There Are Differences Between Legal and Illegal Immigration: Billions

 

national expenditure on undocumented residents
National Expenditure on Undocumented Residents
Taxes Paid by Undocumented Residents
Taxes Paid by Undocumented Residents
Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration
Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017

Introduction

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

Read More: https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

Open Borders Libertarians are Globalist Pawns

His idea that a border is the initiation of violence is assuming it’s initiating violence to have defensive protection of your people, resources and interests.

If only we had a Utopian world where everyone sought to share and contribute equally…. but with the welfare state and economic realities like labor availability versus wages, it’s just as easy to see illegal residents as having initiated violence against me, by breaking our laws to unlawfully break our borders and take our resources.

The argument is ridiculous. Do you call locking your door at night an initiation of violence against the people that would illegally enter and take your possessions or rape your wife or daughter?

As a libertarian you still contribute to a greater organization of people that we call our society, and involves government even if you want to call it another name, there is some organization for common defense required in any organization of people. It’s not violence to defend what you have built and the resources you’ve collected.

The people entering our country illegally are not here to share their resources, they’re here to take our resources. That, in itself violates the NAP.

 

Real Talk: Legal Immigration and ILLEGAL Immigration are not the SAME Things

every 30 seconds another person becomes a victim of human trafficking

People like myself that believe (for reasons not racist) that one of the only good purposes of a federal government is to secure the border. 

“Our founders, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect, and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/…/immigration-founding…/

Though, I don’t agree with separating families, the media coverage is almost entirely exaggerated and hyperbolic to create an emotional reaction against Trump, while excluding a bunch of important and rational details…

“…the reporting from the border has also been incomplete, misleading, and at times biased and emotionally overwrought. It’s no secret the mainstream media disagrees with Trump’s push to crack down on illegal immigration and tighten border security, but that shouldn’t excuse the lack of nuance and granularity in much of the reporting we’ve seen over the past week or so.”
http://thefederalist.com/…/4-things-media-wont-tell…/

I think his base is concerned about illegal immigration, the argument is hardly ever against LEGAL immigration but the media acts like they’re all purely racist against all immigrants.

“It’s not personal. Republicans aren’t anti-immigrant. They’re anti-illegal immigration. It’s the basis of any society to prioritize its resources for its own members rather than diverting them to people in other societies. Our society is our responsibility, their societies are their responsibility.”
http://thefederalist.com/…/no-americans-want-border…/

Not everyone’s racist, there are still a large number that voted for Obama, and also voted for Trump.

“ANES data suggest that about 8.4 million 2012 Obama voters backed Trump in 2016 ”
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/…/just-how-many-obama…/

I think most people and sources agree that legal immigration is a win win…

“Immigration’s Long-Term Impacts on Overall Wages and Employment of Native-Born U.S. Workers Very Small, Although Low-Skilled Workers May Be Affected, New Report Finds; Impacts on Economic Growth Positive, While Effects on Government Budgets Mixed”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx… 

and the media for “some reason” doesn’t want to admit that ILLEGAL immigration is a negative on our society…

“Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests.”
https://www.fairus.org/…/fiscal-burden-illegal…

A Quality Rundown of the “Family Separation” Immigration Policy

4 Things The Media Won’t Tell You About The Border Crisis

By    20, 2018

The images and stories now being reported from the southern border—families torn apart, children crying for their parents, parents with no idea where their children are—are disturbing and heartbreaking

The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration enforcement policy has obviously created chaos along the border, tasking already overburdened federal agencies with the seemingly impossible job of taking into custody everyone—men, women, and children—caught crossing the border illegally. The number of children taken from their parents and placed in federal custody climbed to about 2,000 from April 19 through May 31, according to figures from the Department of Homeland Security. With border facilities overwhelmed, some teenagers are now being housed in temporary shelters outside El Paso.

But the reporting from the border has also been incomplete, misleading, and at times biased and emotionally overwrought. It’s no secret the mainstream media disagrees with Trump’s push to crack down on illegal immigration and tighten border security, but that shouldn’t excuse the lack of nuance and granularity in much of the reporting we’ve seen over the past week or so.

Illegal immigration and its attendant problems along the U.S.-Mexico border are vastly complex and defy easy solutions. With that in mind, here are four key aspects of the border crisis that the media has failed to report or adequately explain.

1. Prior To ‘Zero Tolerance,’ Families Who Crossed The Border Illegally Were Often Released

For a long time, the vast majority of illegal border crossers were single men from Mexico looking for work. Dealing with them was a fairly straightforward matter: most would be immediately deported to Mexico. It’s not that there weren’t families and unaccompanied minors also illegally entering, but they made up a small subset of illegal immigration.

Beginning in 2014, the situation changed. Large numbers of families and unaccompanied minors began showing up on the border in unprecedented numbers, many seeking asylum from dangerous criminal gangs in their home countries. Most of these foreign citizens were from Central America, not Mexico, and under a 2008 federal law designed to protect victims of human trafficking, migrants from noncontiguous countries have a right to a deportation hearing.

That meant the Obama administration had to figure out what to do with tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and families that could not be quickly deported. Some were placed in shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) along the border, but because shelter space was limited, many more were placed with family members while they awaited hearings. Thousands have waited more than three years for a hearing, and thousands more have been ordered to be removed from the country in absentia (they never showed up for their hearing).

During this time, Obama was attacked from the Left for operating family detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania. A New York Times editorial from July 2016 criticized the administration’s detention policies, saying the “privately run, unlicensed lockups are no place for children. Or mothers.”

A year earlier, a federal judge had ordered the administration to close two centers in Texas, citing the 1997 court settlement Flores v. Reno, which requires the government to hold children in the “least-restrictive setting” in places that are “licensed to care for children,” and to release them without delay to their parents or other adult relatives whenever possible. The Obama administration unsuccessfully appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the district court’s ruling that Flores applied to all children, accompanied or not. But the court also said the administration could detain parents who crossed illegally.

The Obama administration responded to these rulings with a combination of deportation raids targeting criminals and a “catch-and-release” policy for families apprehended at the border, who would usually be issued notices to appear at an immigration hearing at some later date. This “catch-and-release” policy is what the Trump administration is trying to end.

To that end, Trump has invoked Flores as the reason for separating parents and children, saying the settlement limits what federal agencies can do with children brought here illegally and apprehended at the border. He blames congressional Democrats for failing to negotiate on an immigration bill that would solve the problem—although saddling Democrats with all the blame is disingenuous. Republicans have also failed to act on immigration (although now they say they’re ready to pass a bill to keep families together).

The media have been nearly unanimous in contradicting Trump, arguing that Flores does not force the federal government to separate parents and children, and that the administration has discretion in how it treats these families.

Both sides have a point. Flores does indeed limit how long, and under what circumstances, federal immigration authorities can detain children. But it only “forces” the separation of families if the parents are detained and prosecuted for illegal entry. In that case, families are separated because children can’t stay with their parents if the parents are in criminal custody.

Before Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy, families caught crossing illegally were often released within a few days and the parents fitted with an electronic ankle monitor to reduce the likelihood of them absconding. Back in March, when I was reporting on the border in McAllen, Texas, I met a number of people from Central America who were wearing an ankle monitor. Most planned to cut it off and throw it away when they got to where they were going.

2. Illegal Immigrants Who Are Released Often Fail To Appear At Court Hearings

Indeed, failure to appear at court hearings is a major problem in our immigration system—one the media is glossing over in its coverage of the border crisis.

According to the DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), the office that handles all immigration cases, a significant number of illegal immigrants who are released from custody never show up for their court hearings. Statistics from 2016 (PDF) show that “non-detained aliens,” which include those who were never detained and those who were released on bond or their own recognizance, failed to show up for court hearings in 39 percent of completed immigration cases—a 110 percent increase compared to 2012.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/20/4-things-media-wont-tell-border-crisis/

Conflict of Interest: Criminal Global Banking Conglomerates Own the Media

Trust Me

Yesterday I pointed out that…

even when global banking conglomerates are caught red-handed, profiting from human misery (including human trafficking and sex trade) they only get fined. No one goes to jail, because the politicians are on the take…
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Well, today I would like to further point out how the media is partially owned by the big banks, so they won’t go very far to raise outrage when they get caught supporting human traffickers…

It’s just one example but it turns out that HSBC holds massive amounts of Time Warner stock. Time Warner owns Turner, Turner owns CNN. CNN pays Anderson Cooper to read whatever they tell him to.

“Hsbc Holdings PLC increased its position in shares of Time Warner (NYSE:TWX) by 24.6% in the 1st quarter, according to the company in its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm owned 1,984,015 shares of the media conglomerate’s stock after buying an additional 391,221 shares during the period. Hsbc Holdings PLC’s holdings in Time Warner were worth $187,648,000 at the end of the most recent reporting period.”

Read More: https://www.tickerreport.com/…/time-warner-twx-position…

Well, just one example of how an international bank that was caught profiting from Cartel money (which includes profits from human trafficking) is also a major investor in an American Media conglomerate.

Do you really think that international corporations work for the good of the people?

You really think that what they call “news” and “information” are legitimate and not pro-corporate, pro-crime propaganda? 

It’s propaganda-for-profit.

Human Trafficking is Why We Need to Deter Undocumented, Unsafe, Illegal Border Crossings…

People have the best intentions.

But undocumented children in detention was at an all time high in 2014, under Obama, but the media didn’t direct people’s attention to it because they were pro-Obama.

The outrage is sincere now, but it’s been manufactured by the media directing our attention where they want to.

My issue isn’t with intentions or people’s justified emotions, my issue is with the outcomes of encouraging more people trafficking and people smuggling. It’s big business and it’s about preying on people and children.

America can’t actually house the entire world’s population of would-be economic migrants, so we shouldn’t encourage them to live here undocumented.

If they have legitimate asylum claims, let them come legally. If they want to immigrate, let them immigrate legally and safely.

They can follow the rules just like everyone has to. If I break the law, do I not get separated from my family? Where should unaccompanied minors live? In the street? In brothels or in slave labor conditions?

Encouraging them to pay human smugglers and travel dangerously and illegally through international borders and waters to live undocumented in the shadows is not actually helping the children.

Look at this judge’s finding from 09-311 – USA V. NAVA-MARTINEZ

Federal Judge: The Obama Administration Aids and Abets Human Trafficking

Hans A. von Spakovsky   Dec 20th, 2013

“As Judge Hanen pointed out, the human-trafficking conspiracy instigated by Salmeron Santos was interrupted when Nava-Martinez was arrested, but the “goal of the conspiracy was successfully completed thanks to the actions of the United States.” Hanen expressed grave concern over the “apparent policy of [DHS] of completing the criminal mission of individuals who are violating the border security of the United States.”

After the child was taken into custody, DHS agents learned that the mother had “instigated this illegal conduct.” Yet DHS delivered the child to the mother and took no enforcement action: “It did not arrest her. It did not prosecute her. It did not even initiate deportation proceedings for her.” As the judge said, “instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the Government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it,” conduct for which any “private citizen would, and should, be prosecute.”

What especially angered the judge was that this was the fourth case of this nature that he “had in as many weeks.” All involved “human traffickers who smuggled minor children [and] were apprehended short of delivering the children to their ultimate destination.” In each case, the parents were in this country illegally and had initiated and funded the illegal activity. And in each instance, DHS completed the crime by delivering the child to the parents and refusing to take any action against them.”

Read More: https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/federal-judge-the-obama-administration-aids-and-abets-human-trafficking

Obama Appointee Judges Working for Open Borders, Because: Screw Main St. America

Hillary Clinton My Dream is for Open Borders

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards

APRIL 11, 2018

For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant.

Though years apart, both lawsuits were filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a leftist group that specializes in discrimination lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants and has Chicago ties to Obama. MALDEF pushes for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new migrants. Its leadership refers to the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement effort as racist and xenophobic and says it’s racist to make English the country’s official national language and inhumane to protect the southern border with a fence. Both MALDEF victories involve plaintiffs who benefit from a special Obama amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that shields nearly 800,000 illegal aliens under the age of 31 from deportation.

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEFF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2011, agrees, citing MALDEF’s other lawsuit in her ruling. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams claims the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to those in MALDEF’s 2014 suit against insurance company Northwestern Mutual in New York. In that complaint, a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA alleged that Northwestern Mutual’s policy requiring him to have a green card because he’s not a U.S. citizen discriminated against him. Requiring the Mexican national, Ruben Juarez, to provide proof of legal residency imposed an additional burden that constitutes alienage discrimination, according to the complaint filed on his behalf by MALDEF.  The federal judge hearing that case in New York agreed and, in a federal courtroom more than 1,000 miles south, Williams used the decision to justify hers.

“In Juarez, the plaintiff was a DACA recipient who was denied employment based on Northwestern Mutual’s policy to only hire U.S. citizens and green card holders,” Judge Williams writes in her ruling. “There, on strikingly similar facts, the court found that Northwestern Mutual’s policy impermissibly discriminated against a subclass of Iawfully present aliens.” The ruling continues to say that Procter & Gamble’s policy could be construed to discriminate against a subset of legal aliens, which are protected. It seems to agree with the illegal alien’s assertions that Procter & Gamble has a “facially discriminatory employment policy” for requiring candidates to furnish proof that they’re in the U.S. legally.

Read More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/04/court-rules-illegal-aliens-can-sue-discriminatory-employment-policy-requiring-green-cards/

Which is worse? Children being detained at certified detention centers, or children being sex trafficked?

Who profits from international human smuggling and sex trafficking?

If You Dont Want to be Separated From Your Children Dont Cross the Border Illegally

The reason the media wants open borders is because they’re a part of a global corporate machine that profits from drugs and weapons smuggling, and from human smuggling and sex trafficking….
https://www.theguardian.com/…/…/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

What about sex trafficking?
“Sex trafficking is a $99 billion a year industry.”
“4.5 million people are victims of sex trafficking. The average age is 15, but 20% of sex trafficking victims are children.”
https://www.army.mil/article/165364/operational_contract_support_joint_exercise_combats_human_trafficking

And what about human smuggling?
“2.5 million people were smuggled in 2016, for an estimated profit of $7 billion.”
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glosom/GLOSOM_2018_ExecutiveSummary_web_small.pdf

Where does all of that profit go?

Does it all stay as billions of dollars in cash?

No. It gets laundered by global banks, and is in turn funneled to complicit politicians…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money

Even when the corporations get caught, they only get fined. No one goes to jail, because the politicians are on the take…
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

HSBC lobbying by year…
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021791&year=2017

The media companies are also on the take…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31517545

The politicians are on the take…
“Clinton Foundation recieved $81 million from clients of HSBC’s Swiss Money Laundering bank”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

The law that separates children from smugglers was on the books since 2002. The law states how unaccompanied minors and minors being smuggled by smugglers should be detained and moved into foster parenting or kept in certified centers…
https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=614

In 2014 Obama announced that they would no longer enforce the law and would allow undocumented, illegal border crossers to not be immediately deported…
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Volpp.Immigrants.Outisde.the_.Law_.pdf

Since the Obama executive branch stopped enforcing the law, child smuggling and illegal border crossings increased to emergency levels..
“The Obama administration last year initially blamed bad economies and growing gang violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala for sparking the surge, but later acknowledged that human traffickers were marketing the journey by pointing out a loophole in U.S. immigration system that requires non-Mexican children to be released into the U.S. while they await final immigration decisions. That gives them a chance to abscond and disappear into the shadows with the more than 11 million other illegal immigrants in the country.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/illegal-immigrant-children-surge-across-border-at-/

The law, if properly applied, is to NOT separate children from families that seek asylum and cross the border LEGALLY…
“Children continue to be released to their relatives or to shelters. But since the zero-tolerance policy took effect, parents as a rule are being prosecuted.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/?utm_term=.868b6eee98df

But there has been a rise in people falsely claiming to be relatives of smuggled children…
“…a growing number of cases, illegal immigrants who aren’t even related to the children are showing up and fraudulently claiming to be families.Homeland Security recorded 191 cases of children having to be separated because of fraudulent family claims during the first five months of fiscal year 2018. That already eclipses the 46 cases reported for all of 2017.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/22/children-abducted-illegals-posing-families-us-bord/

Should people crossing the border illegally not be prosecuted?
Should children being smuggled across the border illegally be put in jail with the adults that smuggled them?

How much should we encourage illegal entries when we know that they are fueling an illegal industry of human smuggling, sex trafficking and drug and gun smuggling?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/18/migrant-crisis-is-about-the-drug-cartel/

The Open Borders Argument: Life Isn’t Fair, Give Us Your Stuff

… and locking your home at night just shows your privilege. 

Borders aren't fair give us your stuff

Immigration Lies and Hypocrisy

Walter E. Williams

President Donald Trump reportedly asked why the U.S. is “having all these people from shithole countries come here.” I think he could have used better language, but it’s a question that should be asked and answered. I have a few questions for my fellow Americans to consider. How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders. The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems. A large number of immigrants who are here illegally — perhaps the majority are law-abiding in other respects — have fled oppressive, brutal and corrupt regimes to seek a better life in America.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border? The reason those questions are not asked is that one would be deemed an idiot for saying that everyone in the world has a right to live in our country, that Americans don’t have a right to decide who lives in our country and that foreigners landing at our airports have a right to just ignore U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents.

Immigration today, even when legal, is different from the immigration of yesteryear. People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism. As a result, some immigrant groups seek to bring to our country the cultural values whose failures have led to the poverty, corruption and human rights violations in their home countries that caused them to flee. As the fallout from President Trump’s indelicate remarks demonstrates, too many Americans are afraid and unwilling to ask which immigrant groups have become a burden to our nation and which have made a contribution to the greatness of America.

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws. The whole concept of sanctuary cities is to give aid, comfort and sympathy to people who have broken our laws. Supporters want to prevent them from having to hide and live in fear of discovery. I’d ask whether, for the sake of equality before the law, we should apply the sanctuary concept to Americans who have broken other laws, such as robbers and tax evaders.

We should not fall prey to people who criticize our efforts to combat illegal immigration and who pompously say, “We’re a nation of immigrants!” The debate is not over immigration. The debate is over illegal immigration. My sentiments on immigrants who are here legally and who want to become Americans are expressed by the sentiments in Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” which is on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty and in part says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Read More: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/01/immigration-lies-and-hypocrisy.html