Letters to the Editor

 

Tuesday
Feb192013

Meet Your New Neighbor

I present this information hoping to wake people up to the degradation of America.  This article is not pretty, neither are the videos.  Who is responsible?  Office holders past and present.  Question; How do we take Our Country back?

Pt 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LMjwQcSHsU

Pt 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHBEZIUXKnY   




Does China Plan To Establish “China Cities” And “Special Economic Zones” All Over America?
Article from The Economic Collapse  Blog


By Michael, on January 22nd, 2013    
What in the world is China up to?  Over the past several years, the Chinese government and large Chinese corporations (which are often at least partially owned by the government) have been systematically buying up businesses, homes, farmland, real estate, infrastructure and natural resources all over America.  In some cases, China appears to be attempting to purchase entire communities in one fell swoop.  So why is this happening?  Is this some form of "economic colonization" that is taking place?  Some have speculated that China may be intending to establish "special economic zones" inside the United States modeled after the very successful Chinese city of Shenzhen.  Back in the 1970s, Shenzhen was just a very small fishing village, but now it is a sprawling metropolis of over 14 million people.  Initially, these "special economic zones" were only established within China, but now the Chinese government has been buying huge tracts of land in foreign countries such as Nigeria and establishing special economic zones in those nations.  So could such a thing actually happen in America?  Well, according to Dr. Jerome Corsi, a plan being pushed by the Chinese Central Bank would set up "development zones" in the United States that would allow China to "establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work."  Under the plan, some of the $1.17 trillion that the U.S. owes China would be converted from debt to "equity".  As a result, "China would own U.S. businesses, U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss."  Does all of this sound far-fetched?  Well, it isn't.  In fact, the economic colonization of America is already far more advanced than most Americans would dare to imagine.
So how in the world did we get to this point?  A few decades ago, the United States was the unchallenged economic powerhouse of the world and China was essentially a third world country.
So what happened?
Well, we entered into a whole bunch of extremely unfavorable "free trade" agreements, and countries such as China began to aggressively use "free trade" as an economic weapon against us.
Over the past decade, we have lost tens of thousands of businesses and millions of jobs to China.  When the final numbers for 2012 come out, our trade deficit with China for the year will be well over 300 billion dollars, and that will be the largest trade deficit that one country has had with another country in the history of the world.
Overall, the U.S. has run a trade deficit with China over the past decade that comes to more than 2.3 trillion dollars.  That 2.3 trillion dollars could have gone to U.S. businesses and U.S. workers, and in turn taxes would have been paid on all of that money.  But instead, all of that money went to China.
Rather than just sitting on all of that money, China has been lending much of it back to us - at interest.  We now owe China more than a trillion dollars, and our politicians are constantly pleading with China to lend more money to us so that we can finance our exploding debt.
Today, the U.S. government pays China approximately 100 million dollars a day in interest on the debt that we owe them.  Those that say that the U.S. debt "does not matter" are being incredibly foolish.
So thanks to our massive trade deficit and our exploding national debt, China is systematically getting wealthier and the United States is systematically getting poorer.
And now China is starting to use a lot of that wealth to aggressively expand their power and influence around the globe.
But isn't it more than a bit far-fetched to suggest that China may be planning to establish Chinese cities and special economic zones in America?
Not really.
Just look at what has already happened up in Canada.  It is well-known that the Chinese population of Vancouver, Canada has absolutely exploded in recent years.  In fact, the Vancouver suburb of Richmond is now approximately half Chinese.  The following is an excerpt from a BBC article...
Richmond is North America's most Asian city - 50% of residents here identify themselves as Chinese. But it's not just here that the Chinese community in British Columbia (BC) - some 407,000 strong - has left its mark. All across Vancouver, Chinese-Canadians have helped shape the local landscape.
A similar thing is happening in many communities along the west coast of the United States.  In fact, Chinese citizens purchased one out of every ten homes that were sold in the state of California in 2011.
But in other areas of the United States, the Chinese are approaching things much more systematically.
For example, as I have written about previously, a Chinese group identified as "Sino-Michigan Properties LLC" has purchased 200 acres of land near the town of Milan, Michigan.  Their stated goal is to build a "China City" that has artificial lakes, a Chinese cultural center and hundreds of housing units for Chinese citizens.
In other instances, large chunks of real estate in major U.S. cities that are down on their luck are being snapped up by Chinese investors.  Just check out what a Fortune article from a while back says has been happening over in Toledo, Ohio...
In March 2011, Chinese investors paid $2.15 million cash for a restaurant complex on the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. Soon they put down another $3.8 million on 69 acres of newly decontaminated land in the city's Marina District, promising to invest $200 million in a new residential-commercial development. That September, another Chinese firm spent $3 million for an aging hotel across a nearby bridge with a view of the minor league ballpark.
Toledo is being promoted to Chinese investors as a "5-star logistics region".  From Toledo it is very easy to get to Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Columbus and Indianapolis...
With a population of 287,000, Toledo is only the fourth largest city in Ohio, but it lies at the junction of two important highways -- I-75 and I-80/90. "My vision is to make Toledo a true international city," Toledo's Mayor Mike Bell told the Toledo Blade.
But some of these deals appear to be about far more than just making "investments".  According to the Idaho Statesman, a Chinese company known as Sinomach (which is actually controlled by the Chinese government) was actually interested in developing a 50 square mile self-sustaining "technology zone" south of the Boise airport...
A Chinese national company is interested in developing a 10,000- to 30,000-acre technology zone for industry, retail centers and homes south of the Boise Airport.
Officials of the China National Machinery Industry Corp. have broached the idea — based on a concept popular in China today — to city and state leaders.
The article suggested that this "technology zone" would be modeled after similar projects that already exist in China, and that Chinese officials were conducting similar negotiations with other U.S. states as well...
Sinomach is not looking only at Idaho.
The company sent delegations to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania this year to talk about setting up research and development bases and industrial parks. It has an interest in electric transmission projects and alternative energy as well.
The technology zone proposal follows a model of science, technology and industrial parks in China — often fully contained cities with all services included.
Thankfully the deal in Idaho appears to be stalled for now, but could we soon see China establish special economic zones in other communities all around America?
The Chinese certainly do seem to be laying the groundwork for something.  They have been voraciously gobbling up important infrastructure all over the country.  The following comes from a recent American Free Press article...
In addition to already owning vital ports in Long Beach, Calif. and Boston, Mass., the China Ocean Shipping Company is eyeing major ports on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. China also owns access to ports at the entry and exit points of the Panama Canal.
And due to fiscal woes plaguing many American cities and states, U.S. legislators have been actively seeking out Chinese investors. In one of the worst cases, Baton Rouge, La., Mayor Kip Holden offered the Chinese government ownership and operating rights to a new toll way system if the Chinese would provide the funding to build it.
Does it make sense for the Chinese to own some of our most important ports?
Isn't there a national security risk?
Sadly, there isn't much of anything that our politicians won't sell these days as long as someone is willing to flash a lot of cash.
The Chinese have also been busy buying up important real estate on the east coast as a recent Forbes article explained….
According to a recent report in the New York Times, investors from China are “snapping up luxury apartments” and are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on commercial and residential projects like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn. Chinese companies also have signed major leases at the Empire State Building and at 1 World Trade Center, the report said.
But it is not only just land and infrastructure that the Chinese have been buying up.
They have also been purchasing rights to vital oil and natural gas deposits all over the United States.
There have been two Chinese companies that have been primarily involved in this effort.
The first is the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC).  According to Wikipedia, CNOOC is 100 percent owned by the Chinese government…
CNOOC Group is a state-owned oil company, fully owned by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) performs the rights and obligations of shareholder on behalf of the government.
The second is Sinopec Corporation.  Sinopec Group is the largest shareholder (approx. 75% ownership) in Sinopec Corporation.  And as the Sinopec website tells us, Sinopec Group is fully owned by the Chinese government…
Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopec Corp., is a super-large petroleum and petrochemical group incorporated by the State in 1998 based on the former China Petrochemical Corporation. Funded by the State, it is a State authorized investment arm and State-owned controlling company.
So whenever you see CNOOC or Sinopec, you can replace those names with the Chinese government.  The Chinese government essentially runs both of those companies.
And as you can see from the following list compiled by the Wall Street Journal, those two companies have been extremely aggressive in buying up rights to oil and natural gas all over the nation...
Colorado: Cnooc gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming in a $1.27 billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.
Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third stake in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal.
Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.
Texas: Cnooc acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.
Wyoming: Cnooc has a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27 billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5 billion deal.
Gulf of Mexico: Cnooc Ltd. separately acquired minority stakes in some of Statoil ASA’s leases as well as six of Nexen Inc.’s deep-water wells.
So why is the U.S. government allowing this?
That is a very good question.
For a nation that purports to be pursuing "energy independence", we sure do have a funny way of going about things.
Unfortunately, the sad truth is that China is absolutely mopping the floor with the United States on the global economic stage.  China is rising and America is in an advanced state of decline.  Global economic power has shifted dramatically and most Americans still don't understand what has happened.
The following are 44 more signs of how dominant the economy of China has become...
1. A Chinese firm recently made a $2.6 billion offer to buy movie theater chain AMC.
2. A different Chinese firm made a $1.8 billion offer to buy aircraft maker Hawker Beechcraft.
3. In December it was announced that a Chinese group would be purchasing AIG's plane leasing unit for $4.23 billion.
4. It was recently announced that the Federal Reserve will now allow Chinese banks to buy up American banks.
5. A $190 million bridge project up in Alaska was awarded to a Chinese firm.
6. A $400 million contract to renovate the Alexander Hamilton bridge in New York was awarded to a Chinese firm.
7. A $7.2 billion contract to construct a new bridge between San Francisco and Oakland was awarded to a Chinese firm.
8. The uniforms for the U.S. Olympic team were made in China.
9. 85 percent of all artificial Christmas trees are made in China.
10. The new World Trade Center tower is going to include glass that has been imported from China.
11. The new Martin Luther King memorial on the National Mall was made in China.
12. In 2001, American consumers spent 102 billion dollars on products made in China.  In 2011, American consumers spent 399 billion dollars on products made in China.
13. The United States spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.
14. According to the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United States costs about $85,000 in China thanks to all the tariffs.
15. The Chinese economy has grown 7 times faster than the U.S. economy has over the past decade.
16. The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.
17. The United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
18. Overall, the United States has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.
19. According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.
20. #HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267889"Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.
21. In 2010, China produced more than twice as many automobiles as the United States did.
22. Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.
23. After being bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, General Motors is currently involved in 11 joint ventures with companies owned by the Chinese government.  The price for entering into many of these “joint ventures” was a transfer of “state of the art technology” from General Motors to the communist Chinese.
24. Back in 1998, the United States had 25 percent of the world’s high-tech export market and China had just 10 percent. Ten years later, the United States had less than 15 percent and China’s share had soared to 20 percent.
25. The United States has lost more than a quarter of all of its high-tech manufacturing jobs over the past ten years.
26. China’s number one export to the U.S. is computer equipment.
27. The number one U.S. export to China is "scrap and trash".
28. The U.S. trade deficit with China is now more than 28 times larger than it was back in 1990.
29. Back in 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was just 6 million dollars for the entire year.  For the month of November 2012 alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 28.9 billion dollars.
30. China now consumes more energy than the United States does.
31. China is now the leading manufacturer of goods in the entire world.
32. China uses more cement than the rest of the world combined.
33. China is now the number one producer of wind and solar power on the entire globe.
34. Today, China produces nearly twice as much beer as the United States does.
35. Right now, China is producing more than three times as much coal as the United States does.
36. China now produces 11 times as much steel as the United States does.
37. China produces more than 90 percent of the global supply of rare earth elements.
38. China is now the number one supplier of components that are critical to the operation of U.S. defense systems.
39. A recent investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services found more than one million counterfeit Chinese parts in the Department of Defense supply chain.
40. 15 years ago, China was 14th in the world in published scientific research articles.  But now, China is expected to pass the United States and become number one very shortly.
41. China now awards more doctoral degrees in engineering each year than the United States does.
42. According to one study, the Chinese economy already has roughly the same amount of purchasing power as the U.S. economy does.
43. According to the IMF, China will pass the United States and will become the largest economy in the world in 2016.
44. Nobel economist Robert W. Fogel of the University of Chicago is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040 if current trends continue.
Without the "globalization" of the world economy, none of this would have ever happened.  But instead of admitting our mistakes and fixing them, our politicians continue to press for even more "free trade" and even more integration with communist nations such as China.
In fact, #HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=257721"according to Dr. Jerome Corsi, the U.S. government has already set up 257 "foreign trade zones" all over America.  These "foreign trade zones" are apparently given "special U.S. customs treatment" and are used to promote "free trade"…
Corsi noted that the U.S. government has created 257 foreign trade zones, or FTZs, throughout the United States, designed to extend special U.S. customs treatment to U.S. plants engaged in international-trade-related activities.
The FTZs tend to be located near airports, with easy access into the continental NAFTA and WTO multi-modal transportation systems being created to move free-trade goods cheaply, quickly and efficiently throughout the continent of North America.
“There is nothing in the U.S. government’s description of FTZs that would prevent a foreign government, like China, from operating a shell U.S. company that is in reality owned and financed by the Chinese government and operated through a Chinese government-owned corporation,” Corsi wrote.
Sadly, we are probably going to see a whole lot more of this in the years ahead.
According to Corsi, a professor of economics at Tsighua University in Beijing named Yu Qiao has suggested the following plan as a way to transform the debt that the United States owes China into something more "tangible"...
China would negotiate with the U.S. government to create a “crisis relief facility,” or CRF. The CRF “would be used alongside U.S. federal efforts to stabilize the banking system and to invest in capital-intensive infrastructure projects such as high-speed railroad from Boston to Washington, D.C.
China would pool a portion of its holdings of Treasury bonds under the CFR umbrella to convert sovereign debt into equity. Any CFR funds that were designated for investment in U.S. corporations would still be owned and managed by U.S. equity holders, with the Asians holding minority equity shares “that would, like preferred stock, be convertible.”
The U.S. government would act as a guarantor, “providing a sovereign guarantee scheme to assure the investment principal of the CRF against possible default of targeted companies or projects”.
The Federal Reserve would set up a special account to supply the liquidity the CRF would require to swap sovereign debt into industrial investment in the United States.
Apparently the Bank of China really likes this plan and would like to see something like this implemented.
In the years ahead, perhaps many of you will end up working in a "special economic zone" for a Chinese company on a project that is being financially guaranteed by the U.S. government.
If that sounds like a form of slavery to you, the truth is that you are probably not too far off the mark.
The borrower is the servant of the lender, and we should have never allowed ourselves to get into so much debt.
Now we will pay the price.
To get an idea of how much the world has changed in recent years, just check out this incredible photo which contrasts the decline of Detroit over the years with the amazing rise of Shanghai, China.
Things did not have to turn out this way.  Unfortunately, we made decades of incredibly foolish decisions and we wrecked the greatest economic machine that the world has ever seen.
Now the future for America looks really bleak.
Or could it be that I am being too pessimistic?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below...


Thursday
Feb142013

Town Meeting Invasion has Begun 

To the Editor;

If there is one bit of hypocrisy that irks me the most, it's the charge from the progressive camp that 'outside groups' are interfering in NH's business on behalf of the conservative agenda.

When Rep. Susan Almy held a 'tax summit' in 2009, she invited outside, Soros-funded groups to come speak to the legislature on behalf of a state income tax, while excluding real grassroots taxpayer groups such as GST and CNHT. Her excuse? "You have FOX News" she wrote to me in response to an email I sent asking where the local advocacy groups fit in and why they were not invited to participate in the discussion about NH's taxes. From there, her conversation became even more bizarre and disconnected from the real issue, I suspect, because she HAD no excuse.

And now it has come to our attention, as predicted, that one of the PR firms being used by the Regional Planning Commissions to shape the debate and guarantee that the outcome of NH's towns will be their full acceptance of the federal government's HUD/EPA/DOT commitment to Agenda 21, is now apparently showing up at town meetings.

In this case, it is to lobby for all day kindergarten, something that only the locals should be able to decide, according to a letter in the Laconia Daily Sun:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/opinion/letters/65098-we-don-t-need-outside-group-trying-to-help-wrsd-officials-get-around-2012-kindergarten-vote

This is even more reason to get out to your town meetings, a few nights or Saturday mornings, where your taxes may be raised by those who represent the agendas of wealthy corporations and their foundations.


Jane Aitken

Sunday
Feb032013

Open Letter to Steve Vaillancourt 

Some people, including you, have claimed that I'm “not libertarian” because I called for the censure of a State Representative who stated that she wishes to restrict freedoms in an attempt to target a specific group of people. You called this “witch hunt to deny free speech to a duly elected representative.”You don't specify how a censure denies anyone's free speech. Censure is defined as, to “express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.” When a legislative body censures someone, they are formally expressing disapproval of a statement or action of an elected official. There is no removal of that person's freedom of speech, simply a formal statement that the body disapproves of what was said. Impeachment is “a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office.” Again, nothing about removing free speech in that definition either! [NH RSA's do not define either term, so I am using the definitions from Google]

 

There are now three unanswered questions:

1) Since no action was taken on the petition against Cynthia Chase, am I to believe the official position of the New Hampshire General Court is that “Free Staters” are not welcome in New Hampshire and that laws must be passed that make us leave or not move here to begin with?2) Since the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to uphold the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a petition for redress can not be heard absent a legislative sponsor filing said petition during a small window in November and December, am I to believe that the people have no right to have their petitions heard outside of a small window in November & December?

3) How does that decision fit with Part 1 Article 32 of the NH constitution which recognizes the right of the people to “give instructions to their representatives… by way of petition…” AND Part 1 Article 31 states, “The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances…”?

 

[I am sending this open letter to NHInsider.com & Rep. Vaillancourt before making it publicly available on FreeKeene.com]

 

--
--
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry is an activist, author, poet & statesman. Darryl is a regular contributor to The Bulverde StandardThe Canyon Lake Week and The Comal Beacon and writes a monthly article for The Sovereign. He hosts the weekly news podcasts Freedom Minute and Police Accountability Report and hosts the weekly radio show Peace, Love, Liberty Radio on the Liberty Radio Network.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.
Sunday
Feb032013

Town of Londonderry vs Private Property Owner

Dear Concerned Citizen,
 
The Town of Londonderry used Fraud Upon the Court to gain possession of a piece of property and built a fire station on it using Federal money.  Here is the timeline of events:
  1. 1995 – 2001. The Tax Collector would not tender tax money from the years of 1995 through 2001, which amounts to more than $27,000 in bank checks. This is in complete violation of NH RSA 80:71.

    Question: Since when does a Tax Collector refuse tax money from a tax payer?

  2. May of 1999. The same Tax Collector, Joan Savina, tax deeded the property to the Town in complete violation of NH R.S.A. 80:76. Look at paragraphs IIa & III. This was done in complete defiance of the Board of Selectmen. All property deeds need an informed grantee. This never happened in May of 1999.

  3. July 1, 2002. The Town of Londonderry won a restraining order against me, claiming I was a trespasser on their property.

  4. August 1, 2002. The Town sent me a Notice to Quit.

  5. August 19, 2002. The Town of Londonderry’s Lawyer, Barton Mayer, changed his mind about who really owned the property. In his answer to the same Court he told in July that the Town did own the property to obtain a restraining order, he backtracked and stated in his letter that the Town did not actually have ownership of the property. The Town also violated NH 80:91.

  6. August 19, 2002. The same day, the Town hired a junk dealer (S&S Metals) who showed up with an army of Londonderry Policemen that held me at bay and spent a number of days stealing my equipment: trucks, bulldozers, cranes, backhoes, cars, welding machines, and thousands of dollars in hand tools.

  7. New Hampshire Law states unambiguously in RSA 80:91 that the Town has a three-year window from the date of the Tax deed to be in compliance with RSA 80:91.

    Do the math: The three-year window was over in May of 2002. That is assuming the Town of Londonderry had a legal deed in the first place.

  8. September 5, 2002. After having me arrested for Criminal Trespass on my own property, the Town (through their lawyer, Barton Mayer) offered me a bribe if I would sign over a Quit Claim deed to the Town of Londonderry, he would drop the Criminal Trespass charges. As a result of not signing a Quit Claim deed, I was put in jail for 17 days without bail.

  9. December 2002. The Town of Londonderry’s lawyer (knowing full well that the Town didn't own the property) gave the case to the Londonderry Prosecutor, Kevin Coyle, who signed an affidavit swearing that the Town owned the property.

  10. January 31, 2003. This case somehow made its way to Rockingham County Superior Court as a structuring conference with a Docket number of 02-C-1074 (Town of Londonderry VS. Robert Saulnier).

  11. February 24, 2003. Barton Mayer, the first lawyer for the Town of Londonderry, filed a motion for entry of judgment that was granted by the Court. As a result, I was found in default by the Court.

  12. April 18, 2003. Back in the Derry Municipal Court, the judge signed a notice of judgment against me for not paying $5,889.14 in back rent.

  13. April 24, 2003. I filed an appeal in the Derry District Court, pursuant to NH RSA 540:20.

  14. May 9, 2003. I was evicted from property, in complete violation of NH 540:20, which says I had 30 days to complete the appeal.
Pursuant to article 358-A:10 regarding Private Actions, the Town could be liable for up to $3,000 per day that my family and I have been wrongly removed from our home. 
 
I have all of the paperwork to prove my case.
 
The Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire is running a criminal operation. More importantly, the Town has committed Fraud Upon the Court, which has no statute of limitations.
 
One might ask why the Town would go through all of this fraud. The answer is a Federal grant of $1.6 million to build a fire station on this property (the current North West Fire Station at 22 Grenier Field Road in Londonderry.
 
Follow the money and you come up with the answer.


Sincerely,
Robert O. Saulnier
22 Highland Green
Merrimack, NH 03054
Sunday
Feb032013

How the Obama Administration Defies Federal Law on Immigration and Welfare

How the Obama Administration Defies Federal Law on Immigration and Welfare

Immigration is in the news, and legislation is being proposed that relies on the Obama administration to execute, in good faith, the nation’s laws. But the Obama administration doesn’t do that. Instead, the administration arrogantly ignores laws it doesn’t like, in violation of Barack Obama’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This is most notoriously the case with respect to immigration and welfare. We have written about this on several occasions; Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sums up the administration’s sorry history in a press release titled: “Immigration And The Welfare State: How The Obama Administration Defies Federal Law.”

It is an explicit and unambiguous tenet in federal law that those granted entry into the U.S. must be able to support themselves financially. But the Obama Administration has aggressively defied this strict federal statute.­ What are new promises worth when existing law is unilaterally waived?

Last year, the Ranking Members of Budget, Finance, Judiciary, and Agriculture Committees wrote an oversight letter to Secretaries Napolitano and Clinton that said in part:

The [Immigration and Nationality Act] specifically states: “An alien who…is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” … We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge….Under your interpretation, an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a “public charge.”

DHS even has a website, WelcomeToUSA.gov, that features a page promoting welfare benefits to newly arrived immigrants. (Some of these benefits, under law, should automatically disqualify the applicants from entry into the U.S. The page is also being updated to promote free coverage under the President’s health law.) Yet DHS has completely stonewalled the Committees’ oversight efforts—not replying to a single inquiry. Initial data from the State Department shows that just 0.068 percent of visa applications were denied in 2011 on the grounds of being a welfare risk. (The rate is even less—0.003 percent—when one takes into account those who are able to overcome public-charge denials in subsequent years.) In other words: Despite laws to the contrary, virtually no one is being turned away from the United States for being welfare-reliant.

Relatedly, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has stopped complying with efforts to learn more about his Department’s efforts to enroll immigrants and non-citizens on 15 USDA-administered welfare programs. The Department has even produced and broadcast soap opera-like “radio novelas” featuring individuals who were pressured into accepting benefits despite insisting that government assistance was not needed. USDA has also entered into a partnership with Mexico to boost welfare enrollment among non-citizens. Thanks in part to such controversial tactics, food stamp usage among immigrants has quadrupled since 2001. Vilsack missed deadlines in October and December to answer questions about USDA’s activities.

Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that a recent Center for Immigration Services study found that 36 percent of immigrant-headed households received at least one welfare benefit in 2010 (including public housing). The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector offered this mathematical analysis in 2007: “On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers… It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family.”

As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.

The Obama administration actively conspires to violate existing immigration laws. So why would anyone vote for a new statute that relies on a lawless administration to enforce the law?

http://tinyurl.com/b7y7h3t