From the Orange County Organizer: (distribute widely)

Latest news on Costa Mesa, California

WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) ? A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, 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 their unwillingness to work.

Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

Why Legalization Is So Costly. Costs rise unavoidably because amnesty will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American economy offers such workers very limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs. We know that costs would rise dramatically because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though we estimate that average tax payments would rise by 77 percent, we also find that costs would rise 117 percent. To understand why this happens, it is helpful to consider a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals currently account for only 1.5 percent of the program?s total costs, but if they were legalized their use of the program would grow tenfold because with legal status they would no longer need stolen or bogus Social Security numbers to get the credit. This dramatic rise in costs is not due to laziness on the part of immigrants. In fact, only those who work receive the EITC. The dramatic rise in costs simply reflects the low educational attainment of illegals and their resulting low incomes.

If Illegals Stay, So Will the Costs. To the extent that policy makers have considered the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, they have generally tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain. But this strategy has not been effective because the average illegal already receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households. Moreover, many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded American citizenship at birth under current law. Other programs are simply too politically sensitive to cut, such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. And others costs are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes. Conversely, enforcing immigration laws is both popular with voters and administratively more feasible. There are really only two options: either we begin to enforce the law, significantly reducing the number of illegals in the country, or we accept the costs created by the presence of a large pool of unskilled workers.

Results Similar to Other Studies. A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income are the primary determinants of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State is almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General?s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our findings of 45 percent.

Interesting findings. Can you please provide the name or source of this study?

Suppose a police officer asks me my status, and I refuse to answer on first amendment grounds. What could happen to me?

"Suppose a police officer asks me my status, and I refuse to answer on first amendment grounds. What could happen to me?"

Actually this happens often. You would be taken into custody until such time as your identity was determined. Its more of an inconvenience for you than it is for the police.

From what I have read, (and I am not stating this for a agument just stating what I have read) the Costa Mesa Police are not going on immigration sweeps. If you commit a crime they may check to see if you are a legal resident. No different than them checking you for outstanding warrants.

he was gay. Mansoor is very handsome.

Well if Jim Gilchrist gets to have his Minuteman parade act in Laguna Beach afterall, I guess Mansoor can march along with him side by side. I mean hey, if I wanted to tighten up the border and toughen up the immigration laws, I know exactly what to do. Isn't it obvious? Of course! What better way than to march in a parade in Laguna Beach!

Of all the odd things Jim Gilchrist has said or done or complained about, this Laguna Beach parade thing is absolutely pathetic.

But hey if he gets the parade and has his float and choreographed act with chairs and binoculars afterall, maybe he can get some asians marching with him with long hair all our and untied. I mean, he wanted me to do that, I guess to look young and hip or something. Obviously I'm not gonna march with him. So he'll have to find some other asian for his campaign image. How about Tan Nguyen? Gilchrist was eager to quickly get on the stage with him at a CCIR meeting to stand by him while photos were taken. Him and the Vietnamese candidate for Congress in district 47.

"all our and untied" = all out and untied

And about the Mansoor thing, he really needs to ditch the Minuteman stigma. Quickly and publicly.

In California, it goes without saying it is a pretty liberal minded state. The same can be said about New York The battle ground for illegal immigration reform is not in these two states or in the city of Costa Mesa. It persist in middle America. All those red states between NY and Calif.

The House of Representatives did not just pull this issue out of there hats. Why? Because immigration reform goes against there base which is business. Democrats from those states also signed on to the House reforms. Not because its right or wrong but because the constituents want it.

Middle America dosen't think like the citizens of Calif & NY. All these protests, law suites, and media attention, just tells middle America that they do not want these things occuring in there backyard. The current opposition to immigration reform is its own worst enemy. Think about it.

http://ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_968955.php

Friday, January 27, 2006
Open up the Patriots Day Parade
Laguna organizers exclude groups using arbitrary standards

By JAY GRANT

Laguna Beach is an extraordinary place to live, unequaled in beauty and charm, but more importantly packed with the most remarkable people you'll find anywhere. If your house slides, or your home burns, or you are in some other crisis, people line up to help you, even strangers whom you've never met. I know because when my home burned in the Oct. 27, 1993 firestorm, I experienced first-hand a compassion and generosity that defies the imagination.

That's what makes the arbitrary exclusions dictated by the Patriots Day Parade committee year after year so difficult to deal with. Its attitude is so not Laguna, which has always reveled in its reputation for tolerance, diversity and inclusion. Its rejection of the Minuteman Project ["Minutemen barred from joining Laguna parade," Local, Jan. 25]only brings to the forefront a sore that has festered in the city for a long time. The committee has been excluding important community institutions for years, in particular religious and political groups, but, note, not all, but only ones that don't fit into its politically correct mindset.

For instance, no Christian church is allowed in the parade but the Baha'is are permitted to march. Google-up Bahai and you'll discover its Web site says, "The Bahai Faith is a world religion based on the teachings of Bahaullah." The committee also allows the Laguna Beach Peace Vigil in the parade, clearly a political group, but disallows the Minuteman Project because the committee doesn't care for its politics. Village Laguna also marches in the parade, the most politically active group in all of Laguna Beach, almost always supporting candidates from the left.

What you have here is selective discrimination. The committee attempts to cover its arbitrary decisions by saying what it really means is we don't want any group proselytizing or promoting an agenda. If you don't proselytize you are welcome, like the Baha'is or the peace group. But churches have applied in the past, agreeing to carry only a signage banner, but were still turned down. In Laguna, chocolate lovers, gay choirs, surf shops, bars, book clubs and art festivals are true American patriots, according to the parade committee's selection criteria, but not people of faith or those who love our political processes.

The deeper issue is the selective, exclusionary by-law. Why is it there in the first place? What possible harm would there be to include in the parade a float representing, say, the Presbyterian Church, a much respected institution in Laguna for many years, housed in a truly landmark building, one the parade passes by every year? What harm would there be to including the Methodist Church, the Mormon Church, the Jewish Center or groups representing the Democrats, Republicans or Libertarians? Should one of them violate any proselytizing rule, it wouldn't be invited back.

Segregation always hurts especially when segregationists strive to achieve the higher moral ground. We have "good reasons" for exclusion, they insist. People of faith or those loyal to their political party might somehow pollute the parade by expressing a view we disagree with.

What is the committee afraid of? If you don't care for the Minuteman Project, boo when its members march by. I would consider doing that myself, since I personally disagree with the Minuteman Project's immigration stance and its protests of Laguna's day-workers station. I am proud our city reaches out to poor Hispanic laborers who desperately need work. I don't know how they got here but they are human beings of dignity and worth. Still, Jim Gilchrist and his Minuteman Project should be allowed in the parade. They love America in their own way and should not be excluded.

Charles Quilter, Patriots Day Parade committee member, has publicly stated in the past, "This is a feel good parade for everybody in the community, an event that celebrates the virtues of family and friends." If it really wants to make everyone in Laguna feel good, I'd like to ask the parade committee to consider including everyone, and to cease from selectively excluding anyone. Right now, there are a bunch of us in Laguna who are not feeling all that good about your parade.

When I was participating in the Gilchrist campaign, the Minuteman thing, and SOS, I eventually got uncomfortable with protesting day labor pick ups. I didn't continue the same way others did just to stay in a comfort zone and avoid backlash. And I did get backlash from people like Ayatollah, who lives in Sacramento and isn't even around this area to see the Nazis in Laguna Beach, to be involved with accepting an SOS banner from them, to discover Stormfront people in Gilchrist's campaign, etc. And I have no doubt in my mind that if this parade lawsuit sillyness had happened earlier on, I would have wanted no part in it. It's downright useless and frivilous. It's a freaking parade. Who cares. Jim Gilchrist is even more embarassing than ever. They're gonna get on the bad sides of even more people now. They have a great variety of people who oppose them and don't favor them. And there are reasons for this. And it's not because they're the lonely brave patriots or whatever. That's just dramatic speech talk they like to pass around. I've seen and heard it.

What I've been pondering lately is what exactly is it that compels these Minuteman participants to actually go to the border to stand watch. And can something like this happen with enough humanitarian intentions to make it obvious. Or is it some bitter thoughts and lasting attitudes what it takes to make this happen. Maybe fear and anger conditioned by certain leaders and organizations like Jim Gilchrist, Glenn Spencer, the CCIR organization, and others.

As far as I've seen in Orange County, the English language still goes a long way and isn't in any danger of being replaced. I easily got plenty of decent paying temp work last year and I really think it's because of my understanding of the English language and performance in the skills tests upon the interview meeting. It was all English and computing skills, no presence of Spanish anywhere. And I got work quickly. I wasn't required to know Spanish. I got by on English alone. If you want work and speak English well, apply at Apple One.

Middle America knows about migrating workers, and how to express hatred toward them. During the Great Migration of African Americans from the South, they said the same thing about Black people that they are saying about Mexicans.