[Vision2020] Who Killed California?
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Donovan,
You wrote:
"The fact is Mexicans that immigrate to the
United States are doing far more for the country than
most others. And certainly less damage to the economy
than other legal immigrants."
You further state that the economy would collapse
with severe ramifications on both sides of the border
if illegal immigration was stopped, that illegal
immigrants rarely stay in the country, and that only
emergency health care is provided to illegals.
Well, I not only have to disagree but to state
that you are outright incorrect in those statements.
In 1994 with Proposition 187, California voters
ATTEMPTED TO ban using tax money for non-emergency
health care because they correctly saw it as both an
attractant for more illegals and a severe strain on
the tax-funded budget. But proposition 187 was
overturned in 1999 by a Federal judge, so California
now provides the following to both legal and illegal
aliens: --Emergency Medicaid, --pre-natal care, --and
nursing home care. (Can you imagine the cost of
nursing home care? It's unbelievable.)
And since emergency medicaid is given with no problem,
the illegals simply go to and must be accepted by
emergency rooms for any illness for themselves or
anyone in their families. In other words, the
definition of what emergency care is has been
completely skewed.
For the year 1994---and it has increased exponentially
since then-- California's Medicaid expenditures for
total noncitizens was $3.3 billion!!
This was just one year!!
And Eighty-two percent of emergency rooms in the state
reported losing money. In Santa Cruz, hospitals are so
crowded that they regularly close their doors to new
emergency patients. When they're open, less urgent
patients often have to wait up to ten hours on
weekends.
And the above is just in the area of healthcare. In
education the effect of illegal immigration is just as
traumatic. In California, half of all school age kids
have at least one immigrant parent--and around ten
percent are foreign born themselves.
The California Dept. of Education estimates that in
order to keep up with just the current population
influx, that 16 new clasrooms would have to be built
every day of every week---7 days a week for the next
five years. And also the number of teachers would have
to be doubled in the next ten years.
Your statement that illegal immigrants almost always
return to Mexico is clearly false. They currently have
clear incentives to the contrary. In fact it is not
uncommon for women who are in the advanced stages of
pregnancy to come across and access a US emergency
room for giving birth. Then, of course the new baby is
an American citizen. This often gives rise to what is
called PRUCOL immigration status. This status means
that the whole family will qualify for any programs
available to any citizen--AFDC, Supplemental Security
Income, Unemployment and etc.
You are correct that many illegals save money from
employment and send these funds back to relatives in
Mexico. This of course further reduces any positive
impact their presence has on the US economy. They
spend less money here so that it can be spent in
Mexico.
Here are some more facts I found:
The Migration Policy Institute estimates that about
2.3 million illegal residents live in California.
(Jeffrey Passel, “New Estimates of the Undocumented
Population in the United States, ” Migration
Information Source“ May 22, 2002.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=19)
This is an increase of 300,000, or 15 percent, in the
number of illegal residents since 1996 and an increase
of 859,000, or 60 percent, since 1992. About 26
percent of the country's illegal alien residents live
in California, more than in any other state.(Beth
Barrett, “Influx of Illegals Picks Up But L.A.
Percentage Down, ” Daily News of Los Angeles, January
24, 2002.)
Illegal immigration cost California taxpayers $8
billion in 1996.( The Net National Costs of
Immigration: Fiscal Effects of Welfare Restorations to
Legal immigrants, Donald Huddle, October 30, 1997.)
California's border counties incurred $79 million in
emergency care for illegal aliens, the highest cost in
the country. San Diego County paid $50.3 million
during 1999 for criminal justice services and medical
care related to illegal aliens. Imperial County spent
$5.4 million on illegal aliens in 1999, according to a
study on behalf of the United States-Mexico Border
Counties Coalition. It costs each person living
legally in San Diego and Imperial counties about
$18.56 per year to pay for the costs incurred by
illegal immigration.(Jo Moreland, “Study: County Pays
$50M Annually in Border Costs, ” North County Times,
February 6, 2002.)
Under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP), the federal government has reimbursed
California only $240 million of the more than $600
million the state spends annually to lock up illegal
immigrant felons. San Bernardino County alone spends
more than $2.6 million to house illegal immigrants in
its jails.(Claire Vitucci and Bettye Wells Miller,
“California Highways Hit Hard, ” Press-Enterprise,
February 5, 2002.)
So, if Mexican citizens wish to work here and
agricultural employers need them, fine. We should
allow this through formal guest worker programs where
set dates are enforced.
The worker comes in on this date and he either leaves
or is escorted back on another set date. But we
shouldn't continue the current scheme wherein the
illegal "guest worker" brings his family that then
relies on public services such as healthcare and
education. Then the guest worker family increases and
the American born children are now citizens. And then,
as discussed above,the family will usually be allowed
to stay because they have family members with citizen
status.
Excuse me for mistaking your wish that Pat "go
back to Europe" because he disagrees with current
immigration and trade policies for the rough
equivelant of the "love it or leave it" mentality.
I've gotta admit I still don't see the difference
though.
You are quite mistaken about who is treating who
like sheep. The column is attempting to inform the
electorate into STANDING UP to the government. I
hardly see how that's treating anyone like sheep,
certainly not the illegal immigrants who are merely
caught in the middle of this issue. If anyone is
treating them like sheep it's the current system where
their status is constantly unsure and they constantly
receive mixed signals from both the US and Mexican
governments.
Next,I'm troubled by your wish that all non-Indians
and non-Mexicans leave California. Such a statement
brings to mind the openly racist Aryan Nations
philosophy that certain areas should be reserved for
only certain racial groups. I had thought I had read
in other of your posts that you disagreed with racist
philosophies. I think you do disagree with them, but
are merely confused in thinking that racism isn't
racism if it ispromoted against certain ethnicities by
certain other ethnicities.
Your views on trade are myopic in the extreme and
quite frankly surprising in that they exactly mirror
those of GW Bush---a president you have often and
bitterly criticized. You apparently see no problem
with a situation in which US workers are abandoned in
favor of Corporate investment in economies such as
China--a totalitarian country where not only is child
labor and forced prison labor is used but where many
of the major manufacturing and trading corporations
are owned by the People's Liberation Army.
Apparently, from reading your statement about stock
ownership, you have adopted the fashionable corporate
view that these sort of near-slavery labor standards
are perfectly OK.
But I have a difficult time squaring this present
stance with your former statements that one of your
primary interests is assisting the disadvantaged. Of
course that is part of the strategy isn't it? Out of
sight, out of mind. After all China is thousands of
miles away. If we don't have to see the sweatshops,
the political prisoners working for no wages, and the
children forced to work long hours instead of
attending school then we shouldn't worry about it.
TL
--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Tim,
I was not advocating the old "Love it or Leave it"
philosophy. I was advocating the old "don't be a
hypocrite" philosophy.
I understand that Pat Buchanan was not directly
blaming the Mexicans for the destroyed economy. I know
Buchanan would never give Mexicans enough intelligence
to do it themselves. He more or less treats them like
the sheep that graze the fields to the roots
destroying the grass permenintly and the rich white
guys as the farmers that let them onto the field.
Sorry, don't buy it.
None-Indians and none-Mexicans are now nearly two out
of three people in California. I find them the
immigration hazard that destroyed California. If 2/3
people got out of California it would be just fine and
you can't disagree with that.
The fact is Mexicans that immigrate to the United
States are doing far more for the country than most
others. And certainly less damage to the economy than
other legal immigrants. Did you know that the United
States imports highly trained Europeans that work for
half the wages of their American counterparts. These
are real jobs. The Mexican immigrations are not taking
jobs that pay $100,000 a year for just $45,000. They
are taking the jobs nobody will do for $5.25 an hour.
If illegal immigrants stopped coming into the country
then two things would happen. First, millions of
Hispanics would be starving in Mexico. These
immigrates live here for about 6 months and then go
back to feed their families. Second, the food prices
would more then double, making it cheaper to import
food, which would be done, and farmers would go
bankrupt. The only changes I would like to make is
that the immigrants are given decent places to stay
and healthy food and water.
You are incorrect about the freebies. Illegal
immigrates are given medical treatment only incases of
emergency. To advocate otherwise would say that we
should just let them die in the streets, I think that
would be horrible. Food banks are given to everyone,
and are usually donated by private citizens.
You are correct that free trade does destroy
businesses. But it also helps others. In fact, 1/3 of
US business is done overseas. Even more important
istariffs% of all new business is conducted with
foreign countries. So image what type of impact
creating tarrifs would make on US Businesses. If we
raise our tarrifs, they raise theirs, and all profit
is sucked out of the system and goes to the
governments of the countries and not the businesses
that earned the profit, which prevents growth and job
prosperity. I would stick with taxing the companies on
profits only.
I would be pretty angry is I owned stock in a company
that did $10 billion in sales with China and the US
Government slapped a tarriff on China and they did the
same back and my business had to give 1/2 the profit
to the Chinese government, wouldn't you be.
No, Buchanan's idea doesn't work unless you have a
monopoly on almost all products. Every time the US
Government has put tarrifs on imports then inflation
goes way up and it ends up hurting the world economy.
Donovan J Arnold
>From: Tim Lohrmann
>To: Donovan Arnold
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Donovan,
> I was a little surprised to see you advocating
>the old "America--Love It of Leave It" philosophy. Is
>it a retro thing? That WAS big in the late '60s and
>early '70s I understand.
>
> Oh well.
>
> I also disagree that Pat is attacking a weaker
>group of people. The US Government as run by both
Bush
>and one Clinton administration can hardly be
>considered weaker than him.
>
> And that's who he blames this mess on the
>government. He's not blaming the illegal immigrants
>themselves---just the governmental policies that
>caused this mess. That's clear from the column.
>
> It's amazing when people who are breaking the law
>by coming into this country suddenly have access to
>free health care, education, food etc. etc.
> Is this a reward for their crime?
> Many illegal immigrants have visited informational
>offices in their own countries that show them in
>advance exactly which offices to go to in order to
>take advantage of all the freebies. Who can blame
them
>for coming here and taking advantage of it? I'm sure
>most of us would.
> But can you imagine the effect on Medi-Cal, the
>state education budget, law enforcement and etc.?
> And what about the effect of the people of
>California's faith in the democratic process when
they
>are not allowed to stop these goings on as much as
>they try?
>
> You're absolutely correct that there are other
>factors than the one mentioned in the column(9/11
etc)
>that have had an effect on consumer spending. But its
>undeniable that Free Trade and unrestricted/illegal
>immigration have had a huge negative effect on
>California and many other states. The effect on wages
>isn't confined to the agricultural sector at all.
>
> In CA and many other states a huge percentage of
>construction labor is done by illegal immigrants.
That
>used to be a field where people could make a good
>living in this country. They could start as laborers,
>learn skills and work their way up, but that's denied
>to American workers in many areas. This is but one
>example of the suppression of wages by illegal
>immigration. And of course one of the major negative
>effects is, as mentioned above, on the social
service,
>education, law enforcement, and penal budgets.
>
> And if you don't believe that unfair and so-called
>"Free Trade" hasn't had a devastating impact on the
>areas mentioned in the article, you're simply
ignoring
>reality.
> And here's a question for you. How much
>immigration would be enough?
> There are currently 1 million LEGAL immigrants
>allowed into this country every year. To put that in
>perspective, the 2002 Census estimate for the
>population of Seattle was 570,000. So, in other words
>LEGAL IMMIGRATION--each year, every year--equals very
>TWICE the city of Seattle. EVERY YEAR! Been to
Seattle
>lately? Pretty crowded place, huh?
>
> Of course no one knows how many ILLEGAL immigrants
>come in each year. I've seen estimates ranging from
>2-5 million illegals per year. Some stay and some
come
>back and forth. In any event there are millions upon
>millions of illegals here in the country right now.
>
> And anyone questioning immigration and illegal
>immigration is xenophobic?
> I don't think so. No, it's nothing like a phobia.
> It's a simple realization that this country can't
>keep going on supporting this huge influx of people
>indefinitely. California is finding that out for all
>to see.
> TL
>
>
>--- Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Tim,
>
>Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright.
>
>
>Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two
>up I don't know) is only correct about three things.
>He is right it not the fault of Gov. Davis, he is
>right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault
>of Immigration.
>
>
>
>
>
>But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up.
>It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the
problem.
>It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see
>m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had
>California for about 10-16,000 years before the
>immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and
>economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then
>other people came into California, and less than 150
>years of occupation the soil, environment, and
economy
>has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans
>and Indians have a better track record. I am willing
>to bet that if the United States withdrew from
>California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would
>recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of
>European abuse and raping of the land.
>
>
>
>
>Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do
>something like be born in California before Europeans
>even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the
>ones responsible for the failing of the United States
>and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in
>some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two
>airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't
>forge and fake the income earnings of Enron,
Adelphia,
>and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in
>inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty
>the Colorado River and drain California of it's
>electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax
code.
>They didn't even withdraw their millions from the
>stock market or stop supporting the airline industry.
>
>
>
>
>What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a
>weaker group of people that have little or no
>political ability to withstand such attacks. It is
>easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of
>the rich, powerful, greedy, and corrupt.
>
>
>
>
>Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary
>of immigration and free trade. It was the
>administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that
>allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in
>the history of the United States. It was also he that
>was able to get a replacement value in his heart
(yes,
>I know he does have actually have one) because of
free
>trade policies with Japan.
>
>
>
>
>If this man has such a problem with immigration, he
>should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with
>free trade, he should give back his heart, after all,
>he hasn't even used it in a while anyway.
>
>
>
>
>Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Tim Lohrmann
>
>
>
> >To: vision2020@moscow.com
>
>
>
> >Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?
>
>
>
> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >Visionaries,
>
>
>
> >Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you
>
>
>
> >gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about
"Free"
>
>
>
>
> >trade and Immigration.
>
>
>
> > TL
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >Who Killed California?
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > By Patrick J. Buchanan
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38
>
>
>
> > > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped
>three
>
>
>
> >notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond
>
>
>
> > > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden
>
>
>
> > > State is no more.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the
>
>
>
> > > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won
>
>
>
> >re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves
>his
>
>
>
> >20
>
>
>
> > > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not
>kill
>
>
>
> > > California.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > The United States government did. For what
killed
>
>
>
> > > California as the golden land was massive and
>
>
>
> >unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an
>
>
>
> > > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure
to
>
>
>
> > > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the
wages
>of
>
>
>
> >America's workers.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > During and after World War II, California became
a
>
>
>
>
> > > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV
>
>
>
> >industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to
>become
>
>
>
> > > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth,
>
>
>
> > > giving California the world's highest standard
of
>
>
>
> >living. The average California wage once stood at
130
>
>
>
>
> > > percent of the average U.S. wage.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free
>rider
>
>
>
> > > on America's defense, began to engage in
predatory
>
>
>
>
> >trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S.
>
>
>
> >industries and capturing U.S. markets with
subsidized
>
>
>
>
> >exports.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > California suffered first. Our TV industry was
>wiped
>
>
>
> > > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald
>
>
>
> >Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese
cars.
>
>
>
> > > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor
>
>
>
> > > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike
>
>
>
> >today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put
>America
>
>
>
> > > first.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that
California
>
>
>
>
> > > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the
>Global
>
>
>
> >Economy.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began
>to
>
>
>
> > > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of
the
>
>
>
> >health care, welfare and free education American
>
>
>
> > > citizens provided for their people. For
one-third
>of
>
>
>
> > > the illegals, California became the destination
of
>
>
>
>
> >choice.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > What the U.S. government should have done was
>
>
>
> > > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce
>our
>
>
>
> >immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict
>
>
>
> > > immigration from the Third World. But America's
>
>
>
> > > politicians - out of fear of being brande
>xenophobic
>
>
>
> >and to curry favor with Big Business, which
>
>
>
> > > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage
labor
>-
>
>
>
> >did almost nothing to protect America.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Californians tried to defend their state. As
>
>
>
> > > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands
>
>
>
> >yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social
>
>
>
> > > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had
broken
>
>
>
> > > the law and broken into the United States.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and
routed,
>
>
>
>
> > > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters'
>
>
>
> >victory. Davis then refused to appeal the
overturning
>
>
>
>
> > > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters
>
>
>
> > > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and
>local
>
>
>
> >budgets continued to hemorrhage.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun.
>Fed
>
>
>
> > > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal
aliens,
>
>
>
>
> >Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho,
>
>
>
> > > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born
>
>
>
> > > Californians left the state in
>
>
>
> > > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal,
sent
>
>
>
> > > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside,
>San
>
>
>
> >Bernardino and Orange counties.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > This, then, is what killed California:
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our
>
>
>
> > > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million
>legal
>
>
>
> >immigrants and their children and 10 million
>
>
>
> > > illegals, most of them net tax consumers.
>California
>
>
>
> > > got the lion's share.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits
>it
>
>
>
> > > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562
>
>
>
> >billion in May. This has killed millions of
>
>
>
> > > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies
>closed
>
>
>
> > > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico,
Asia
>
>
>
> >and China.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > The Third Worldization of California is now far
>
>
>
> > > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush
Republicans
>as
>
>
>
> >well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot
>
>
>
> > > see what they have done to our country.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > But what is happening in California is not
>confined
>
>
>
> > > to California. It is happening across America.
>
>
>
> >Unless we elect a president who will enforce our
>
>
>
> > > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless
we
>
>
>
>
> > > find a Congress that will jettison the
free-trade
>
>
>
> >madness that is denuding America of her
>manufacturing,
>
>
>
> > > what has happened to California will happen
here.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but
>
>
>
> > > then, so did his father
>
>
>
> > > before him.
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >__________________________________
>
>
>
> >Do you Yahoo!?
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
>design software
>
>
>
> >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> > List services made available by First Step
Internet,
>
>
>
>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
>
>
> > http://www.fsr.net
>
>
>
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>
>
>
>
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months
>FREE*
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months
FREE*
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com