It is supposed to be illegal for the NSA to spy on communications that are completely domestic, but that appears to be precisely what is happening. According to a brand new report from Ryan Gallagher and Henrik Moltke of the Intercept, NSA documents indicate that the NSA is systematically capturing our emails, our phone calls and our text messages at certain key strategic points on AT&T’s immensely powerful Internet network. There are only eight facilities that allow for direct access into AT&T’s “common backbone”, and thanks to leaked documents the Intercept was able to identify the exact location of each of those facilities.
Apparently the relationship between AT&T and the NSA has been ongoing “for decades”, and it isn’t just data from AT&T customers that is being collected….
The author of this article apparently believes political refugees can be neatly distinguished from economically motivated immigrants. But the economy is largely a function of the political system. If workers can’t unionize (with real honest unions, not the complicit syndicates which are prevalent in the USA) then wage structures and indigenous economic synergies that might support a middle class are suppressed. But still s/he makes good points.
Well, that depends on how you define “flooding.” If we’re looking at historical data, then the answer is absolutely no. There are two dynamics occurring right now (actually, there are several, but I’m only going to address two in this post).
1. Undocumented economic migrants (typically from Mexico, but also from Central America), and 2. Political asylum seekers (primarily from Central America). Most of the recent news about family separations centers on political asylum seekers from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. But this blog post is about undocumented economic migrants, and whether they are presenting a significant threat for our country, and if so, whether that justifies building a wall (and by the way, we all know drug smugglers and human traffickers use tunnels, right?).
So here are some basic facts about undocumented economic migrants (meaning, immigrants who cross the border illegally to work)…
Are undocumented immigrants from Mexico flooding our southern border?
No. We do not have a flood of Mexicans coming across the border, in fact we’ve been experiencing a net loss of undocumented immigration since 2007. According to the Pew Research Center (2015): “Mexicans made up 52% of all unauthorized immigrants in 2014, [and] their numbers have been declining in recent years. There were 5.8 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. that year, down from 6.4 million in 2009, according to the latest Pew Research Center estimates. Meanwhile, the number of unauthorized immigrants from nations [Asia and sub-Saharan Africa]…grew by 325,000 since 2009, to an estimated 5.3 million in 2014.” In other words, more undocumented immigrants are leaving than arriving. That doesn’t mean that some border communities aren’t being impacted by undocumented immigration, but overall, the numbers are declining, which is why our agricultural sectors are struggling….
Where else do undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants work?
In the US agricultural industry. In fact, up to 70% of of the estimated 2.5 million farm workers in the US are estimated to be undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants who were recruited by U.S. agricultural companies from across the border. In other words, they had jobs here before they left home. Did you know that per federal and state law, agricultural laborers are exempt from receiving overtime pay and they are exempt from child labor laws, which means that children as young as 12 can work in the fields?
Why do you think the federal government has allowed these exemptions in the agricultural industry? Because the federal government knows full-well that our entire agricultural industry is reliant on undocumented workers, and they’ve passed laws that encourage this practice. Would they permit these exemptions if it were American children working in the fields? Of course not. When ICE began to crack down on companies hiring illegal workers, the companies just found more creative ways to recruit workers (including using temp agencies, and proxies, such as labor brokers), and our government has consistently looked the other way because these industries have powerful lobbies.
Why not just create a temporary visa program for foreign workers?
We have them. The H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program is for farm workers, but the farming industry doesn’t like it and rarely uses it. Why? Because it requires that employers provide housing and pay the higher of the applicable state or federal minimum wage, the prevailing wage in that region and occupation, as determined by the USDOL, or the regional average wage observed in NASS’s Farm Labor Survey. The latter is known as the Adverse Effect Wage Rate. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, this wage rate ranges from $9.50 to $12.33 per hour, depending on the state. H-2A visa usage has accounted for less than 5 percent of the hired farm work force in recent years. There have been some recent movements toward improving the program, and usage has expanded (about 77,000 to 165,000 in 2016), but the majority of farm workers (and we’re talking millions here) are hired illegally….
This paper examines the connections linking recent changes in Latino migration, the American meatpacking industry, and American immigration policy. As the meatpacking industry has vertically integrated and shifted to rural non-union areas throughout the South, it has grown increasingly dependent on short-term low-skilled employees. This process can be understood as the industrialization of meatpacking, where profitability depends on continuous high-throughput production. To succeed, the industrialization of meatpacking requires a large pool of easily replaceable labor that has no control over the pace work on of the shop floor. At the same time, as immigrants have been drawn to these new company towns, American immigration policy has turned increasingly towards border enforcement. We argue that the presence of illegal immigrants within the factories reduces the bargaining power of shop workers and increases employer control. Most studies of immigration have focused on the supply of migrant labor, the immigrants attracted to higher paying jobs. We argue that valuable insight is gained by looking at the manufacturers’ demand for cheap labor and the implementation of an industrial strategy that requires it.
It’s not just an industrial strategy. It’s an american consumer strategy which allows them to cling to their illusion of having a “standard” of living as the economy continues to be systematically hollowed out from under them. Soon many of them will be forced to compete with the refugees of US-sponsored latin american death squad regimes which their taxes paid for and their favorite TV talking heads concealed from them. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2014/06/border-crisis-the-crocodile-tears-of-the-empire/
Friends don’t let friends think that all this wasn’t planned years ago by the satanic elites, especially the rockefellers and their minions.
“The 1979 visit of Deng Xiaoping to the US was followed in June 1980 by the equally significant encounter in Wall Street of Rong Yiren, chairman of CITIC, and David Rockefeller. The meeting, held in the penthouse of the Chase Manhattan Bank complex, was attended by senior executives of close to 300 major US corporations. A major agreement was reached between Chase, CITIC, and the Bank of China, involving the exchange of specialists and technical personnel to ‘identify and define those areas of the Chinese economy most susceptible to American technology and capital infusion’.”
The evidence of intent is overwhelming. Perot tried to warn us of what the clinton regime was foisting on us.
Alex Jones says Perot pulled out of the race because his family was threatened. But I’m sure that’s just crazy talk.
American citizens and undocumented immigrants have a common enemy. And it’s not Russia.
The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 (1), is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.
Further, the IAFF is investigating funding for a U.S. and Canadian study that would characterize exposures from RF/MW radiation in fire houses with and without cellular antennae, and examine the health status of the fire fighters as a function of their assignment in exposed or unexposed fire houses. Specifically, there is concern for the effects of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as other metabolic effects observed in preliminary studies….
The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, i.e., a “thermal effect.” They point to “safety standards” from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of “safe RF/MW radiation exposure is harmless” rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature, a “thermal effect.”(4)
There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of non-thermal effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it.
Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at “non-thermal levels,” where the intensity of the RF/MW radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found:
- Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells (5)
- A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (6)
- Changes in tumor growth in rats (7)
- An increased number of tumors in rats (8)
- Increased single- and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material (9)
- 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF (10)
- More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF (11)
- Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep (12)
- Headaches caused by RF/MW radiation exposure (13)
- Neurologic changes (14) including:
- Changes in the blood-brain-barrier (15)
- Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) (16)
- Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) (17)
- Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) (18)
- Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) (19)
- Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer’s, neurodegenerative diseases) (20)
- Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children (21)
- Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial “working memory” (22)
- Increased blood pressure in healthy men (23)
- Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications (24)
Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF/MW radiation exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include:
- The World Health Organization, noting reports of “cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children.” (25)
- The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (26)
- The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (27)
- The Swedish Work Environmental Fund (28)
- The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (29)
- The European Commission (EC) (30)
- New Zealand’s Ministry of Health (31)
- National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (32)
- Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO) (33)
- The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada (34)
- European Union’s REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (35)
- The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board (SSI) (36)
- The United Kingdom’s National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (37)
- The EMF-Team Finland’s Helsinki Appeal 2005 (38)
Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF/MW radiation and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF/MW exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established.
The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are “safe.” (39)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated repeatedly that the current (ANSI/IEEE) RF/MW safety standards protect only against thermal effects. (40)
Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF/MW radiation. The CSIRO study, for example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity RF/MW exposure has no effect, and that the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze. (41)
Internationally, researchers and physicians have issued statements that biological effects from low-intensity RF/MW radiation exposure are scientifically established:
- The 1998 Vienna-EMF Resolution (42)
- The 2000 Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations (43)
- The 2002 Catania Resolution (44)
- The 2002 Freiburger Appeal (45)
- The 2004 Report of the European Union’s REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (46)
- The 2004 Second Annual Report from Sweden’s Radiation Protection Board (SSI) Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields Recent Research on Mobile Telephony and Health Risks (47)
- Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB (The UK’s National Radiological Protection Board) (48)….