Mediaboss Marketing

Testimony ended and closing arguments were heard Friday in a trial stemming from immigration raids last year in O'Neill, Nebraska. Jack Williams interviewed Fred Knapp of NET News about trial developments.

Fred, could you bring us up to speed on what happened today?

One of two remaining defendants, Mayra Jimenez, took the stand on her own behalf. Jimenez was the office manager at O'Neill Ventures, a tomato growing and shipping plant in O'Neill.

Earlier, there was testimony about problems with workers supplied to that plant by Juan Pablo Sanchez Delgado, a local businessman -- problems including workers not being paid, being injured on the job, and working too many hours.

But when Jimenez was questioned by her lawyer, Candace Wooster, she admitted she was aware of those concerns, but did not know the workers were in the country illegally. And she said also that others who had testified against her had reason to lie, because they want to stay in the country and they could do that by helping the prosecution.

And what did the prosecution had to say about that?

Lesley Woods of the U.S. Attorney's Office displayed emails and tapped phone call transcripts that appeared to show Jimenez knew Sanchez Delgado wasn't deducting taxes from workers paychecks, even though he was legally required to do so, and he was taking the money.

According to one transcript, Jimenez laughed when Sanchez Delgado suggested she should slap a worker who fainted from an injury in the face to see her reaction.

There were also transcripts of her expressing fear of a raid or other actions by ICE -- Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Jimenez said even though she's a naturalized US citizen, for people like her from Mexico, that fear of ICE never goes away regardless of their legal status.

What about the other remaining defendant?

That's John Glidden, who managed several hog operations that Sanchez Delgado also supplied workers for. Like Jimenez, Glidden insists he never knew the workers were in the country illegally.

Glidden's lawyer, Carlos Monzon, said his client is a scapegoat being used to justify all the money and effort the government put into the raids. He said Sanchez Delgado, who's already pled guilty, was a thief, a liar, an opportunist and someone who testified for the prosecution only after cutting a deal to reduce his own maximum sentence from 50 years in prison to 10. And Monzon asked why the presidents and other higher officials of the companies that used those workers weren't on trial.

Fred, remind us again, what happened to the third defendant, John Good. He's no longer part of the trial.

Right. Judge John Gerrard ruled that, even though Good was alleged to have conspired to harbor illegal aliens like the other two defendants, it was a different conspiracy. Good owned Sanchez Delgado's house and the liquor license to the restaurant that Sandra Delgado ran, but wasn't involved with any of his staffing companies or his employees. And so the judge said that would be prejudicial to allow all the testimony against the other two to reflect on Good.

He could still be retried separately. That's up to the U.S. Attorney's office and they haven't decided yet.

So what happens now?

Well, Judge John Gerrard gave the jury instructions and sent them off to deliberate early Friday afternoon. They had apparently not reached a verdict by five o'clock. So I'm expecting theyll resume the deliberations on Monday.

View post:
O'Neill immigration raid trial goes to jury - NET Nebraska

Illegal immigration in Mexico has been a problem, especially since the 1970s. Although the number of deportations is declining with 61,034 registered cases in 2011[citation needed], the Mexican government documented over 200,000 illegal border crossings in 2004 and 2005[citation needed]. The largest source of illegal immigrants in Mexico are the impoverished Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador bordering Mexico to the southeast.

Prior to May 2011, Mexico's immigration policy was regulated by the highly strict General Law of Population of 1970, which had been portrayed in hypocritical light when compared to immigration policies as in the US states of Arizona or Alabama. However, on May 24, 2011, President Felipe Caldern signed the new and much more liberal Migration Law. The Mexican Senate and the House had unanimously approved the migration bill on February 24 and April 29, respectively. Some of the most significant principles in this new law included new rights for migrants. The new law guarantees that foreigners and Mexican nationals will receive equal treatment under Mexican law and decriminalizes undocumented immigration, reducing it to an administrative infraction, punishable with a fine of up to 100 days' worth of minimum wage.[1]Under this equality principle all immigrants, regardless of status, nationality, or ethnicity, are granted the right to education and healthcare and are entitled to due process. Elements aimed at promoting family unity were also added. Moreover, before the government takes action (e.g. deportation) with respect to migrant children and other vulnerable individuals (women, seniors, the disabled and victims of crime), their specific needs must be prioritized and adequate services must be provided. Migrants are also granted judicial rights that they were previously denied, such as the right to due process. In addition, the law also calls for establishing a Center for Trust Evaluation and Control which will be charged with the task of training and certifying immigration personnel in hopes of curtailing corrupt practices. All Institute of Migration officials are to meet the same standards as the rest of the country's security agencies. Government officials found to be violating the law are now subject to penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

With the Mexican governments intent to control migration flows and attract foreigners who can contribute to economic development, the new migration law simplifies foreigners entrance and residence requirements. First, it replaces the two large immigration categories (immigrant and non-immigrant) with the categories of visitor and temporary resident". The status of permanent resident is maintained. In the General Law of Population the two categories incorporate over 30 different types of foreignersi.e. distinguished visitor, religious minister, etc.each with its own stipulations and requirements to qualify for entry and stay. Under the new law the requirements are simplified, basically differentiating those foreigners who are allowed to work and those who are not. The law also expedites the permanent resident application process for retirees and other foreigners. For granting permanent residency, the law proposes using a point system based on factors such as level of education, employment experience, and scientific and technological knowledge.[2] The specifics for the points system were established in the Law's regulationsArticles 124 to 127 of the Regulationspublished on September 28, 2012. According to Article 81 of the Law and Article 70 of the regulations to the law, immigration officials are the only ones that can conduct immigration procedures although the Federal Police may assist but only under the request and guidance of the Institute of Migration. Verification procedures cannot be conducted in migrant shelters run by civil society organizations or by individuals that engage in providing humanitarian assistance to immigrants.[3][4]

In the 1820s, some people from the Northern and Eastern United States entered Mexico illegally. Mexico did have legal immigration through empresario contacts. The reason for this was to create a buffer between Mexico and the growing United States. At first they tried to convince Mexicans to move into Texas. However, Texas was dominated by the warlike Comanche Native Americans. Mexican families did not want to move to Texas and risk their families lives. Mexico then offered cheap land to Anglos from the United States. These legal immigrants had to agree to live under the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Mexican Texas was bordered by the U.S. frontier areas of Louisiana and Arkansas, had the most settlement by American illegal immigrants. When Mexico realized that illegal immigration was out of control they attempted to shut it down. Mexican Texas had a population of 3,000 illegal immigrants by 1823; most of those immigrants were from the Southern United States or Appalachia. By 1825, Mexico and the Coahuila y Tejas territory legalized immigration under the condition that settlers convert to Roman Catholicism and not own slaves. However, as the settler population expanded to 7,000 and did not assimilate with Mexican culture, Mexico banned American immigration again in 1830. However, by 1835, American immigration increased to 1,000 per month. Santa Anna did away with the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Many violations under his dictatorship led to tensions and eventually the outbreak of a revolution. Texas became independent from Mexico in 1836.[5]

In October 2004, the Hechos newscast of TV Azteca reported that the National Institute of Migration (INM) in Mexico raided strip clubs and deport foreigners who worked in such clubs without the proper documentations.[6] In 2004, the INM deported 188,000 people at a cost of US$10 million [7]

Illegal immigration of Cubans through Cancn tripled from 2004 to 2006.[8]

The Mexican government has been accused of hypocrisy in terms of illegal immigration, criticizing the United States government for its treatment of illegal immigrants whilst their laws are considerably harsher by comparison.[9][10][11]

In 2006, Joseph Contreras profiled the issue of Guatemalan immigrants illegally entering Mexico for Newsweek magazine[12] and claimed that while Mexican president Vicente Fox urged that the United States grant legal residency to millions of undocumented Mexican immigrants, Mexico had only granted legal status to 15,000 undocumented immigrants. Additionally, Contreras found that at coffee farms in the Mexican state Chiapas, "40,000 Guatemalan field hands endure backbreaking jobs and squalid living conditions to earn roughly [US]$3.50 a day" and that some farmers "even deduct the cost of room and board from that amount."[13] The Mexican National Institute of Migration estimated that 400,235 people crossed the GuatemalaMexico border illegally every year and that around 150,000 of them intended to enter the United States.[14] The illegal immigration from Mexico's southern neighbors is proving to be a headache for both Mexico and the United States, which has seen an increase in illegal immigration from Central America while Mexican migration has fallen to about net zero. Most Central Americans in Mexico and the United States hail from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, with a small number from Nicaragua. Amnesty international indicates that 60% of women migrants are sexually assaulted while in transit via Mexico to the United States.[15]

On 14 September 2018, US media reported that Jacklyn the 7-year-old from Guatemala had died while in custody of US Customs. [16]

A 2019 survey sponsored by The Washington Post and Mexicos newspaper Reforma gathered information on public opinion regarding illegal immigration to Mexico.[17] It was conducted through July 9 to July 14, 2019, among 1,200 Mexicans adults and was done across the country in 100 election districts by way of face-to-face interviews.[17] According to the survey, Mexicans are profoundly frustrated with illegal immigrants following a year of increased migration through their country from Central America.[17] The survey demonstrates that only 7% of Mexicans say that Mexico should provide residency to Central American immigrants, while another 33% support allowing them to temporarily stay in Mexico while the United States comes to a decision regarding their admittance. However, a 55% majority say that illegal immigrants should be deported back to their home countries.[17] These findings disprove the perception that Mexico is supportive towards the swell of Central Americans. The data results instead suggest that Mexicans are opposed against the migrants traversing through their country, a sentiment shared by numerous supporters of President Trump.[17] The Post-Reforma survey finds that more than 6 in 10 Mexicans say that migrants pose a burden on their country because they take jobs as well as benefits that should belong to Mexicans; and a 55% majority of Mexicans support deporting migrants traveling through Mexico to reach the United States.[17]

The face-to-face survey was conducted among Mexican adults after a dramatic increase in Mexicos immigration enforcement following an agreement made in June with the United States.[18] Among the less of half of Mexicans who are aware of the June agreement, 34% are opposed while 59% are in favor.[17] Several analysts had predicted the base for the President of Mexico Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador to be disillusioned when he agreed to heighten Mexicos immigration enforcement. But the poll instead suggests that the new approach has subtracted very little from Obradors popularity. He currently maintains a strong 70% job approval rating eight months after assuming office. A 54% majority saying that Obrador is standing up for the interests of Mexico in his dealings with the United States and immigration.[17] Furthermore, 51% of Mexicans support utilizing the countrys recently formed National Guard to repel the migration of illegal immigrants in Mexico. The Mexican National Guard was launched by Lpez Obrador and has played a major part in the intensifying of immigration enforcement. A 53% majority of Mexicans have voiced their trust in the national guard, with two-thirds of Mexicans saying that they would like the national guard to be in their city, whereas 45% report that they feel more safe with the domestic force.[17]

In July 2019, the governors of three northern Mexican states; Coahuila, Nuevo Len and Tamaulipas, signed a statement announcing that they could not accept any more migrants.[19] Governor Miguel ngel Riquelme Sols of Coahuila stated, "The number [of migrants] that the federal government is talking about is impossible for us to deal with."[20][17] Guatemalans are set comprise the largest group of migrants apprehended at the United States border this year. By nationality, it would be the very first time in modern history when Mexicans do not make up the largest migrant group.[17]

The Post-Reforma poll finds that a mere 2% of Mexicans deem immigration their countrys most important problem, with a 55% majority naming insecurity. Another 9% each mentioning corruption and unemployment, 7% cite the economy, and lastly 4% each who say that poverty, political and social problems are Mexicos primary concerns.[17]

Read more:
Illegal immigration to Mexico - Wikipedia

A new map posted by HowMuch.netbreaks down the economic toll of illegal immigrants state by state, and their findings are extremely troubling.

Using information gathered from theFederation for American Immigration Reform, How Muchs map shows how much money illegal immigrants cost American taxpayers on a state-by-state basis.

California is most devastated by the heavy toll, with a whopping $23 billion in that state alone.

States closer to the Mexican border are most affected, but several states throughout the country still pay billions to support illegal immigrants througheducation, welfare, law enforcement, and medical care.

Heres the breakdown, provided by HowMuch.net:

The map doesnt include federal costs.

According to the Washington Examiner, when federal costs are included, illegal immigrants cost$135 billion a year.

Liberals like to justify their opposition to the deportation of illegal immigrants due to their estimations ofinitial costsfor actually enforcing our federal immigration laws.

But considering that current data suggests over a trillion dollars spent supporting illegal immigrants a decade, leftist arguments that deportation is too expensive crumble rather quickly.

Furthermore, Democrats like to point out that illegal immigrants pay some taxes, such as sales tax. According to the social security administration, about 3.4 million illegal immigrants (out of 11.1 million people illegally residing in the U.S.) pay social security taxes.

However, the How Much map takes into account taxes paid by illegal immigrants. So the costs represented on the map fall entirely to legal U.S. residents taxes.

The Washington Examiner continues:

The costs cover added expenditures for education, welfare, law enforcement, and medical care.

When federal costs are included, the price tag nationally soars to$135 billion a year.

FAIRs data also includes the offset of taxes paid by illegal immigrants, though the numbers are much lower. In the state and local column, they are $3.5 billion. Nationally they are $15 billion.

Overall, costs associated with illegal immigrants is much higher for state and local governments than the federal government. States pay $89 billion, Uncle Sam $46 billion.

Below are the ten states most heavily weighed by the cost of illegal immigration:

1. California $23,038,125,353

2. Texas $10,994,614,550

3. New York $7,489,141,357

4. Florida $6,290,429,108

5. New Jersey $4,466,838,574

6. Illinois $3,220,767,517

7. Georgia $2,487,719,503

8. North Carolina $2,437,965,113

9. Maryland $2,378,996,947

10. Arizona $2,314,131,964

HowMuch.net also explains why some states are more heavily affected than others, citing proximity to the border and overall population:

First, states that spend the most on illegal immigration tend to be located close to Mexico. Looking at out map, the two states with the highest expenditures are California ($23B) and Texas ($11B), both sharing long borders with Mexico. In fact, theres a cluster of dark red states stretching along the Southwest. States closest to the phenomenon pay the most as a result.

Second, states with higher population levels tend to spend more than their less populated counterparts. You can see a group of high-expenditure states clustered around the Northeast, not to mention Illinois and Florida. According to theU.S. Census Bureau, California and Texas are also the two most populous states in the country. High population levels and proximity to Mexico act like a double-whammy for illegal immigration expenses.

Now take a look at the places with relatively low levels of expenditures for illegal immigration, the light blue states. They are all located far away from the U.S.-Mexico border with relatively small population levels. West Virginia is perhaps an exceptional state, seeing that it is surrounded by red and dark red. We can speculate that this is likely due to the fact that West Virginia has a struggling economy which actuallycontracted last year.

Are Democrats willing to continue this sort of spending for years to come?

Tell us what you think of this mess, and sound off in the comments below.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Continue reading here:
Map Shows the Cost of Illegal Immigration, By State

Although it is difficult to measure how many people reside in the UK without authorisation, a Home Office study based on Census 2001 data released in March 2005 estimated a population of between 310,000 and 570,000.[1] The methods used are also much debated.[2] Problems arise in particular from the very nature of the target population that is hidden and mostly wants to remain as such.[3] The different definitions of illegality adopted in the studies also pose a significant challenge to the comparability of the data.

More recently, a study carried out by a research team at LSE for the Greater London Authority, published in 2009, estimated the illegal migrant population of the UK by updating the Home Office study.[4] The LSE's study takes into account other factors not included in the previous estimate, namely the continued arrival of asylum seekers, the clearance of the asylum applications backlog, further illegal migrants entering and leaving the country, more migrants overstaying, and the regularisation of EU accession citizens.

The most significant change in this estimate is however the inclusion of children born in the UK to illegal immigrants. For the LSE team illegal migrants oscillate between 417,000 and 863,000, including a population of UK-born children ranging between 44,000 and 144,000. Drawing on this and taking stock of the outcome of the recent Case Resolution Programme,[5] a University of Oxford's study by Nando Sigona and Vanessa Hughes estimate at end 2011 a population of illegal migrant children of 120,000, with over half born in the UK to parents residing without legal immigration status.[6]

According to the House of Commons Library, several definitions for a migrant exist in United Kingdom so that a migrant can be:

Illegal immigrants in the UK include those who have:

Migration Watch UK, is a think-tank that claims to be neutral. Migration Watch UK has criticised the Home Office figures for not including the UK-born dependent children of unauthorised migrants. They suggest the Home Office has underestimated the numbers of unauthorised migrants by between 15,000 and 85,000.[11]

Jack Dromey, Deputy General of the Transport and General Workers Union and Labour Party treasurer, suggested in May 2006 that there could be around 500,000 illegal workers. He called for a public debate on whether an amnesty should be considered.[12] Former Home Secretary David Blunkett suggested that this might be done once the identity card scheme is rolled out.[13] However the scheme was scrapped due to its widespread unpopularity by the coalition government in 2010.

London Citizens, a coalition of community organisations, is running a regularisation campaign called Strangers into Citizens, backed by figures including the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, the Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.[14] Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested that an amnesty would net the government up to 1.038 billion per year in fiscal revenue.[15] However, analysis by MigrationWatch UK suggests that if the migrants granted amnesty were given access to healthcare and other benefits, the net cost to the exchequer would be 5.530 billion annually.[16]

It has since been suggested that to deport all of the irregular migrants from the UK would take 20 years and cost up to 12 billion.[17] former Mayor of London Boris Johnson commissioned a study into a possible amnesty for illegal immigrants, citing larger tax gains within the London area which is considered to be home to the majority of the country's population of such immigrants.[18]

In February 2008, the government introduced new 10,000 fines for employers found to be employing illegal immigrants where there is negligence on the part of the employer, with unlimited fines or jail sentences for employers acting knowingly.[19]

In July 2013, the Home Office introduced an advertising lorry in London with its billboard saying "In the UK illegally? GO HOME OR FACE ARREST Text HOME to 78070 for free advice, and help with travel documents. We can help you return home voluntarily without fear of arrest or detention." This campaign was criticised from various quarters: Vince Cable, a prominent minister in the governing coalition, called it "stupid and offensive";[20] some on the left said that "go home" evoked an old National Front slogan.[21] Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party criticised the campaign as "nasty" and suggested that its real message was "Please dont vote UKIP, were doing something".[22]

In 2015 the newly elected Conservative Government announced it would be requiring Landlords to confirm the immigration status of tenants. Those failing to do so, or knowingly or unknowingly housing illegal immigrants could face criminal prosecution.

In 2015 a large number of migrants had set up a camp at Calais in the hope of entering the UK illegally, although there have always been some migrants entering the UK illegally from here many illegal migrants or asylum seekers try to enter the UK from France, by hiding inside trucks or trains and they've done so for years.[23]This sparked a large political debate in the UK. The UK government responded by funding additional security measures in Calais including a 7 million fence to prevent migrants entering the UK.

Read more:
Illegal immigration to the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Even though the costs of illegal immigration borne by taxpayers at the federal level are staggering, they only pale in comparison to the fiscal burden shouldered by taxpayers at the state level. Most government taxes and fees remitted to government by Americans are paid in forms other than income taxes submitted to the IRS on April 15th. There are city and state income taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes, etc. States and localities also bear the main burden for costs associated with public education, city and county infrastructure, and local courts and jails.

A further complication is the fact that, while barred from many federal benefits, state laws allow illegal aliens to access many state-funded social welfare programs. Because so little data is collected on the immigration status of individuals collecting benefits, it is difficult to determine the rate at which illegal aliens use welfare programs. However, based on the average income of illegal alien households, it appears they use these programs at a rate higher than lawfully present aliens or citizens.

The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is $18,571,428,571 billion. The services referenced in this section are supported directly by the payment of city and state taxes and related fees. At the state level, examples of general expenditures would be the costs of general governance, fire departments, garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance, etc. The state, county or municipality or even a special taxing district in some situations may provide some of these services. In most cases, localities offer more services than the state. By FAIRs estimate, there is approximately a 65 percent to 35 percent cost share between local and state governments.

The estimate of general expenditure services received by illegal alien households, beyond the specific outlays mentioned in the sections above, excludes capital expenditures and debt servicing. The calculation for each state is based on the states annual operating budget, reduced by the amount covered by the federal government. That expenditure is then reduced further based on the relative size of the estimated population of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children. As noted in our population estimate, this means states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., with larger illegal alien cohorts, will bear larger shares of these costs.

Excerpt from:
The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR