This Page

has been moved to new address

US Census: Money To Illegals

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: US Census: Money To Illegals

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

US Census: Money To Illegals

The US Census Director, Robert Groves, told a group of illegal immigrants in a "colonia" (a collection of illegals) on February 2nd, regarding the need for these persons to participate in the census (and their "concern" that if they did, they'd be deported):

Groves recently toured hard-hit communities to try to ease those concerns, telling residents that participating in the census could lead to better communities with paved roads, more electricity and improved schools. An estimated $400 billion will be dispersed around the country based on census results.

"The benefits of participating in the census are quite large," said Groves. "If you get counted, you get your fair share of that money."

Their "fair share of that money."

That's the money you and I, as taxpayers, send to the federal government to ensure that it comes back and benefits violators of our national laws.

Fifty per-cent of Americans pay roughly 98% of the taxes. You and I are being fleeced once more.

I find this outrageous.

Ladies and gentlemen, when do we say "enough is enough"?


Please watch the video. Note the surrounding criminals.


Blogger Bumps Stump said...

bz . . . Good blog. I wish I understood the problem. Illegal means not-legal doesn't it? Amnesty is a sour word around here. So why can't we give these illegal people a period of say 6 months to learn a smattering of english, get at least a minimum idea of what our founding documents are, publically renounce their citizenship elsewhere, and pledge their loyalty to the United States (only), and thereby become legal citizens . . OR . . . be sent back to wherever they came from. Dumped at the border and made that country's problem. And if they ever are found in the U.S. illegally again, give them hard time in Arizona under Sheriff Joe.

Sat Feb 06, 11:02:00 AM PST  
Blogger Mrs. Bunker said...

When you watch Peyton Manning lead the Colts to victory tomorrow, enjoy the 3 million dollar 30 second ad spots.
When you see the 3$M superbowl ad for the US Census, punch yourself one time hard in the face because we all chipped in for that one. Well, those of us that are paying taxes, that is.

Sat Feb 06, 11:23:00 AM PST  
Blogger Maggie M. Thornton said...

I keep saying "enough" but no one listens! "Colonia"???? Good grief. This is our next big battle.

What Groves is doing is clearly illegal. It drives me crazy.

Sat Feb 06, 11:36:00 AM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Bumps Stump: first, thanks for stopping by and thanks for commenting; please return. First, our immigration system is broken and mired down. People attemtping legal status have to wait, sometimes, for years. That's unacceptable. Sheriff Joe has my respect, indeed.

Mrs Bunker: Colts? Concur. But the Superbowl Census spots at $3 million PER?? Yah, I'm thinking the FED just punched ME in the Taxpaying Face for that.

"Colonia." Nice euphemism. For a gathering of illegal immigrants.


Sat Feb 06, 01:34:00 PM PST  
Blogger mrchuck said...

I have been hired (tenatively) to be a census taker supervisor.
As a retired Ranger, I will be really looking for the illegals and where they live and thusly can be found for a "round-up" quickly after I obtain this information.
So, I'll let you know when the deportation orders happen.
Till then you can be as pissed off as I have for many years about these illegals!

Sat Feb 06, 03:59:00 PM PST  
Blogger Ron Russell said...

Heck, illegals shouldn't even be counted, but then CA would lose half it congressional delegation. That would be ashame. Look for some crooked dealings on this census---its ripe for corrupt, with the White House controlling the numbers.

Sat Feb 06, 04:30:00 PM PST  
Blogger Tim said...

Well California and the other southwest states belonged to Mexico until we illegally invaded them and stole them so in a way they are just returning the favor. I think that we need true immigration reform so that you don't wait years for a green card. The main reason they are here is that rich businessmen employ them under the table. Stop that and watch them all go home.

Sat Feb 06, 05:32:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bushwack said...

"Fifty per-cent of Americans pay roughly 98% of the taxes. You and I are being fleeced once more. " YEP and the top 2% pay (I think) 60% of that. (I read that on a financial blog yesterday can't recall the exact percentage they said)

But here's the thing BZ, if you DON'T attack the Rich for being Rich, and attack the banks for being banks you can't be a "For the people" president....

A democrat is by nature a compassionate person (When it comes to entitlements) Unfortunately they are misguided in their handling of aid. They believe giving folks money and food for nothing forever is "Helping the poor" while Conservatives believe in working for what you have by an honest days work.

IF the state/fed aid was given only after a drug test was negative, and if the recipients were required to do something for welfare, I think you would see the amount of people on it decline rapidly, because they would soon learn that it would be better to have a job than work for a welfare check.

Sat Feb 06, 06:31:00 PM PST  
Blogger Toaster 802 said...

BZ, I said enough back in 1993.

No one listened.

At least now more people are noticing what is going on...

But not enough people saying enough.


Sat Feb 06, 07:46:00 PM PST  
Blogger Toaster 802 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Sat Feb 06, 07:47:00 PM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

With the downturn in the CA economy and no one being able to afford business expansion or paying for homecare via illegals, the illegals are leaving CA.

As for the illegality of the Mexican-American War much can and has been written on the issue and it is not clear-cut one way or the other, just as Jackson's moves against the Native Americans are not clear cut as he did give two years for the differences to be settled and made treaties with multiple Native tribes and did his best to ensure that federal holdings promised to Natives, like the Senecas, were kept up to snuff. If we call the fight that started with Polk saying the boundaries were declared in a prior treat with Mexico and the Mexicans saying they did not believe that to be so is the problem, then you have one of international diplomacy CAUSING problems not SOLVING them. Seems that happens a lot in world affairs. Also remember that Polk tried to BUY those territories FIRST. When you have a disagreement, offer money to settle the deal that was written and the other side is breaking their word on it, then if you refuse the cash and refuse to recognize the treaty those doing the refusing have a problem claiming 'victim' status. It was not all one-way, America bad first, last and always. Plus do remember the British interest in CA, too... the UK did want to try and limit US access to the Pacific and had their eye on CA for some time. History is not glibly catch-phrased because the glibness attempts to gloss over the entire set of affairs going on in any set of events.

Sun Feb 07, 04:33:00 AM PST  
Blogger Tim said...

AJ- I'd like to quote Ulysses S. Grant from his autobiography:

"Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory"

Mexico lost 2/3's of their territory in the war.

Sun Feb 07, 03:30:00 PM PST  
Blogger cj said...

What's the one question not being asked in this year's census that absolutely should be asked?

Are you a legal US citizen?


Sun Feb 07, 06:27:00 PM PST  
Blogger Clint said...


BumpsStumps-your idea rewards bad behavior. Amnesty is not the answer. If you are illegal, you go back where you come from. PLAIN and SIMPLE.
We are losing our national identity by allowing illegals into this country. Send them back--if they want to be U.S. citizens they need to go through the process, learn our language and understand our Constitution.

Sun Feb 07, 08:09:00 PM PST  
Blogger David Wyatt said...

Clint: Absolutely! Simple common sense.

Tue Feb 09, 07:54:00 PM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Tim - Mexico did lose 2/3 of its territory in that war. The sources and vectors of that war are not simple and yet that is all I hear is the simplistic analysis.

Are we to take the treaty with Mexico as meaningless? A scrap of paper that we must adhere to and they must not?

If we admit that the war was 'wrong' then the outcome of it in which the rich landholders see their estates dwindle and their workforce go to more profitable ventures for their families is an evil one, then. No? Are you taking up the banner of societies with repressed individuals who cannot work their way out of poverty and saying that is better than free use of liberty? Should we hear the robust defense of wealthy land owners to keep people impoverished as a greater good? I await to hear the great and robust defense of the Mexican system as it WAS: unwilling to keep up to its treaties, unwilling to take a pay-off to adhere to them and then facing war as its choice.

I disagree with Grant on the notion that it was an American emulation of European systems: it was a conflict started by the good faith agreement not being held up on the other side of the agreement which tried to put 'long standing claims' ahead of actual territorial agreements that they had recently made. If that is 'European' then it starts with Mexico emulating European governments who would NOT abide by treaties and saw border territories as to be endlessly fought over, like Alsace-Lorraine. Is that the actual model you want? For it is what you end up with via Grant's way of thinking - endlessly fought over territories with lots more bloodshed over time due to neither side meaning the ink that a treaty is printed on.

This may come as a hard shock, but when you apply Grant's analysis to MEXICO you find them doing exactly what he prescribes against... and the answer of a republic is? Nothing? Have no permanent borders, no permanent population and, thusly, be unable to even guarantee the borders of the States we have? That is what you get with that way of thinking, of not upholding the rule of law and the law of nations.

I await to hear that robust defense of the European system as practiced against us. With Native Americans I can see their point of transgression of treaties with them. With Mexico? Which Nation took its treaty agreements seriously and which did not? Apparently we can't convince them to actually respect those borders, and many Americans would like nothing better than to stop being a republic and respect no borders at all. Yet that is a very fast way to lose a Nation.

Sat Feb 13, 05:00:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home