Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Reports That Illegal Immigrants Cost The U.S. $113 Billion And Alaska $139 Million Per Year

On July 6th, 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report on a study in which they estimate the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The report also includes state-by-state breakdowns, and showed that Alaska's cost to be about $139 million. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy.

-- Read media story from Fox News HERE
-- Read seven-page executive summary HERE
-- Read 104-page full report HERE
-- Read comparison of state budget gaps and state expenditures on illegals HERE.

Key Findings:

-- Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84.2 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
-- The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
-- Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
-- At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
-- Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 52 of the full report. Tables 8, 12, 13, and 14 are of interest. Table 15 on page 77 reveals a total outlay for Alaska of $138.6 million. Categorical Breakdown:

-- K/12 Education: $62,400,000
-- LEP (Limited English Proficiency): $12,600,000
-- Medicaid: $7,800,000
-- SCHIP (State Child Health Insurance Program): $2,400,000
-- Justice: $6,800,000
-- Welfare: $16,700,000
-- General: $29,900,000 (defined as common taxpayer-funded municipal services; also includes free and subsidized costs of school meals, since states must provide 30 percent of matching funds to qualify for Federal funding)

Some have estimated the total of illegal immigrants in Alaska to be around 50,000. Because of Alaska's distance from the Mexican border, Alaska illegals are predominantly but not overwhelmingly Hispanic as they are in Arizona. Anchorage is still considered a sanctuary city for illegals by OJJPAC, but it is a passive sanctuary city rather than an active sanctuary city where cops are expressively forbidden from inquiring into the residency status of people. Former Anchorage Assemblyman Paul Bauer started a group allied to FAIR, called Alaskans for Legal Presence. I previously described it HERE.

Joseph Casias' Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart In Michigan, Triggered By Firing For Positive Drug Screen, Exposes Contradictory Medical Marijuana Law

An ambiguous and contradictory medical marijuana law in Michigan will be the subject of an upcoming court battle between Wal-Mart and Joseph Casias, a medical marijuana user who is a former Wal-Mart employee. The problem is that Casias was fired from his Wal-Mart job because he tested positive for marijuana on a drug screen. This story is of interest to anyone who lives in a state which allows "at-will employment".

According to the Detroit Free Press, Michigan's medical marijuana law, in addition to protecting a user against criminal justice, also states that a person shall not be subject to "disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board of bureau" for using marijuana in accordance with the act. But on the other hand, it also says the law doesn't require an employer to accommodate the ingestion of the drug in the workplace or an employee working while under the influence under disability rules.

And it's because of the latter sentence that Joseph Casias is now a former Wal-Mart employee. As reported by WZZM Channel 13 in March 2010, Casias, a father of two, has sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor. At his doctor's recommendation, Casias began using medical marijuana to ease the pain. He was given an official card by the state to show authorization. During this time, Casias was working at the Wal-Mart store in Battle Creek, Michigan; he was selected as the store's Associate of the Year in 2008. But in November 2009, Casias sprained his knee at work. During the routine drug screening that follows all workplace injuries, marijuana was detected. Although Casias showed Wal-Mart managers his state medical marijuana card, he was fired anyway. He said he never reported to work actually high; during his five years at WalMart, Casias says he went to work every day, determined to be the best. WOOD Channel 8 news video embedded below:



Casias then began collecting unemployment benefits. But in March 2010, Wal-Mart decided to challenge his eligibility for benefits, claiming that termination for a positive drug screen constitutes firing for cause. At the time, Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter explained the company policy, which states: "In states, such as Michigan, where prescriptions for marijuana can be obtained, an employer can still enforce a policy that requires termination of employment following a positive drug screen. We believe our policy complies with the law and we support decisions based on the policy." Rossiter also said he sympathized with Casias, but then explained, "Like other companies, we have to consider the overall safety of our customers and our associates, including Mr. Casias, when making a difficult decision like this.”

It was only after Wal-Mart challenged his unemployment eligibility that Casias decided to seek legal redress, filing a lawsuit in Calhoun County Circuit Court. He will be assisted by the ACLU. Casias wants to be rehired and is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and hopes that his case will help protect some of the 20,000-plus other medical marijuana patients across Michigan. But legal precedent set in two other states does not favor him. In April 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that workers who use medical marijuana can still be fired for drug use because the state law had to yield to federal laws controlling illegal drugs. And in 2008, it was reported that the California Supreme Court also ruled in favor of employers, saying workers can be fired, even if they are using medical marijuana legally. But Dan Korobkin, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Michigan, said he believes Michigan's law clearly protects patients from being disciplined by their employers.

Analysis: This is an extremely tough call. It's bad news that Casias was abruptly fired for this despite his outstanding work record and the fact that he wasn't using marijuana recreationally. But I can relate to Wal-Mart's position; if Casias had injured someone on the job, traces of marijuana in Casias' system could increase the company's liability exponentially. But since Michigan is an at-will employment state, employers can fire a worker for any reason unless it falls under a federally protected category such as race, gender and religion. So the question will be whether or not to add disability, and to require an employer to make "reasonable accommodation" for medical marijuana users as a disability.

Since Casias was first hired in 2003, and didn't start using medical marijuana until 2008, the question wouldn't have arisen during the hiring process.

Sheldon Fisher Earns Conservative Patriots Group's Nod Over Alaska Congressman Don Young In Republican Primary Race

The Conservative Patriots Group (CPG) announced their second batch of endorsements during the Fourth of July weekend, and headlining the list was Republican challenger Sheldon Fisher over incumbent Congressman Don Young. Fisher undoubtedly sealed the deal when he appeared at the June 24th Tea Party Rally on the Anchorage Park Strip.

As previously discussed in January, Sheldon Fisher is a fiscal conservative who wants to cut government spending to control the national deficit, create jobs and strengthen support for families and children. He believes Alaska has more potential than any other state, but is mired in gridlock as rival stakeholders compete to develop the state's resources. He claims his business background shows that he is capable of defeating Young and is up to the job, despite the fact that he's never run for public office before. His campaign website shows that two of his primary Alaska political role models are Walter Hickel and Jay Hammond. As an added bonus, Fisher can flex considerable financial muscle; a Forbes estimate showed he made more than $1 million in his job with Alaska Communications Systems in 2008.

But another factor which may have steered CPG towards Fisher is Don Young's reluctance to debate. Fisher has challenged Young to a series of six debates, but the Young campaign has persistently dodged, ducked, and weaved their way out of it. But Don Young still delivers; on July 5th, the Anchorage Daily News published an LTE from a constituent who lauded Young's staff in slicing through a bureaucratic problem with the Social Security Administration, resulting in a solution on the same day of his complaint.

This brings up Don Young's one overwhelming advantage -- seniority, 37 years worth of it. Don Young not only knows where all the proverbial bodies are buried, but may have also helped "bury" some of them. He knows Congress inside and out. When House Republicans unilaterally surrendered to the Democrats and imposed their own earmark moratorium, Don Young, knowing it would place Alaska at a competitive disadvantage, refused to follow suit. He wants to ensure Alaska gets its fair piece of the Federal pie.

And unlike Lisa Murkowski, who's clearly a RINO, Don Young is no RINO. He's an established conservative, having earned a rating of 75 from the American Conservative Union in 2009. Numbers USA rates Don Young a solid "B" on immigration, better than Lisa Murkowski's "C-". And if that isn't enough, in August 2008, Ron Paul endorsed Don Young. You can't get much more conservative than that. You can find more information on Don Young's record on VoteSmart, and the Washington Post has a full list of Don Young's votes HERE.

The other Republican in the race is John Cox. The Democratic opposition is supplied by Harry Crawford.

The Conservative Patriot Group also endorsed three state candidates:

-- Lieutenant Governor (Republican): Endorsed Mead Treadwell over Jay Ramras, Eddie Burke, and Bob Lupo. Mead Treadwell is considered to have a stronger and more diverse public service portfolio than Eddie Burke.

-- House District 13 (Republican): Endorsed David J. Parks over incumbent Carl Gatto and Don Benson. Gatto has not always been in favor with conservative Republicans; in 2008, David Parks finished second behind Gatto with 23.7 percent of the vote. He was a favorite of conservative talk show host Dan Fagan. Update July 9th: It appears CPG has changed their minds and is now endorsing Carl Gatto instead. This change was prompted by Parks' sudden exit from the race.

-- House District 30 (Republican): Endorsed Jeannette O. Reddington over incumbent Charisse E. Millett. This was a surprise; Millet is a proven conservative. But I've since learned that Millett has publicly endorsed Lisa Murkowski for U.S. Senate, while CPG endorsed Joe Miller, so this could explain CPG's endorsement of Reddington.

Gay Pride Float Destroyed By Fire Just Two Days Before Intended Deployment In Anchorage's Fourth Of July Parade; Arson Suspected

A gay pride float that took 10 days to construct was destroyed by fire early on Friday July 2nd, 2010, just two days before its intended deployment in Anchorage's Fourth of July parade. To add insult to injury, the fire destroyed a garage and an adjacent float, and scorched the sides of two adjacent houses. Story published by the Anchorage Daily News, video report on KTVA Channel 11, and report on KTUU Channel 2.

Arson is suspected because witnesses told fire investigators they saw someone running from the driveway just moments before the garage containing the float went up in flames. Anchorage Fire Department Capt. Kevin Keene said, ""We're investigating right now. I'm putting all this together right now and I'm getting all kinds of information...Until I confirm that, right now the fire is still under investigation."

The couple responsible for constructing the float are not gay. Scott Koeller and his wife Paula Butner have built parade floats every year for the separate gay pride parade for the Imperial Court of All Alaska. This year they decided to build one for the Fourth of July parade. Gays and others say they are now working to make art out of ashes, calling their new float The Phoenix Rising, and are on track for the Sunday, 9:00 A.M. parade deadline. They're also raising money to help Koeller rebuild his garage. Gay community leaders say regardless of whether the float torching was an accident or a malicious act, they still want to send a positive message.

But if it is found to be arson and the intent was to target the gay community, it's likely to fire up the Ordinance #64 controversy all over again. Gay activists are likely to cite this as justification for a gay nondiscrimination ordinance, even though most of us Alaskans don't really care who you sleep with as long as they're over the age of consent and don't shout it from the housetops. It's only when gays demand to be a protected class that we Alaskans get our dander up; equal treatment under the law should mean NO PROTECTED CLASSES except the common protected class of "American citizen". The practice of designating multiple protected classes sows polarization, division, and even backlash.

So it's imperative that even those of us who disagree with the practice of homosexuality condemn this act if it is proven to be arson, simply because arson is a crime.

Update July 5th: A replacement float was built and deployed during the Fourth of July parade. In an obvious sympathy vote, the float, named "Phoenix Rising", won the Grand Champion trophy. You can also read more information and see more photos on this Mudflats post.

Despite A $13 Trillion National Debt, United States To Contribute $15 Million In Taxpayer Funds To The Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation

During an appearance at the Schindler Factory Museum in Krakow, Poland on July 3rd, 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States will donate $15 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation, pending Congressional authorization and appropriations. The contribution will go to preserve the site of the concentration camp and, according to Clinton, "demonstrates America's commitment to Holocaust education, remembrance and research." If approved, the funding would be provided over five years starting in 2012. Approval is possible despite the fact that the 2010 deficit alone is projected to be $1.171 trillion and our national debt now exceeds $13 trillion.

Read the full U.S. Department of State announcement HERE.

The official rationale is that because Auschwitz was initially constructed as a temporary place, the buildings and other artifacts at Auschwitz-Birkenau are deteriorating. Reportedly some 1.1 million people perished at the camp, including 960,000 Jews, between 70,000 and 75,000 Poles, nearly all of the 23,000 Gypsies sent to the camp and 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war. Revised downward from 4 million in 1989, the current memorial posted at Auschwitz claims 1.5 million victims; the total has been a source of considerable contention.

Because Congressional authorization is required, interaction with members of Congress is the best way to stop the money from being spent for this purpose. You can find out how to contact your state's Congressional delegation HERE; suggested talking points are provided below:

-- Is it appropriate to spend $15 million of taxpayers funds on a European concentration camp/cemetery when we have a $13 trillion national debt?

-- Is it appropriate to spend $15 million on a European cemetery when we cannot even maintain Arlington Cemetery properly? Since when do dead Europeans take precedence over the resting place of Americans who gave their lives in military service to our country?

Above all, avoid any type of rhetoric which could be interpreted as Holocaust denial. The purpose of your communication is not to debate the Holocaust or to expose the truth of it; instead, it's to convince your member of Congress to reject this expenditure and re-direct those funds towards Americans. Cite examples of projects in your state that could be funded with that $15 million.

Auschwitz is worth preserving; in an era where the European Union is slowly evolving into a more totalitarian entity, Europeans need a visible historical reminder of where tyranny can lead. But it is a European problem requiring European funding, NOT American funding. The Holocaust occurred on European soil, NOT on American soil. As Ross Perot once said, fix America first.

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski Leads A Parade Of Republicans Who'll Vote Against Affirmative Action Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

The Anchorage Daily News reports that Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is leading a parade of Republican U.S. Senators who've said they intend to vote against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Like Obama's other choice, Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan is also widely perceived by many conservatives as an affirmative action nominee, being pushed by Obama particularly because she is female. Murkowski is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which merely gives a recommendation to the full Senate, but will still vote No when the vote comes up before the full Senate.

In her official statement, Senator Murkowski expressed appreciation for Kagan’s talents as a law teacher and acknowledged her great command of Supreme Court precedents. But the money quote, according to Hot Air:

“Ms. Kagan, like this administration’s last nominee, Justice Sotomayor, is a native of New York City. Although she spent a portion of her career in Chicago, most of her career has been spent ‘inside the beltway’ of Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Massachusetts on the campus of Harvard University,” Murkowski said. “If confirmed, six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be from the Northeast United States, and only three law schools of the 199 law schools accredited by the American Bar Association will be represented on the high court-Harvard, Yale and Columbia law schools.”

Bingo! The elite who rule America believe coastal, or "blue" America, is the only source of wisdom in this country, and think the only role for "flyover" America is to STFU and pay their taxes. And, of course, celebrate diversity 24/7.

As the hearings proceeded, other concerns about Kagan surfaced. When asked if she would find a federal law requiring that each individual consume three fruits and three vegetables a day to be constitutionally objectionable, Kagan responded that although she might regard it as dumb law, she then went on to analyze it under Congress' authority to regulate commerce, never considering whether such a law would violate liberty or privacy interests found elsewhere in the Constitution. Perhaps this disguises the fact that Kagan might find the individual mandate in the health care reform bill to be constitutional.

LifeNews also informs us that Kagan helped Bill Clinton defend his veto of a partial-birth abortion ban -- the gruesome abortion procedure when a baby is birthed halfway and then jabbed in the head with medical scissors, killing him or her. She helped Clinton find political cover for his decision to keep those abortions legal. Kagan even went as far as advocating that the Clinton administration not only ignore but manipulate the opinion of a national medical group that said there was never any medical justification for killing unborn children halfway out of the birth canal. Kagan has also lauded human cloning and assisted suicide. The Clinton library has just released papers on Kagan's service in his administration. The IOpposeKagan website offers more information.

Senator Murkowski cannot be legitimately accused of opportunism in her stand against Kagan. Since she also opposed Kagan's nomination as Solicitor General, she hasn't changed her position to coopt her more conservative Republican opponent Joe Miller. Other Republican Senators declaring themselves in opposition to Kagan as of this post (names hot-linked to media sources):

-- Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah: Hatch said "Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law...(Solicitor) General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard." Read Hatch's full statement HERE. Bennett merely followed Hatch's lead, saying ""I agree that many of the things in Ms. Kagan's background are troublesome enough and justify a negative vote." Read Bennett's brief statement HERE.

-- Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who accused Kagan of being far from forthcoming in discussing her own views on basic principles of American constitutional law during the confirmation hearings.

-- Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma announced he would vote against Kagan shortly after her name was first put forth.

-- On July 8th, the New American reported that John McCain of Arizona, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Johnny Isaacson of Georgia will also vote against Kagan. Mike Johanns of Nebraska now also opposes Kagan.

Charles Grassley of Iowa, John Kyl of Arizona, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma are also expected to announce their opposition as well. But Republicans aren't talking filibuster at this time, and they acknowledge they may not have the votes to stop Kagan's nomination.

Community Responds Unfavorably To Discrimination Lawsuit By Anchorage Police Department Detectives; Racialist Sentiment Awakened Among Some Whites

Update July 2nd: Added link to and short summary of Anchorage Daily News editorial.

The announcement of a discrimination lawsuit against the Municipality of Anchorage by two veteran detectives of the Anchorage Police Department, Alvin Kennedy, who is Black, and Eliezer Feliciano, who is Hispanic, has been greeted by strong reaction in the comments section of various local media outlets. While some assert, based upon their own experiences, that some APD officers behave in a racist manner towards the public, a larger segment of the public believe the complaints to be unfounded. Both Mayor Dan Sullivan and APD Chief Mark Mew say that most of the issues raised in the suit have long since been resolved.

But first, since my previous post, KTVA Channel 11 has released news video. In addition, the Anchorage Daily News has published an editorial on July 2nd, stating that citizens need to see a clear resolution of this lawsuit accusing police of racism, since police often must deal with people on the worst days of their lives, and they deal on those worst days with every color, creed, nationality and culture in Anchorage. That requires an uncommon blend of skill, toughness and humanity. Our police are right up front in an increasingly diverse city.

But along with the preponderance of comments expressing skepticism and disagreement with the suit are an unusually high number of comments by those identifying as White who appear to have had racialist sentiments awakened. They're interpreting this discrimination lawsuit as yet another implicit attack upon the White community, and they're setting aside their fear of being considered "racist" and speaking out. The comments are concentrated in two Anchorage Daily News stories; "Police officers claim racism in lawsuit" (246 comments), and "Police chief says racism isn't tolerated" (65 comments). But it was this lengthy exchange on the second story that caught my attention (after the jump):