Gallegly is Against Healthcare Reform…here’s why

Here  is Gallegly’s 2010 campaign contributions:

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$9,000	$1,000	$8,000
Telephone Utilities	$4,000	$0	$4,000
Defense Electronics	$4,765	$1,765	$3,000
Commercial Banks	$3,000	$0	$3,000
Health Professionals	$5,665	$2,665	$3,000
Electronics Mfg & Services	$3,330	$830	$2,500
Real Estate	$8,562	$6,062	$2,500
Misc Issues	$2,000	$0	$2,000
Home Builders	$2,000	$0	$2,000
Computers/Internet	$2,265	$1,265	$1,000
TV/Movies/Music	$3,000	$2,000	$1,000
Lawyers/Law Firms	$10,999	$9,999	$1,000
Insurance	$2,000	$1,000	$1,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing	$4,650	$4,350	$300
Livestock	$5,514	$5,514	$0
Building Materials & Equipment	$4,600	$4,600	$0
Casinos/Gambling	$2,000	$2,000	$0
Retired	$16,711	$16,711	$0
Trucking	$2,065	$2,065	$0
Business Services	$2,665	$2,665	$0

Here are Gallegly’s campaign contributions for the 2008 cycle:

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$36,500	$17,000	$19,500
Telephone Utilities	$11,000	$0	$11,000
Real Estate	$48,244	$37,444	$10,800
Automotive	$18,800	$8,800	$10,000
Public Sector Unions	$9,000	$0	$9,000
Home Builders	$10,000	$2,000	$8,000
Defense Electronics	$10,000	$3,000	$7,000
TV/Movies/Music	$10,600	$4,600	$6,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing	$16,448	$10,648	$5,800
Health Professionals	$10,795	$7,648	$3,147
Securities & Investment	$9,800	$7,300	$2,500
Building Materials & Equipment	$16,250	$13,750	$2,500
Lawyers/Law Firms	$22,120	$19,870	$2,250
General Contractors	$9,050	$7,050	$2,000
Lobbyists	$9,150	$7,150	$2,000
Republican/Conservative	$10,410	$9,410	$1,000
Misc Finance	$9,900	$9,400	$500
Livestock	$14,200	$14,200	$0
Retired	$40,849	$40,849	$0
Casinos/Gambling	$10,600	$10,600	$0

A break down of the later demonstrates this:

Sector	Total	PACs	Indivs
Agribusiness	$46,898	$17,800	$29,098
Communications/Electronics	$29,489	$21,000	$8,489
Construction	$38,949	$12,500	$26,449
Defense	$15,250	$12,000	$3,250
Energy & Natural Resources	$12,750	$12,500	$250
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$89,444	$26,200	$63,244
Health	$48,995	$23,147	$25,848
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$31,270	$4,250	$27,020
Transportation	$24,800	$13,000	$11,800
Misc Business	$41,202	$12,564	$28,638
Labor	$12,000	$12,000	$0
Ideological/Single-Issue	$23,861	$11,401	$12,460
Other	$48,499	$0	$48,499

Insurance and Health contributions combined make up for his main campaign contributions. If you want to include Lobbyists, that includes another $31,000.

Add to this misery, Gallegly won’t hold town hall meetings and won’t debate campaign challengers.  Probably because he doesn’t care what his constituents have to say and doesn’t want to be challenged with the facts.

Data provided by Opensecrets.org

Go play with the yearly data there, and you’ll see he’s always been a favorite of the insurance/pharma industries.

Over the course of Gallegly’s Congressional career, here are his totals:

Sector	Total	PACs	Indivs
Agribusiness	$335,074	$120,211	$214,863
Communications/Electronics	$263,672	$192,112	$71,560
Construction	$308,391	$105,050	$203,341
Defense	$156,868	$135,557	$21,311
Energy & Natural Resources	$161,076	$131,018	$30,058
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$756,363	$319,949	$436,414
Health	$401,417	$205,322	$196,095
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$219,363	$39,525	$179,838
Transportation	$218,316	$135,120	$83,196
Misc Business	$352,147	$139,545	$212,602
Labor	$58,025	$57,525	$500
Ideological/Single-Issue	$192,638	$127,618	$65,020
Other	$284,506	$500	$284,006

hmmmmm

California’s Prop 8 is hateful and unethical

It is unbelievable that California voters must take time to vote on who has the right to marry.  Isn’t this a little too much meddling in personal privacy?  Isn’t this legalizing prejudice and hate?  Just where will this type of focus end?

We can’t allow our Constitution to dictate our personal lives or legalize prejudice.

Vote NO on 8

Last Day to Register to Vote in California for November Election

Voter registration must be postmarked by October 20, 2008 in the state of California to be able to vote in this upcoming election in November.

Here is the link to the Secretary of State’s website with directions – Voter Registration.

Here is the online Registration form.

Here is another site where you can register to vote online, check your voting location, and check to see if you are already registered:  Vote for Change

The deadline to register is quickly approaching.  Check if you are registered or register today.

Kucinich to present impeachment to House Judiciary Committee

Elton Gallegly has responded to impeachment requests that he will keep our views in mind if the issue of impeachment comes before him. Now he has his chance. Read below, this may be exciting news:

Kucinich to Present Impeachment Case to Panel

By Molly K. Hooper, CQ

Democratic leaders have agreed to give Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich a day before the House Judiciary Committee to make his case that President Bush ought to be impeached for allegedly lying to Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq.

Kucinich, D-Ohio, has introduced three impeachment resolutions — one against Bush, HRes 1258, and two against Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333, H Res 799) — all of which have been referred to committee and then ignored.

On Thursday, Kucinich complied with a rule requiring him to give notice before filing another article of impeachment, which he intends to do on July 14. Earlier Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., likely would review the matter before his committee.

Kucinich contends that Pelosi’s blessing demonstrates the desire on Capitol Hill to hold the administration accountable for allegedly lying to Congress.

“When Congress is reminded that a case for war was made based on information that has been categorically proven to be untrue, Congress will then want to reflect on its power and responsibility,” Kucinich said.

But Democratic House leaders downplayed the possibility of actual impeachment proceedings. “It is my expectation that there will be some review of it in the committee,” Pelosi said. “Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment, because that would have to be voted on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject.”

“The chairman may be holding hearings. Whether he holds impeachment hearings would be another question,” Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said Thursday.

A good follow-up action would be to fax in to the House Judiciary members directly telling them your thoughts. Here are their names and fax numbers:

MEMBERS WHO VOTED TO IMPEACH CLINTON FOR ORAL SEX:
Fax them this
Ranking Member: Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . *Fax: 202-225-8628
Hon. James Sensenbrenner (WI) Phone (202) 225-5101
Hon. Howard Coble (NC) Phone (202) 225-3065 . *Fax: (202) 225-8611
Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . *Fax (202) 225-1100
Hon. Bob Goodlatte (VA) Phone (202) 225-5431 . *Fax (202) 225-9681
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH) Phone (202) 225-2216 . *(202) 225-3012
Hon. Chris Cannon (UT) Phone (202) 225-7751 . *Fax (202) 225-5629

Others on the Judiciary Committee:

Baldwin (202) 2256942 has supported impeachment hearings.
Berman (202) 2253196
Boucher (202) 2250442
Cohen (202) 2255663
Conyers (202) 2250072
Davis (202) 2269567
Delahunt (202) 2255658
Ellison (202) 2254886
Fenney (202) 2266299
Forbes (202) 2261170
Franks (202) 2256328
Gohmert (202) 2261230
Gutierrez (202) 2257810
Issa (202) 2253303
Jackson Lee (202) 2253317
Johnson (202) 2260961
Jordan (202) 2260577
Keller (202) 2250999
King (202) 2253193
Lofgrin (202) 2253336
Lungren (202) 2261298
Nadler (202) 2256923
Nadler brooklyn 718- 9960039
Pence (202) 2253382
Sanchez (202) 2261012
Schiff (202) 2255828
Scott (202) 2258354
Sherman (202) 2255879
Sutton (202) 2252266
Wasserman Schultz (202) 2262052
Waters (202) 2257854 has supported impeachment hearings.
Watt (202) 2251512
Weiner (202) 2267253
Wexler (202) 2255974 has supported impeachment hearings.

Seven Republican Members of House Judiciary Call for Impeachment out of Duty to the Constitution

From Cheryl Biren-Wright on OpEd:

GOP Reps. Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, and Cannon after much deliberation put the Constitution and rule of law before politics. Rep. Lamar Smith stated, “As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The president’s actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: the truth counts.” Read their statements below.

[note: please read full article for a complete understanding. short on time? skim ’til you get to the end]

Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . Fax: 202-225-8628 We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the president. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States – not some laws, all laws.

As to the uniqueness of the office the president holds, he is a person in a position of immense authority and influence. He influences the lives of millions of Americans. When he took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority – for example, a business executive, a military officer or a professional educator – had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: “The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.”

This will not be an easy task. In fact, it is a difficult ordeal for all Americans, but we will get through it. We are a great nation and a strong people. Our country will endure because our Constitution works and has worked for over 200 years. As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The president’s actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: the truth counts.

As the process goes forward, some good lessons can be reaffirmed. No one is above the law, actions have consequences, always tell the truth. We the people should insist on these high ideals. That the president has fallen short of the standard doesn’t mean we should lower it. If we keep excusing away the president’s actions we as a nation will never climb upwards because there will be no firm rungs.

Hon. James Sensenbrenner (WI) Phone (202) 225-5101

…being a poor example isn’t grounds for impeachment; undermining the rule of law is.

When Americans come to Washington, they see the words “equal justice under law” carved in the facade of the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the powerful.

The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical…..

Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . Fax (202) 225-1100 This has been a very trying time. In a democracy, there are few more serious acts than to consider the possible impeachment of a president. I can tell you in true conscience it has caused me many sleepless nights.

I wanted to hear the evidence that would prove the charges were false. I believed that was the only fair way to proceed, and it was also my solemn constitutional duty and immense responsibility. I waited, I read, and I listened.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not a lawyer — one of the few on this committee — however, everyone that knows me knows I believe in the rule of law — believe the rule of law is fundamental to our society. A society without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore the laws are condemned to violence and chaos.

That bothers me. My district is considered among the safest communities in the nation. We have fine police officers, which certainly helps, but every officer from the chief to the beat officer will tell you a low crime rate begins with citizens who obey the law. Every citizen must obey the law, every law.

He violated the Constitution. To condone this would be to condemn our society to anarchy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot and will not condone such action…

more

South Korea doesn’t want our beef – Europe doesn’t want our chemicals

This past week in South Korea saw tens of thousands of citizens protesting the government’s move to begin US beef imports. The Seattle Times reported:

President Lee Myung-bak suggested Tuesday that South Korea will seek to ban imports of U.S. beef from older cattle amid a public backlash against his government over fears of mad cow disease.

Agriculture Minister Chung Woon-chun said earlier Tuesday that Seoul had asked the U.S. to refrain from exporting any beef from cattle 30 months of age and older, considered at greater risk of the illness.

Presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan said the president told a weekly Cabinet meeting that “it is natural not to bring in meat from cattle 30 months of age and older as long as the people do not want it.”

The spokesman also expressed hope that the United States would respect South Korea’s position following large-scale anti-government protests over the weekend.

U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said Washington saw no need to renegotiate an April agreement for South Korea to resume beef imports.

He said the deal is “based on international science and there is no scientific justification to postpone implementation.”

South Korea agreed in April to reopen its market to U.S. beef after it was blocked for most of the past four and a half years after the first case of the brain-wasting cattle disease was found in the U.S. in late 2003.

However, after tens of thousands of people rallied over the weekend and a request from the ruling party, the government said Monday it was delaying implementation of the agreement.

The government decided on the delay to “humbly accept the people’s will,” Chung said. read more

Now the European Union wants to block our products over chemical contents. They feel the chemicals cause cancer and other health problems. From the Washington Post:

Adamantly opposed by the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration, the E.U. laws will be phased in over the next decade. It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But American manufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives to chemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmets to shower curtains.

From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks, which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment.

“There’s a strong sense in Europe and the world at large that America is letting the market have a free ride,” said Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government. “The Europeans believe . . . that being a good global citizen in an era of sustainability means you don’t just charge ahead and destroy the planet without concern for what you’re doing.” read more

George Bush’s current trip to Europe is being marketed as his farewell tour. However I believe he’s on another begging mission. Judging by his previously failed mission to the Middle East begging for oil, he will again not be well received. While Bush’s strong support for corporate interests over consumers does not justify impeachable offenses, examining the world opinion of our nation at this point in time, as a reaction to standard Bush policies, should cause Congress to take another look at the impeachment issue. If they care about our economy, even our ability to export anything of value, they will need to address the administration of George Bush to restore our standing in the Global arena. Our economy depends on this.

George Bush needs to go and the faster the better. Call your local Congressmember. In the 24th district California, that individual is Elton Gallegly.

Impeachment Rally Westlake Village – Stand With Mary Pallant and other Impeachment Supporters

Emergency Rally in support of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Resolution presented to Congress on June 9th, at 8:40pm Eastern time, asking for the Impeachment of George W. Bush and listing 35 articles of Impeachable offenses.

For the love of our Country and Constitution let us show support and solidarity for this resolution. Impeachment is not a partisan issue, but a fundamental constitutional issue. The charges described in the Resolution clearly represent what our Founding Fathers intended in addressing acts of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. It is time for our legislatures to take a stand, stand up for the rule of law and stand firm with upholding their constitutional oath “to preserve and protect.” Thank you to Rep. Kucinich. These charges are now a part of the Congressional record.

Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Location: Corner of Westlake Blvd. and Townsgate in Westlake Village (near Rep. Gallegly’s office, member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Time: 6pm to 7pm

Let’s show Elton Gallegly we are serious about government for the people and by the people. We are calling for his vote to move forward for impeachment hearings regarding George Bush.

A Resolution

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War. Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX
Imprisoning Children

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

Pray at home. We’re going to need it.

Marta Jorgensen – Educator? Think not

The June 3rd election upset was interesting. How is it that Democrats of the 24th district voted to nominate Marta Jorgensen?

Jorgensen withdrew from the race and then jumped back in 2 weeks before the election. She clearly has no money to run against an incumbent with a million dollar campaign fund, and hasn’t appeared to make an effort in gathering donations from the community. She has NO government experience, no committee experience, no community service to point to that is verifiable, nor policies that she has endorsed to speak of. She was a no show at any of the candidate forums, didn’t debate, and made no effort to display her views to the 24th district.

Either Gallegly participated in some very questionable practices to insure an easy re-election, OR voters chose simply based on “Educator” being listed on the voter ballot in absence of any information about what candidates stand for. As far as Jorgensen being an educator, one can easily input her name on the California Commission on Teacher Credentials, the agency that oversees all California teachers, to find that she is not a credentialed teacher. Every certified school teacher must hold to a certain standard and pass vigorous education benchmarks to hold a credential to teach. In checking the California Nurses Registry, Jorgensen is not listed as a nurse either.

How sad. This was certainly our year in the 24th district. It is a shame that voters don’t take the future of our children and district more seriously and educate themselves.

Jorgensen withdrew from the 24th district race previously because, as she stated in a Paul Berenson interview (May 3rd, top of the second hour), she ran out of money. Will she again withdraw once up against Elton Gallegly, because she is out of funds?

But then again, perhaps the Democratic and Republican candidates are appropriately matched.

Outcome prediction for the 24th District CA race – Pallant leads

Here is the activity across Actblue.com.  While this merely indicates donation activity, it may be suggestive of the final outcome of today’s election.  Mary Pallant is clearly coming out ahead and shows the most serious intention to step forward for the Democrats of the 24th Congressional District.

Mary Pallant

• See who’s raising
• Go to website

Raised across ActBlue: 81 supporters – raised $5,465

Jill Martinez

• See who’s raising

Raised across ActBlue: 8 supporters – raised $775

Marta Jorgensen

• See who’s raising

Raised across ActBlue: 2 supporters – raised $75

Jill Martinez at it again…using old endorsements

In another sign of questionable integrity, Jill Martinez, who is running in the 24th Congressional district June 3rd primary, has again added outdated endorsements to her website that are no longer valid.

Today, June 2nd, Martinez has placed an endorsement from the Iron Workers Local #433 on her website that is from a 2006 election.  Campaign protocol dictates that  endorsements are valid for the current year only.  Here is that 2006 page from the Ironworkers.  You can also find this page from the first page of Martinez’s website.  View the list of names on that list and you will find candidates from an election long past.

Here is the current  Ironworkers Local #433 site
Not cool Jill.  I would never support your candidacy for Congress. I think we’ve had enough of this nonsense in politics.

Immmigration Myths and Cable News

Here is an interesting article about immigration that looks at the myths promoted by mainstream media.  It is a study completed by Media Matters Action Network.  Great insight.  En Espanol

Here is the link of the summary .

Here is the downloadable PDF file.

Here is a very brief summary of the article, please use this link to read the full text:

1.) There is no evidence to indicate that undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than American citizens; indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that immigrants in general are less likely to commit crimes.² For instance, a 2005 study ³ conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Michigan revealed both that immigrants committed fewer crimes than native-born citizens, and that a greater proportion of immigrants in a neighborhood was associated with lower rates of crime. Another study ⁴ analyzing census data found that among men aged 18-39 (who make up the bulk of those committing crimes), the incarceration rate was five times higher for the native-born than for the foreign-born. This held true within ethnic and national-origin groups, meaning, for instance, that native-born Latinos were more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born Latinos. A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that in that state, which contains more immigrants than any other, the foreign-born are incarcerated at a rate half as high as their presence in the population, and only one-tenth as high among men age 18-40, who make up the bulk of prisoners.⁵ Robert J. Sampson, chairman of the sociology department at Harvard University, said that data show that undocumented immigrants are in fact “disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being.”⁶

There have, of course, been individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, some of which are quite serious. But in order to justify a particular focus in news programs and the claims of a “crime wave” — not just a few reports, but the enormous number of stories and discussions we document below — crimes committed by undocumented immigrants would have to be disproportionate to their numbers. Immigration opponents might argue that any crime committed by an immigrant increases the total amount of crime in the country, but the risk of crime is increased only if the immigrants commit more crimes per person than the native-born, since immigration also increases the population and therefore diffuses the crime risk to any particular person.

Immigration opponents often note that a relatively high proportion of federal prisoners are foreign-born (more than a quarter are noncitizens, according to the Government Accountability Office⁷). But this one statistic gives a misleading impression of overall crime. For one, federal prisoners account for only a small proportion — less than 10 percent — of the total incarcerated population, since most prisoners are housed in state and local facilities.⁸ According to the latest Justice Department statistics available, noncitizen prisoners accounted for only 5.9 percent of the combined federal and state prisoner population.⁹ The most recent Census Bureau report on the foreign-born population in the U.S. found that 11.7 percent of the population is foreign-born — meaning that the proportion of foreign-born prisoners is much lower than the proportion of foreign-born people in the population.¹⁰

2. Some believe that undocumented immigrants benefit from federal programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIP, and welfare. In fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive these benefits; anyone seeking to obtain them must provide proof of legal status.²⁵ Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, even documented immigrants are ineligible for most forms of public assistance for the first five years they reside in the United States or until they attain citizenship.²⁶ While there are some social services undocumented immigrants do use — public education for children, for instance — contrary to the rhetoric one hears on cable news, they also support government spending through the taxes they pay.

Undocumented immigrants pay all kinds of taxes: they pay sales taxes whenever they purchase goods and services, they pay property taxes in the form of rent, and they pay payroll and income taxes. Many undocumented immigrants use false Social Security numbers to obtain employment; when they do so, these workers then pay payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare), and often federal and state income taxes as well, through paycheck withholding. As the New York Times reported in 2005²⁷, the Social Security Administration estimates that three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, adding as much as $7 billion in Social Security taxes a year to federal coffers, and another $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.²⁸ Under current law, none of these funds will ever be paid back to undocumented immigrants in the form of Social Security and Medicare benefits, as they are not eligible.

This does not mean, however, that in the short term some states and localities will not pay more for services to undocumented immigrants than they collect in taxes, even if when all levels of government are considered, immigrants more than pay for themselves. According to a December 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants — both legal and unauthorized — exceed the cost of the services they use. Generally, such estimates include revenues and spending at the federal, state, and local levels. However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes.”²⁹

I’ve included this article as it appears worth consideration.  Our local House Representative for the 24th Congressional district, Elton Gallegly, has spent an enormous amount of time on this issue.  I personally feel voters need a broader perspective as to the important issues worthy of our efforts and consideration.