Dog flipping often involves people who take dogs from unsuspecting people and flip them for a profit. Dog flippers usually pick up popular breeds or pick up unwanted litters from dog owners for free or at low cost. Dog flippers are also known to claim pets who have been posted online as "found" (so if you ever find a pet, make sure you ask for proof of ownership from anyone who shows up to claim the pet). These scammers are not the true owners of the lost pet, as they will quickly turn around and sell the formerly lost pet for a profit. But dogs in flipping cases are usually ill-treated, as one woman in Nebraska recently discovered...READ MORE
Showing posts with label animal welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal welfare. Show all posts
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Dog flipping and animal abuse tied to dogs listed on Craigslist
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Punish the man responsible for the torture of Puppy Doe (aka Kiya): Sign the Petition!
Please join this campaign: http://chn.ge/HeCnhW
We the undersigned respectfully request that if the Polish man currently held in custody is found guilty of the crimes of 11 counts of animal cruelty over the torture of little Kiya - Puppy Doe. That it is recommended to the Judge that the maximum sentence available under the law is carried out. And each count of animal cruelty is taken into consideration.
We will be requesting that the Judge applies the maximum sentence available for this tragic animal cruelty.
We also request that if this man who tortured Puppy Doe is found guilty, the court “prohibit the person from owning or having custody or control of an animal” for the rest of their lifetime.
Kiya - Puppy Doe endured something that no animal should ever have to endure.
A necropsy performed on Puppy Doe revealed the most heartbreaking short life of an innocent puppy who may not have ever had a happy day. She had been starved, repeatedly abused and tortured. There had been multiple broken bones by being pulled apart, stab wounds to her eyes, and a particularly disgusting serpent like split cut into the puppy's tongue.
Sincerely..
Here is what the petition says:
To:
Quincy Police Dept, Judge Cohen and others (names yet to be finalised)
Quincy Police Dept, Judge Cohen and others (names yet to be finalised)
Punish the man responsible for the torture of Puppy Doe - also known as Kiya.
JUSTICE FOR "PUPPY DOE" - also known as Kiya
JUSTICE FOR "PUPPY DOE" - also known as Kiya
We the undersigned respectfully request that if the Polish man currently held in custody is found guilty of the crimes of 11 counts of animal cruelty over the torture of little Kiya - Puppy Doe. That it is recommended to the Judge that the maximum sentence available under the law is carried out. And each count of animal cruelty is taken into consideration.
We will be requesting that the Judge applies the maximum sentence available for this tragic animal cruelty.
We also request that if this man who tortured Puppy Doe is found guilty, the court “prohibit the person from owning or having custody or control of an animal” for the rest of their lifetime.
Kiya - Puppy Doe endured something that no animal should ever have to endure.
A necropsy performed on Puppy Doe revealed the most heartbreaking short life of an innocent puppy who may not have ever had a happy day. She had been starved, repeatedly abused and tortured. There had been multiple broken bones by being pulled apart, stab wounds to her eyes, and a particularly disgusting serpent like split cut into the puppy's tongue.
Sincerely..
Monday, October 28, 2013
Remember--the welfare of pets is in ALL of our hands!
The welfare of pets is in ALL of our hands!
Some folks answering the "Free to Good Home" ads really are loving, responsible pet owners. Many--perhaps even most--are not.
There are steps YOU can take to help end
abuse: DON'T advertise Free pets; DO convince others not to. Some people
even take the time to phone owners of pets advertising Free to Good Home
and warn them of the dangers.
DO spay/neuter to keep from creating possible
Free to Good Home situations or condemning your pet to a short,
miserable life in a puppy mill.
DO write letters to the editors of your local newspapers warning of the dangers of Free to Good Home.
DO contact breed rescue organizations (there
is one for every breed of pure-bred dog!) or local animal welfare
organizations for help in placing unwanted pets; if you bought the pet
from a responsible breeder, he/she will help you rehome the pet.
DO charge at least $25 to discourage resale of pets to labs.
(Some sources suggest charging no less than $100 for pure-bred dogs.)
DO take the time to interview every
prospective owner. Ask for vet and personnel references, and check them,
then visit the new home where your pet might be living!
DO write a letter to your congressmen in
support of legislation aimed at doing away with Class B dealers, who
sell animals obtained from "random sources" to research facilities.
Random sources include strays, stolen pets,
seized shelter animals, animals purchased at flea markets--and pets
found through "Free to good home" ads.
DO report any incidence of suspected
dog-fighting to police, Animal Control, and your local Humane Society.
DON'T try to stop these people yourselves; there is a lot of money
involved here, and you could be putting yourself and your pets at risk
if you try to intervene alone.
DO call police, animal welfare workers, even
the health department, if someone in your area seems to be "collecting"
cats or dogs.
DO write to district attorneys, judges, and
prosecutors if you hear of the arrest of any so-called collectors in
your area, and urge them not only to prosecute to the full extent of the
law, but also to mandate psychological counseling for these individuals
in the hopes of avoiding repeat violations.
DO call police or animal welfare workers for any incidences of suspected abuse.
Be willing to testify in court, if necessary.
Note: what constitutes animal abuse is defined by state law. If your
state has inadequate abuse laws, TRY TO CHANGE THEM!
Remember--the welfare of pets is in ALL of our hands!
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
The conscience of a pro-life, vegan conservative
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
October 7, 2013
Pro-Life, Pro-Animal
Matthew Scully has been a speechwriter in each of the last six presidential general-election campaigns and was a special assistant to President George W. Bush. He is the author of Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy
.
Mr. Scully discusses both the LEFT...
...and the RIGHT:
October 7, 2013
Pro-Life, Pro-Animal
Matthew Scully has been a speechwriter in each of the last six presidential general-election campaigns and was a special assistant to President George W. Bush. He is the author of Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy
"The idea of animal protection as a cause of the Left is wildly overstated, put about by livestock interests and other animal-use industries to scare mainstream America away, just as NARAL et al. want us to think of protecting the rights of the unborn as the crazy obsession of the Right."
Mr. Scully discusses both the LEFT...
Some in the animal-protection movement mistake the cause for a part of the liberal progressive agenda (as if the Obama years have ushered in some golden era of cruelty-free living in America) and can be so wrapped up in that ideology as to ignore the most obvious of connections. In what moral universe does it makes sense to protect a wolf, pig, dog, or any other animal from needless suffering and violence, but not a human baby stirring in her mother’s womb? To their lasting credit, many animal activists post pictures on the Internet from factory farms, slaughterhouses, laboratories, and elsewhere, scenes so nightmarish at times that you have to study them for a moment before the horror of what’s unfolding becomes clear. How many of those same good people have ever brought themselves to look at pictures and films (even the ultrasonic and relatively endurable Silent Scream) showing what happens in an abortion, especially after the second or third month of fetal development, and to whom it happens? Different people are called to serve different causes, and if your vocation is to protect animals then no one is saying you have to sign up right away at National Right to Life. But if the creed is empathy for the weak, shouldn’t your sympathies at least lie in that direction?
...and the RIGHT:
Representative Steve King of Iowa, for example, is a solid pro-life vote every time and, just as dependably, an apologist for animal cruelty. He typifies a certain way of looking at animals that manages to be both lofty in tone and morally obtuse in practice. An influential member of the House Agriculture Committee, the man has opposed any kind of leniency for farm animals, dogs in puppy mills or dog-fight rings, birds used by cockfighters, horses bound for slaughter plants, exotic wildlife slain by big-game trophy hunters, any creature at all. All the while, he uses his pro-life principles as a pretext for doing nothing on behalf of animals, in a version of the abortion–cruelty connection that other conservatives have also traded on. The idea is that since the law does not now grant full protection to the unborn, any attempt to protect animal life is an expression of profoundly misplaced priorities, subversive to the sanctity of human life, an affront to Man in all his glory. The result of this high-minded stance? Glorious man, made in the image of God, can go back to his dog-fighting, cock-fighting, chick-grinding, hog torture, wolf slaughter, and general abuse of the animal world without being held to account.
If it is possible to give pro-life principles a bad name, little tyrants like Steve King are the ones who can do it. They are making excuses, not arguments. They are friends of power, not of life, serving no cause except human arrogance — in the spirit of what Governor Bob Casey used to call the Imperial Self. By showing such contempt for the healthy majority of voters in both parties who care about animals, they aren’t doing the Republican party any favors, either.
"The factory farms — producing almost every animal product we see sold or advertised, in our country and most others — are places of immense and avoidable suffering. And though the moral stakes are not the same as with abortion, the moral habits are, relying in both cases on the averted gaze and a smothering of empathy."
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Made in China
Trust me, you DO NOT want to know...but, you MUST KNOW!
Labels:
animal welfare,
cats,
China,
communism,
dogs,
NAFTA,
United Animal Nations
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Will you still buy organic food???
perspective
Reasons you should buy regular goods
By Jackie Avner
Posted: 07/29/2007 01:00:00 AM MDT
I don't like to buy organic food products, and avoid them at all cost. It is a principled decision reached through careful consideration of effects of organic production practices on animal welfare and the environment. I buy regular food, rather than organic, for the benefit of my family.
I care deeply about food being plentiful, affordable and safe. I grew up on a dairy farm, where my chores included caring for the calves and scrubbing the milking facilities. As a teenager, I was active in Future Farmers of America, and after college I took a job in Washington, D.C., on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee staff.
But America no longer has an agrarian economy, and now it is rare for people to have firsthand experience with agricultural production and regulation. This makes the general public highly susceptible to rumors and myths about food, and vulnerable to misleading marketing tactics designed not to improve the safety of the food supply, but to increase retail profits. Companies marketing organic products, and your local grocery chain, want you to think organic food is safer and healthier, because their profit margins are vastly higher on organic foods.
The USDA Organic label does not mean that there is any difference between organic and regular food products. Organic farms simply employ different methods of food production. For example, organic dairy farms are not permitted to administer antibiotics to their sick or injured cows, and do not give them milk-stimulating hormone supplements (also known as rbGH or rBST). The end product is exactly the same - all milk, regular and organic, is completely antibiotic-free, and all milk, regular and organic, has the same trace amounts of rbGH (since rbGH is a protein naturally present in all cows, including organic herds). Try as they may, proponents of organic foods have not been able to produce evidence that the food produced by conventional farms is anything but safe.
Do organic production practices benefit animals? Dr. Chuck Guard, professor of veterinary medicine at Cornell University, told me that it pains him that many technological advancements in animal medicine are prohibited for use on organic farms. He described how organic farms don't use drugs to control parasites, worms, infections and illness in their herds. "Drugs take away pain and suffering," he said. "Proponents of organic food production have thrown away these medical tools, and the result is unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals."
In order for milk and meat to qualify as USDA Organic, the animals must never be given antibiotics when they are sick or injured. On organic farms, animals with treatable illnesses such as infections and pneumonia are left to suffer, or given ineffective homeopathic treatments, in the hope that they will eventually get better on their own. If recovery without medication seems unlikely, a dairy cow with a simple respiratory infection will be slaughtered for its meat, or sold to a traditional farm where she can get the medicine she needs. I don't buy organic milk because this system is cruel to animals, and I know that every load of regular milk is tested for antibiotics to ensure that it is antibiotic-free.
Organic milk certainly is not fresher than regular milk. Regular milk is pasteurized and has a shelf life of about 20 days. Organic milk is ultrapasteurized, a process that is more forgiving of poor quality milk, and that increases the shelf life of milk to about 90 days. Some of the Horizon organic milk boxes I've seen at Costco have expiration dates in 2008! There is a powerful incentive for retailers to put the ultrapasteurized organic milk on the shelf just before the expiration date, so consumers will think the organic milk is as fresh as the regular milk. After all, consumers are paying twice as much for the organic product.
Do organic production practices benefit the environment? In many cases, they do the opposite. Recently, Starbucks proudly informed their customers that they would no longer be buying milk from farms that use rbGH, the supplemental hormone administered to cows to increase milk production (even though the extra hormones stay in the cow, and the resulting milk is the same). The problem with this policy is that Starbucks will now be buying milk from farms that are far less efficient at making milk. Without the use of the latest technology for making milk, many more cows must be milked to produce the same number of café lattes for Starbucks' customers. More cows being milked means more cows to feed, and therefore more land must be cultivated with fossil-fuel-burning tractors. More cows means many more tons of manure produced, and more methane, a greenhouse gas, released into the atmosphere.
I see Starbucks' policy as environmentally irresponsible. When a farmer gives a cow a shot of rbGH, the only environmental cost is the disposal of the small plastic container it came in. But the environmental benefits of using this technology are enormous.
Attention all shoppers: Safeway is adopting the same misdirected policy as Starbucks, judging from the prominent labeling of milk at my local Safeway store: "Milk from cows not treated with rBST." When I'm feeling particularly green, I drive past Safeway and shop at another grocery store in protest.
Consumers assume that organic crops are environmentally friendly. However, organic production methods are far less efficient than the modern methods used by conventional farmers, so organic farmers must consume more natural and man-made resources (such as land and fuel) to produce their crops.
Cornell Professor Guard told me about neighboring wheat farms he observed during a visit to Alberta, Canada: one organic and one conventional. The organic farm consumes six times as much diesel fuel per bushel of wheat produced.
Socially conscious consumers have a right to know that "organic" doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago. According to the Oct. 16, 2006, cover story in Business Week, when you eat Stonyfield Farms yogurt, you are often consuming dried organic milk flown all the way from New Zealand and reconstituted here in the U.S. The apple puree used to sweeten the yogurt sometimes comes from Turkey, and the strawberries from China. Importation of organic products raises troubling questions about food safety, labor standards, and the fossil fuels burned in the transportation of these foods.
Does buying organic really benefit your family? Remember, there is no real difference in the food itself. At my local Safeway store, organic milk is 85 percent more expensive, eggs 138 percent higher, yogurt 50 percent, chicken thighs 80 percent, and broccoli 20 percent. If the only organic product you buy for your family is milk, then you are spending an extra $200 on milk each year. If you buy 5-10 other organic products each week, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, yogurt and meat, then you could easily approach $1,000 in extra food costs per year. Families would receive a more direct health benefit from spending that money on a gym membership, a treadmill, or new bikes.
When I share this information with friends who buy organic, I get one of two responses: they either stop buying it, or they continue to buy organic based on a strong gut feeling that food grown without the assistance of man-made technology has to be healthier.
I don't push it, but I wonder: Why do people apply that logic to agricultural products, but not to every other product we use in our daily lives? There are either no chemicals, or the minutest trace of chemicals in some of our foods. But other everyday products are full of chemical ingredients. Read the label on your artificial sweetener, antiperspirant, sun lotion, toothpaste, household cleaning products, soda, shampoo, and disposable diapers, for example. The medicines we administer to our children when they are sick are man-made substances. Chemicals aren't just used to make these products; they are still in these products in significant amounts. It just doesn't make sense to focus fear of technology on milk and fresh produce.
I say, bypass the expensive organic products in the grocery store. Buy the regular milk, meat and fresh produce. It is the right choice for the family, animal welfare and the environment.
Jackie Avner [jackie.avner @ gmail.com] lives in Highlands Ranch.
[This is why I've been a customer of Melaleuca.com since 10/19/2001 --lgstarr]
Reasons you should buy regular goods
By Jackie Avner
Posted: 07/29/2007 01:00:00 AM MDT
I don't like to buy organic food products, and avoid them at all cost. It is a principled decision reached through careful consideration of effects of organic production practices on animal welfare and the environment. I buy regular food, rather than organic, for the benefit of my family.
I care deeply about food being plentiful, affordable and safe. I grew up on a dairy farm, where my chores included caring for the calves and scrubbing the milking facilities. As a teenager, I was active in Future Farmers of America, and after college I took a job in Washington, D.C., on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee staff.
But America no longer has an agrarian economy, and now it is rare for people to have firsthand experience with agricultural production and regulation. This makes the general public highly susceptible to rumors and myths about food, and vulnerable to misleading marketing tactics designed not to improve the safety of the food supply, but to increase retail profits. Companies marketing organic products, and your local grocery chain, want you to think organic food is safer and healthier, because their profit margins are vastly higher on organic foods.
The USDA Organic label does not mean that there is any difference between organic and regular food products. Organic farms simply employ different methods of food production. For example, organic dairy farms are not permitted to administer antibiotics to their sick or injured cows, and do not give them milk-stimulating hormone supplements (also known as rbGH or rBST). The end product is exactly the same - all milk, regular and organic, is completely antibiotic-free, and all milk, regular and organic, has the same trace amounts of rbGH (since rbGH is a protein naturally present in all cows, including organic herds). Try as they may, proponents of organic foods have not been able to produce evidence that the food produced by conventional farms is anything but safe.
Do organic production practices benefit animals? Dr. Chuck Guard, professor of veterinary medicine at Cornell University, told me that it pains him that many technological advancements in animal medicine are prohibited for use on organic farms. He described how organic farms don't use drugs to control parasites, worms, infections and illness in their herds. "Drugs take away pain and suffering," he said. "Proponents of organic food production have thrown away these medical tools, and the result is unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals."
In order for milk and meat to qualify as USDA Organic, the animals must never be given antibiotics when they are sick or injured. On organic farms, animals with treatable illnesses such as infections and pneumonia are left to suffer, or given ineffective homeopathic treatments, in the hope that they will eventually get better on their own. If recovery without medication seems unlikely, a dairy cow with a simple respiratory infection will be slaughtered for its meat, or sold to a traditional farm where she can get the medicine she needs. I don't buy organic milk because this system is cruel to animals, and I know that every load of regular milk is tested for antibiotics to ensure that it is antibiotic-free.
Organic milk certainly is not fresher than regular milk. Regular milk is pasteurized and has a shelf life of about 20 days. Organic milk is ultrapasteurized, a process that is more forgiving of poor quality milk, and that increases the shelf life of milk to about 90 days. Some of the Horizon organic milk boxes I've seen at Costco have expiration dates in 2008! There is a powerful incentive for retailers to put the ultrapasteurized organic milk on the shelf just before the expiration date, so consumers will think the organic milk is as fresh as the regular milk. After all, consumers are paying twice as much for the organic product.
Do organic production practices benefit the environment? In many cases, they do the opposite. Recently, Starbucks proudly informed their customers that they would no longer be buying milk from farms that use rbGH, the supplemental hormone administered to cows to increase milk production (even though the extra hormones stay in the cow, and the resulting milk is the same). The problem with this policy is that Starbucks will now be buying milk from farms that are far less efficient at making milk. Without the use of the latest technology for making milk, many more cows must be milked to produce the same number of café lattes for Starbucks' customers. More cows being milked means more cows to feed, and therefore more land must be cultivated with fossil-fuel-burning tractors. More cows means many more tons of manure produced, and more methane, a greenhouse gas, released into the atmosphere.
I see Starbucks' policy as environmentally irresponsible. When a farmer gives a cow a shot of rbGH, the only environmental cost is the disposal of the small plastic container it came in. But the environmental benefits of using this technology are enormous.
Attention all shoppers: Safeway is adopting the same misdirected policy as Starbucks, judging from the prominent labeling of milk at my local Safeway store: "Milk from cows not treated with rBST." When I'm feeling particularly green, I drive past Safeway and shop at another grocery store in protest.
Consumers assume that organic crops are environmentally friendly. However, organic production methods are far less efficient than the modern methods used by conventional farmers, so organic farmers must consume more natural and man-made resources (such as land and fuel) to produce their crops.
Cornell Professor Guard told me about neighboring wheat farms he observed during a visit to Alberta, Canada: one organic and one conventional. The organic farm consumes six times as much diesel fuel per bushel of wheat produced.
Socially conscious consumers have a right to know that "organic" doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago. According to the Oct. 16, 2006, cover story in Business Week, when you eat Stonyfield Farms yogurt, you are often consuming dried organic milk flown all the way from New Zealand and reconstituted here in the U.S. The apple puree used to sweeten the yogurt sometimes comes from Turkey, and the strawberries from China. Importation of organic products raises troubling questions about food safety, labor standards, and the fossil fuels burned in the transportation of these foods.
Does buying organic really benefit your family? Remember, there is no real difference in the food itself. At my local Safeway store, organic milk is 85 percent more expensive, eggs 138 percent higher, yogurt 50 percent, chicken thighs 80 percent, and broccoli 20 percent. If the only organic product you buy for your family is milk, then you are spending an extra $200 on milk each year. If you buy 5-10 other organic products each week, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, yogurt and meat, then you could easily approach $1,000 in extra food costs per year. Families would receive a more direct health benefit from spending that money on a gym membership, a treadmill, or new bikes.
When I share this information with friends who buy organic, I get one of two responses: they either stop buying it, or they continue to buy organic based on a strong gut feeling that food grown without the assistance of man-made technology has to be healthier.
I don't push it, but I wonder: Why do people apply that logic to agricultural products, but not to every other product we use in our daily lives? There are either no chemicals, or the minutest trace of chemicals in some of our foods. But other everyday products are full of chemical ingredients. Read the label on your artificial sweetener, antiperspirant, sun lotion, toothpaste, household cleaning products, soda, shampoo, and disposable diapers, for example. The medicines we administer to our children when they are sick are man-made substances. Chemicals aren't just used to make these products; they are still in these products in significant amounts. It just doesn't make sense to focus fear of technology on milk and fresh produce.
I say, bypass the expensive organic products in the grocery store. Buy the regular milk, meat and fresh produce. It is the right choice for the family, animal welfare and the environment.
Jackie Avner [jackie.avner @ gmail.com] lives in Highlands Ranch.
[This is why I've been a customer of Melaleuca.com since 10/19/2001 --lgstarr]
Labels:
animal welfare,
environment,
food,
groceries,
organic,
USDA
Monday, June 01, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Immigrant Population Hits Record 38 Million
A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies, based on the latest Census Bureau data, shows the number of immigrants in America, both legal and illegal, has swelled to a record 38 million this year – making one of every eight U.S. residents an immigrant.
The new numbers indicate the highest level in more than eight decades – with a third of those being illegal aliens.
One third of immigrants are on some form of welfare, costing states nearly $20 billion a year, the study claimed, adding that efforts to legalize the spiraling number of illegal aliens will only increase the amount of uneducated, uninsured legal immigrants burdening America’s welfare rolls.
Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have entered the U.S., more than half of them illegally, according to the CIS. With no change in U.S. immigration policy, another 15 million immigrants will likely arrive in the next 10 years.
“The last seven years have been the highest period of immigration in American History,” says the report’s lead author, Dr. Steven A. Camarota. “The roughly 1.5 million immigrants arriving each year have a very significant effect on American life.”
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the CIS, tells Newsmax that the deleterious effects of continued immigration, include “an increasing burden on taxpayers to subsidize a 19th century workforce imported into a 21st century society; further displacement and wage reductions for the low-skilled and teen-age American workers who are the chief competitors of illegal immigrants; and continued slowing of technological innovation in the fields where immigrants are concentrated due to the artificial flooding of the low-skilled labor market and consequent reduction of incentives for businesses to mechanize and use labor more efficiently.”
The impact is being felt most pointedly in a handful of states. California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Arizona are bearing the brunt of immigration increases both legal and illegal, the CIS study found. California’s 10 million immigrants alone make up 27 percent of the nation’s total immigrant population.
“Some 75 percent of immigrants settle in ten states,” Krikorian tells Newsmax. “But Americans in other states are not immune to the effects of mass immigration. The consequences for security, sovereignty, assimilation, and government spending are national problems. In other words, every state is now a border state, every town a border town.”
A third of all U.S. immigrants come from Mexico, making it the top country of origin followed by China, India, the Philippines and Vietnam. Almost 60 percent of the Illegal aliens entering the U.S. come from Mexico.
The numbers portend a major shift in American demographics. More than 72 percent of native U.S. residents are white, 13 percent are black, 10 percent are Hispanic and 2 percent are Asian. But among the burgeoning immigrant population, over 48 percent are Hispanic, 23 percent are Asian, 21 percent are white and 7 percent are black.
Camarota, research director at the CIS, a Washington think tank that favors immigration restrictions along with improved services for legal immigrants, says immigrants now make up one in every five school-age children in America. Immigration accounts for all of the increases in public school enrollment nationwide over the past 20 years, the CIS reports.
In places such as Los Angeles County and New York City, the children of immigrant fathers make up nearly 60 percent of the school-age population.
On top of that, a quarter of these immigrant children live in poverty and a third lack health insurance, something Camarota says “creates enormous challenges for the nation’s schools, healthcare system and physical infrastructure.”
In fact, the study found that 17 percent of immigrants and their children live below the poverty line – with income of less than $20,000 per year for a family of four - some 50 percent higher than the poverty rate for native U.S. residents.
Many immigrants do ultimately find a better life here. But the study reveals that even those who have been in the U.S. for more than two decades are more likely than native residents to live in poverty, lack health insurance and use the welfare system.
Camarota points out that the numbers indicate the reason for the high rates of poverty and welfare among immigrants is a lack of education, “not their legal status or unwillingness to work.”
More than 31 percent of adult immigrants have not completed high school, compared to just 8 percent of U.S. natives. Since 2000, immigrants have boosted the overall number of workers who lack a high school diploma to 14 percent.
Camarota’s findings on the quality of life for uneducated immigrants shows that attempts at so-called amnesty for the current population of 12 million illegal aliens would prove costly and provide little benefit.
“Immigrants who have legal status, but little education, generally have low incomes and make heavy use of welfare programs,” the CIS report states. “If we decide to legalize illegal immigrants, we should at least understand that it will not result in dramatically lower welfare use or poverty.
“Those who advocate such a policy need to acknowledge this problem and not argue that legalization will save taxpayers money or result in a vast improvement in the income of illegal aliens,” the report continues. “Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health insurance coverage, and the effect on American taxpayers.”
Of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S., nearly 7 million have jobs. Illegal immigrants earn an average of $46,000 per household annually compared with $67,000 for native families, the CIS study shows.
“A central question for immigration policy is whether we should allow in so many people with little education — increasing job competition for the poorest American workers and the population needing government assistance,” says Camarota. “Setting aside the lower socio economic status of immigrants, no nation has ever attempted to incorporate nearly 38 million newcomers into its society.”
America has, of course, traditionally been a nation of immigrants. But the CIS report points out that the immigrant population now accounts for a large share of the increase in the overall U.S. population. During the first decade of the last century, the 3.2 million additional immigrants accounted for just 20 percent of the total increase in the U.S. population. The 6.8 million immigrant increase in the last seven years equals 34 percent of U.S. population’s rise in that same period.
“Whatever one thinks of contemporary immigration, it is critically important to understand that its effect on America represents a choice,” Camarota says. “Selection criteria can be altered, as can the total number of people allowed into the country legally. With illegal aliens accounting for nearly one in three immigrants, their effect on the nation by themselves is now very large.”
True to the CIS charter, Krikorian stresses that there “ is no excuse whatever for intolerant attitudes toward legal immigrants -- we admitted them according to the rules established by our elected representatives, and we must, and will, continue to embrace them as Americans in training.
“Even illegal immigrants must be treated humanely as they are detained and returned to their homes,” Krikorian says. “But future legal immigration is a different question -- mass immigration is simply not compatible with the goals of a modern society and should be minimized to the extent possible.”
Immigrant Population Hits Record 38 Million
© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The new numbers indicate the highest level in more than eight decades – with a third of those being illegal aliens.
One third of immigrants are on some form of welfare, costing states nearly $20 billion a year, the study claimed, adding that efforts to legalize the spiraling number of illegal aliens will only increase the amount of uneducated, uninsured legal immigrants burdening America’s welfare rolls.
Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have entered the U.S., more than half of them illegally, according to the CIS. With no change in U.S. immigration policy, another 15 million immigrants will likely arrive in the next 10 years.
“The last seven years have been the highest period of immigration in American History,” says the report’s lead author, Dr. Steven A. Camarota. “The roughly 1.5 million immigrants arriving each year have a very significant effect on American life.”
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the CIS, tells Newsmax that the deleterious effects of continued immigration, include “an increasing burden on taxpayers to subsidize a 19th century workforce imported into a 21st century society; further displacement and wage reductions for the low-skilled and teen-age American workers who are the chief competitors of illegal immigrants; and continued slowing of technological innovation in the fields where immigrants are concentrated due to the artificial flooding of the low-skilled labor market and consequent reduction of incentives for businesses to mechanize and use labor more efficiently.”
The impact is being felt most pointedly in a handful of states. California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Arizona are bearing the brunt of immigration increases both legal and illegal, the CIS study found. California’s 10 million immigrants alone make up 27 percent of the nation’s total immigrant population.
“Some 75 percent of immigrants settle in ten states,” Krikorian tells Newsmax. “But Americans in other states are not immune to the effects of mass immigration. The consequences for security, sovereignty, assimilation, and government spending are national problems. In other words, every state is now a border state, every town a border town.”
A third of all U.S. immigrants come from Mexico, making it the top country of origin followed by China, India, the Philippines and Vietnam. Almost 60 percent of the Illegal aliens entering the U.S. come from Mexico.
The numbers portend a major shift in American demographics. More than 72 percent of native U.S. residents are white, 13 percent are black, 10 percent are Hispanic and 2 percent are Asian. But among the burgeoning immigrant population, over 48 percent are Hispanic, 23 percent are Asian, 21 percent are white and 7 percent are black.
Camarota, research director at the CIS, a Washington think tank that favors immigration restrictions along with improved services for legal immigrants, says immigrants now make up one in every five school-age children in America. Immigration accounts for all of the increases in public school enrollment nationwide over the past 20 years, the CIS reports.
In places such as Los Angeles County and New York City, the children of immigrant fathers make up nearly 60 percent of the school-age population.
On top of that, a quarter of these immigrant children live in poverty and a third lack health insurance, something Camarota says “creates enormous challenges for the nation’s schools, healthcare system and physical infrastructure.”
In fact, the study found that 17 percent of immigrants and their children live below the poverty line – with income of less than $20,000 per year for a family of four - some 50 percent higher than the poverty rate for native U.S. residents.
Many immigrants do ultimately find a better life here. But the study reveals that even those who have been in the U.S. for more than two decades are more likely than native residents to live in poverty, lack health insurance and use the welfare system.
Camarota points out that the numbers indicate the reason for the high rates of poverty and welfare among immigrants is a lack of education, “not their legal status or unwillingness to work.”
More than 31 percent of adult immigrants have not completed high school, compared to just 8 percent of U.S. natives. Since 2000, immigrants have boosted the overall number of workers who lack a high school diploma to 14 percent.
Camarota’s findings on the quality of life for uneducated immigrants shows that attempts at so-called amnesty for the current population of 12 million illegal aliens would prove costly and provide little benefit.
“Immigrants who have legal status, but little education, generally have low incomes and make heavy use of welfare programs,” the CIS report states. “If we decide to legalize illegal immigrants, we should at least understand that it will not result in dramatically lower welfare use or poverty.
“Those who advocate such a policy need to acknowledge this problem and not argue that legalization will save taxpayers money or result in a vast improvement in the income of illegal aliens,” the report continues. “Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health insurance coverage, and the effect on American taxpayers.”
Of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S., nearly 7 million have jobs. Illegal immigrants earn an average of $46,000 per household annually compared with $67,000 for native families, the CIS study shows.
“A central question for immigration policy is whether we should allow in so many people with little education — increasing job competition for the poorest American workers and the population needing government assistance,” says Camarota. “Setting aside the lower socio economic status of immigrants, no nation has ever attempted to incorporate nearly 38 million newcomers into its society.”
America has, of course, traditionally been a nation of immigrants. But the CIS report points out that the immigrant population now accounts for a large share of the increase in the overall U.S. population. During the first decade of the last century, the 3.2 million additional immigrants accounted for just 20 percent of the total increase in the U.S. population. The 6.8 million immigrant increase in the last seven years equals 34 percent of U.S. population’s rise in that same period.
“Whatever one thinks of contemporary immigration, it is critically important to understand that its effect on America represents a choice,” Camarota says. “Selection criteria can be altered, as can the total number of people allowed into the country legally. With illegal aliens accounting for nearly one in three immigrants, their effect on the nation by themselves is now very large.”
True to the CIS charter, Krikorian stresses that there “ is no excuse whatever for intolerant attitudes toward legal immigrants -- we admitted them according to the rules established by our elected representatives, and we must, and will, continue to embrace them as Americans in training.
“Even illegal immigrants must be treated humanely as they are detained and returned to their homes,” Krikorian says. “But future legal immigration is a different question -- mass immigration is simply not compatible with the goals of a modern society and should be minimized to the extent possible.”
Immigrant Population Hits Record 38 Million
© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Dead Dog Beach
"...a place where teenagers drive over live puppies sealed in bags or cruelly kill them with machetes and arrows, according to animal welfare groups that photographed the atrocities."
Pet Massacres Carried Out in Puerto Rico
Pet Massacres Carried Out in Puerto Rico
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





