration on Georgia's economy. This 2008 study showed that illegal aliens cost the state more than $1.6 billion per year. This amount equates to $523/year per "native-born headed household." There are fiscal costs of illegal immigration but there are social costs also.


In education, one of every 10 students in the K-12 public school system are the children of illegal aliens. This amounts to over 153,000 students and at a rate of $8,500 per child, Georgians spend $1.37 billion annually and an additional $81 million annually on programs for limited English students.


The costs of medical care fall into two main categories: Medicaid and Emergency Room care. Although illegal aliens are not eligible for Medicaid, forged documents are used and the subsequent costs for healthcare amount to $111 million/year. Emergency room care costs for illegal aliens are $90 million/year. The total healthcare costs are $210 million each year.


The costs to incarcerate deportable illegal aliens in Georgia's state and local prisons amount to approximate $22.6 million/year at an approximate cost of $18,853 per prisoner.


Other costs associated with illegal immigration are:

Welfare assistance on behalf of US-born children of illegal aliens;
Tax losses from workers in the underground economy paid in cash & money sent abroad;
Public assistance to Americans displaced due to illegal employment.
The social costs of illegal immigration are:

Challenges to the learning environment in schools from an influx of linguistically and academically unprepared illegal alien students;
Congestion, inconvenience, and property value loss from the presence of illegal aliens living in over-crowded conditions & in areas in which day-laborers seek jobs;
Delay in receiving medical attention in hospital emergency facilities impacted by illegal aliens seeking assistance;
Frustration in communicating with a growing population of non-English speakers;
A higher incidence of crime committed by illegal aliens and a greater threat from uninsured & hit-and-run drivers.

In today's environment of scarce resources, Georgia cannot afford to continue to fund an illegal population. The General Assembly just passed an $17.8 billion budget. Imagine the number of legal residents that could be helped if $1.6 billion of the budget was not going to illegal aliens.

http://www.examiner.com/immigration-in-atlanta/how-much-does-illegal-immigration-cost-georgia

The Cost of Immigration

Most immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. Through present immigration policy, we are admitting over one million mostly poor people into our society every year —a society that is already challenged to deal with the poverty of its natives.

The cost of immigration to our society is enormous. The most recent estimate places the net cost of post-1969 immigrants at $61 billion in 2000 alone ($35 billion from legal immigrants and $26 billion from illegal immigrants).1 This is after immigrants’ contribution in taxes has been subtracted. As high as the cost is now, the rising tide of immigration will lift it even higher in years to come. By the end of 2002, the annual net cost of immigration will have risen $66 billion.2

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, based on the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, analyzed the cost of immigrants based on their specific use of means-tested welfare (both direct and indirect), and found that the total immigrant receipt of benefits in 1996 came to $180 billion.3 That annual amount is sure to grow as the population of legal and illegal immigrants receives over one million new people a year.

The real costs are probably even higher than these estimates, which do not take into account the effects of immigration in displacing American workers from their jobs and depressing wages. Whatever the annual cost, it is sure to grow as the population of legal and illegal immigrants—now at 31 million—receives over a million new people every year. With immigration policy skewed toward admitting relatives from underdeveloped countries and away from skilled admissions, the flow of immigrants is increasingly composed of the unskilled and undereducated. As a result, “immigrants arriving in the past decade or so are earning less compared to native-born Americans than immigrants who arrived in earlier decades.”4 In other words, the overall earning power of the immigrant population will continue to deteriorate, making them an even bigger drain on taxpayers.

Occasionally, there have been studies that have claimed to find that immigrants create less of a deficit (or even a surplus). But these studies are marred by common flaws, such as using old data on the immigrants of 20 or 30 years ago and the omission of whole categories of less skilled immigrants.5

Unreimbursed Medical Expenditures

Many public hospitals in the United States, especially in the Southwest, are facing major financial difficulties because of the services that they are rendering to indigent alien patients (many of whom are in the country illegally). As a response, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) introduced legislation in July 2002 to require the federal government to compensate the hospitals for these expenses so that the burden would not be borne only by local taxpayers.

State Costs of Incarceration

The Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), begun in 1994, compensates states and local jurisdictions only for incarceration of illegal aliens who are serving time for a felony conviction or at least two misdemeanors. However, the level of compensation appears to be falling, leaving more and more of the costs to be borne by state and local taxpayers.

In 1999, the latest year for which full data is available, states claimed expenses of $1.484 billion for 69,502 illegal alien detention-years through SCAAP. (An illegal alien detention-year may mean the detention of one or several illegal aliens, the latter case occuring when an alien is incarcerated for less than a full year.) The SCAAP program compensationed states and local jurisdiction for only 39 percent of that amount, leaving nearly $911 million to be paid by the state and local taxpayers.

The partial data available for 2002 indicates that the level of compensation to the states has fallen still more, to less than 20 percent of expenses in 2002.6 Adding to the problem, there has been an increase in criminal aliens in detention. Between FY'99 and FY'02, alien detention increased by 45 percent (from about 69,300 inmate years to over 100,300 inmate years). For 2003, the support to the states was still further reduced, as the funds for SCAAP were cut from $550 million in 2002 to $250 million.

(These expenses do not include the costs of public safety expenditures, detention pending trial, expenses of trial procedings, interpretation, public defenders, or the incarceration expenses of immigrants for minor offenses that do not meet the standards of the SCAPP reimbursement program.)

While the cost of taking care of poor immigrants may be shifted by legislation among the levels of government and the private sector, the fact remains that immigration creates an enormous fiscal burden on America and its citizens—a burden that Congress has levied upon us through short-sighted and haphazard immigration policy.

Americans should demand that Congress reduce the immigrant flow and alter the criteria for admission to ameliorate the cost of immigration to our society.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters87d3

What does it really cost the American taxpayer for illegal immigration?

Not only in money but also in American lives.

Americans are being Killed by Illegal Aliens everyday. The fact is there are 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens, more than the U.S. death toll of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's more than 30,000 Americans killed by illegal aliens since Sept. 11, 2001.

U.S. Citizens killed by Illegal Aliens

Studies have found that illegal immigration causes substantial human costs to American citizens and legal immigrants. Those that are particularly vulnerable are children, women and minorities.

According to the 2006 House Committee on Homeland Security Border Report, every year an estimated 4,300 American citizens lose their lives by an illegal immigrant. Several thousands of senseless deaths could have been prevented if our federal, state and local law enforcement would enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.

The Violent Crimes Institute estimated that there are 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States, which averages about four victims each. There are many victims that our Congress has failed to protect and accepts as collateral damage. Substantiating the human cost, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that illegal immigrants molest more than 2,900 children. How many more thousands of children will be victimized until we speak up for them?

For fair and open debate on the impact of illegal immigration, we cannot ignore the human costs to American citizens or accept it as collateral damage. It is time for our U.S. Reps. to listen to their constituents to secure our borders and to NOT give anyone that is here illegally ANY TYPE OF AMNESTY.

It is time to get off our ass and call all our representatives. Tell them to secure our borders and no amnesty to anyone that is here illegally.

http://www.illegalimmigrationcosts.com/

The High Cost of Cheap Labor

Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.


Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).


With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.


On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.


Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.


If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.


Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.


Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.


The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.


The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.


The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

The Growing Cost of Illegal Immigration To Social Security

Unprecedented Growth in Social Security's "Earnings Suspense File"

By Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare Policy Analyst

Summary

A huge inconsistency between U.S. immigration law and Social Security threatens to undermine the income security of millions of U.S. senior citizens and the disabled. In 2004 Congress passed legislation requiring immigrants to have work authorization at the time a Social Security number is assigned or at some later time, in order to become entitled under Social Security.(1) Therefore, immigrants who obtain authorization to work in this country may eventually claim benefits based on all earnings.

Despite tightening the law, Congress did not fix a policy loophole that would be inadvertently triggered with the passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. When determining entitlement for insured status, and when calculating the initial retirement benefit, the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses all reported earnings from covered employment in the United States, even if the earnings were from illegal or "unauthorized" work. (2)

This policy benefits immigrants who have broken U.S. immigration and employment laws and have worked using a stolen or fraudulent Social Security number. In addition, this policy flaw raises questions as to whether Social Security eligibility acts as an incentive for more illegal immigration in the future.

Although immigration law forbids work without authorization, immigrants do find jobs, and the majority of employers report their earnings to SSA. Each year SSA receives hundreds of millions of W-2s. When the name and Social Security number (SSN) do not match SSA's records, the W-2 is held in the Earnings Suspense File (ESF). Recent data indicates that in recent years the ESF is growing at an unprecedented pace and the cumulative wages represented is now $585 billion. These wages can later be reinstated to valid Social Security numbers when immigrants gain work authorization. Because earnings are used to determine both the number of quarters of coverage worked for insured status, and the initial retirement benefit, this poses a substantial liability to the Social Security Trust Fund and would worsen its solvency.

It's widely anticipated that benefits will be cut, perhaps significantly, for retirees at some point in the relatively near future, and that significantly higher taxes will be needed. In addition, this inconsistency between Social Security and immigration law suggests that newly work-authorized immigrants may benefit in the future, at least to some extent, at the expense of native-born U.S. workers and retirees who paid into the system legally over their entire working careers.


...

http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/102880.asp

Why Immigration Can’t Save Social Security

The logic of saving Social Security through immigration, which makes sense at first glance, falls apart when you inspect the details.

In a new article for the Christian Science Monitor, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues that higher immigration could help save Social Security and Medicare. This is an increasingly familiar argument advanced by Reich and others. And on its face this makes sense: if these programs face insolvency because the population is aging, then importing more young people can help fix the problem.

But this argument is wrong. (Moreover, Reich should know it’s wrong, since when we shared a panel on a recent television program he made the claim and I explained why it falls short.)

Here’s the problem explained in a little greater detail, using two charts from an article in the International Migration Review by my former Social Security Administration colleagues Howard Iams and Lee Cohen (I should note that while I’m using their charts, I have no idea of their position on the issue).

Iams and Cohen discuss the characteristics of immigrants over the past few decades and how they’ve been treated by the Social Security program. While they touch on a number of issues, I will focus on the rates of return received by immigrants relative to native-born individuals.

The first chart looks at nonimmigrant Americans born in the late Baby Boom years. The vertical axis in the chart represents the percentage of the population, while the horizontal axis represents the rate of return paid by Social Security. The bars show the percentage of native-born individuals receiving a given rate of return. The median rate of return for this group was slightly less than 2.9 percent. Since the program’s trust fund generates an interest rate of around 3 percent, these folks were about neutral with regard to the system’s financing—they paid taxes about equal to the benefits they received. Some received higher returns and others received lower ones, based on their earnings levels, longevity, and other factors, but you have a fairly typical “bell curve” distribution of returns.

The second chart focuses on immigrants born in the late Baby Boom who arrived in the United States after 1969. Most immigrants do pretty well from Social Security since they have low incomes (so that they benefit from the system’s progressivity) and shorter working careers (so they pay fewer taxes). The median rate of return for this group was 3.4 percent. Since the trust fund return is around 3 percent, immigrants typically received more in benefits than they paid in taxes. It’s hard to premise a financial rescue of entitlements programs on having more participants who pay less than they receive.

But it’s the distribution of rates of return that’s even more telling. There’s a fairly normal bell curve distribution centered at a 4 or 5 percent return. The most interesting group is the almost 10 percent of the immigrant population who receive a 100 percent negative return: these folks pay taxes into Social Security but receive no benefits in return.

Who are these people? Most of them will be illegal immigrants, who pay Social Security taxes but are prohibited from receiving benefits. They’re good for Social Security’s finances, as well as for Medicare’s, simply because they pay but don’t receive. This may surprise some folks who think illegal immigration is harming Social Security, but it just isn’t true.

So you really have two distinct groups of immigrants: illegal immigrants, who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and legal immigrants, who pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits.

Now think what comprehensive immigration reform usually entails: first, immigrants in the country illegally would generally receive some form of legalization—call it amnesty, a path to citizenship, whatever. So a large group of immigrants, who under current law would not receive benefits, now would receive benefits. Good for them, not so good for Social Security’s finances. Second, reform would likely increase the flow of legal immigrants into the country. Since these folks pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, it’s hard to call this a win for solvency either.

The logic of saving Social Security through immigration, which makes sense at first glance, falls apart when you look at the details.



Why Immigration Can (http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/why-immigration-cant-save-social-security)

Illegal immigration is a tax-dollar drain

President Obama and Congressional Democrats have been talking about giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Tax Day seems like a good time to examine the impact that such a policy would have on your wallet.

Start with education. Using the average annual American public school elementary and secondary education costs, the Federation for American Immigration Reform has estimated that the total cost of K-12 education for illegal immigrant minors and the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is $28.6 billion a year.

Then there’s health care. If illegal immigrants are covered in the health care bill (there is not a strong verification mechanism to ensure they won’t get benefits), it would increase the bill’s costs between $10-$30 billion. Of course, it won’t matter if illegal immigrants receive amnesty since the new law requires health care coverage for everyone.

Social Security is another area of great concern. Claims by amnesty advocates that illegal immigration can “save” Social Security are false.

Last year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) ran the numbers at my request. Here’s what they found: For a single 25-year old male with very low earnings, today’s value of his and his employer’s contributions to the Trust Fund will fall $15,596 short of the value of the Social Security retirement benefits he will eventually receive. A single female will receive $20,936 more in benefits than she pays into Social Security. If the immigrant is married but the sole wage-earner, the couple will eventually drain the Trust Fund by $52,460; if the immigrant is married to another very low earner, the drain on the trust fund will be $39,037. The legalization of one million illegal immigrant couples who work for very low wages would be a $101 billion blow to taxpayers. And amnesty for all illegal immigrants would multiply this figure many times!

When it comes to taxes, amnesty supporters like to say that illegal immigrants will pay their “fair share” of taxes after being granted amnesty. This is deceptive.

Low-skilled workers often pay no taxes and receive a check from the Internal Revenue Service in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Putting illegal immigrants on the IRS rolls will actually cost the federal government money.

Since most illegal immigrants have less than a high school education and have well below average incomes, even those illegal immigrants who pay taxes pay far less in taxes than they (and their families) consume in taxpayer-supported benefits. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found that the average immigrant household headed by an immigrant without a high school degree receives over $19,000 more in total government benefits each year than it pays in federal, state and local taxes!

But the impact goes far beyond these direct costs.

There are nearly 16 million Americans out of work, and about 8 million jobs are held by illegal immigrants. By simply enforcing immigration laws already on the books, we could create millions of job opportunities for American citizens and legal immigrants who played by the rules and entered the U.S. the right way.

Instead, the Obama administration has all but abandoned worksite enforcement efforts. Administrative arrests are down 87 percent; criminal arrests of employees are down 83 percent; criminal arrests of employers are down 73 percent; the number of criminal indictments are down 86 percent; and the number of criminal convictions is down 83 percent since 2008. This insults unemployed and underemployed American workers who need the jobs held by illegal immigrants.

The hit is on your wallet! Illegal immigrants are a fiscal drain on American taxpayers. And the Obama administration’s policies only make it worse.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/15/illegal-immigration-is-a-tax-dollar-drain/#ixzz12eZCIpwE

http://www.stratfor.com/mmf/118526

http://eng.newwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/stranges-table-1.gif

http://www.cairn.info/loadimg.php?FILE=POPE/POPE_402/POPE_402_0315/fullPOPE_idPAS_D_ISBN_pu2004-02s_sa05_art05_img007.jpg

http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/VernaG/EH/GIF/Immigration%20en%20Europe.gif


Costs

Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/topics/costs.html)

Study: Illegal immigration costs $113 billion per year

Study: Illegal immigration costs $113 billion per year - National conservative | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/study-illegal-immigration-costs-113-billion-per-year)

Non-Dueling Studies On Immigration

The American Conservative » Non-Dueling Studies On Immigration (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/07/09/non-dueling-studies-on-immigration/)

Real cost of illegal immigration

Real cost of illegal immigration | Conservative Outpost (http://conservativeoutpost.com/real_cost_illegal_immigration)

Illegal Immigration

Illegal Immigration | Cost of Illegal Immigration | Obama on Illegal Immigration (http://www.american-conservativevalues.com/politics/illegal-immigration.html)

Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration

Economic costs of mass immigration (legal and illegal immigration) - CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html)

BERNARD DEVLIN, If mass immigration supposedly brings all sorts of financial benefits, to our country, ??

BERNARD DEVLIN, If mass immigration supposedly brings all sorts of financial benefits, to our country, ?? | theblogpaper.co.uk (http://theblogpaper.co.uk/article/politics/14apr10/bernard-devlin-if-mass-immigration-supposedly-brings-all-sorts-financial-be)

Cost of Educating Illegal Alien Children in US? $7.4 Billion Per Year

Illegal Immigration's Cost to Schools (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/schoolbudgets.htm)

Cost for mass deportation? $285 billion

Cost for mass deportation? $285 billion | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2010/03/cost_for_mass_d.html)

WHO BENEFITS FROM MASS IMMIGRATION?

Who Benefits from Mass Immigration ? (http://www.americanpac.org/Get_Involved/Who_Benefits_from_Mass_Immigra/who_benefits_from_mass_immigra.html)

The cost of mass immigration

Eye on Immigration: The cost of mass immigration (http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/06/cost-of-mass-immigration.html)

The Fraser Institute: Mass Immigration Affecting the Well-Being of All Canadians; Immigration Policies Must Be Reviewed

The Fraser Institute: Mass Immigration Affecting the Well-Being of All Canadians; Immigration Policies Must Be Reviewed (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Fraser-Institute-Mass-Immigration-Affecting-Well-Being-All-Canadians-Immigration-Policies-1052341.htm)

MASS IMMIGRATION
is now a
NATIONAL DISASTER!

Mass immigration is now a national disaster! - Australia First (http://www.australiafirst.net/immigrationdisaster.htm)

Lords' report exposes Labour's lies on the 'benefits' of mass immigration

Lords' report exposes Labour's lies on the 'benefits' of mass immigration | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-548628/Lords-report-exposes-Labours-lies-benefits-mass-immigration.html)

Mass-immigration costs 7.2 billion euros yearly (Netherlands)

Klein Verzet: Mass-immigration costs 7.2 billion euros yearly (http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2010/05/mass-immigration-costs-72-billion-euros.html)

The truth on mass Immigration

The truth on mass immigration. (http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/immigration3.htm)

New York Times Discovers Mass Immigration’s Impact On U.S. Hospitals

04/17/03 - New York Times Discovers Mass Immigration’s Impact On U.S. Hospitals (http://www.vdare.com/francis/hospitality.htm)

Amazon.com: America Extinguished: Mass Immigration and the Disintegration of American Culture: Samuel T. Francis: Books

YouTube- What Price Mass Immigration - Peter Brimelow Introduction

YouTube- Inequality and Immigration (1 of 3)

The Growing Cost of Illegal Immigration To Social Security...

http://www.fuckfrance.com/images/i604/213034.33371663_108negrocity_orig.jpg

YouTube - Jared Taylor-Demographic shifts in the US 1/4

YouTube - Jared Taylor-Demographic shifts in the US 2/4

YouTube - Jared Taylor-Demographic shifts in the US 3/4

YouTube - Jared Taylor-Demographic shifts in the US 4/4