Open Borders Update: 3000 Illegal Immigrants Caught in One Day

alexandria ocasio cortez illegal immigrants deserve a path to legal immigration

More than 3,000 illegals caught in one day: DHS

By Stephen Dinan December 11, 2018

The government snared more than 3,000 immigrants who illegally attempting to cross into the U.S. in just one day last week, the Trump administration’s top border official told Congress on Tuesday, saying the situation qualifies as a full-blown “crisis.”

Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said the majority were traveling as families and another 350 were children traveling without parents.

Between those and the children who came as part of families, that means more than 1,100 juveniles caught that day were forced to make a treacherous journey he said that often involves sexual abuse and other trauma.

“It is indeed both a border security and a humanitarian crisis,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The 3,029 people caught Dec. 3 is the highest one-day total in years, and he said at the current rate, the country would shatter last year’s record number of immigrant families who attempted to push their way into the country without permission.

Read More: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/11/more-3000-illegals-caught-one-day-dhs/

 

The Costs of Open Borders, Catch and Release, Illegal Immigration and Undocumented Residents

every 30 seconds another person becomes a victim of human trafficking

Member of Mexican sex trafficking ring sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment

www.ice.gov 12/03/2018

NEW YORK — Raul Granados-Rendon, a member of the Granados family sex trafficking ring based in Tenancingo, Tlaxcala, Mexico, was sentenced Monday in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) to eight years’ imprisonment.  Pursuant to an investigation by  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in New York, Granados-Rendon pled guilty in December 2017 to trafficking young Mexican women into the United States and forcing them into prostitution. As part of his sentence, the defendant was ordered to pay $1,305,393.80 in restitution to Jane Doe.

“The victims of this man were forced into prostitution after being lured to the U.S. with false promises then threatened, beaten and sexually assaulted,” stated Angel M. Melendez, special agent in charge of HSI New York. “This man was on our agency’s top 10 fugitive list before being extradited and taken into custody early last year. It has been a long road, but now he will face the consequences of his reprehensible actions.”

“With today’s sentence, Raul Granados-Rendon is the latest member of his family’s Mexican sex trafficking operation to be held responsible for preying upon countless women, and profiting from their exploitation and dehumanization,” stated Richard P. Donoghue, U.S. Attorney for EDNY. “This prosecution and sentence mark another important outcome in a nearly decade-long commitment by this Office and our law enforcement partners to obtain justice for the victims,”

From October 1998 to December 2011, Raul Granados-Rendon, 31, participated in a sex trafficking conspiracy with other members of the Granados family, to smuggle numerous young women from Mexico to New York and force them to work as prostitutes in New York City and elsewhere. The male members of the conspiracy used false promises of romance and marriage to lure the victims into relationships and convince them to travel to the United States to make money so that they could build homes for themselves in Mexico. Once in the United States, the victims were subjected to violence, threats and sexual assaults by the defendants. Raul Granados-Rendon directed one of his victims to teach another victim “Jane Doe” how to prostitute. When Jane Doe did not produce as much income as other Granados family victims, the defendant physically abused her, dragging her by her hair into a bathroom and forcing her head into a sink. The defendant also helped transport another victim back to Mexico after his brother impregnated her and failed at his efforts to induce an abortion.

The investigation, prosecution, bilateral enforcement action and extraditions of the defendants apprehended in Mexico were coordinated through the U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Human Trafficking Enforcement Initiative. Since 2009, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have collaborated with Mexican law enforcement counterparts in the Initiative to more effectively dismantle human trafficking networks operating across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The HSI New York’s Trafficking in Persons Unit (TIPU) is comprised of senior criminal investigators, intelligence officers and victim assistance specialists who aid in the rescue of trafficking victims and prosecution of traffickers and trafficking organizations. TIPU investigators focus on the exploitation of victims by force, fraud or coercion regardless of the person’s manor or entry into the United States. All TIPU investigations are victim-centered, seeking to rescue and protect the victims of trafficking.

Read More: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/member-mexican-sex-trafficking-ring-sentenced-8-years-imprisonment


Nearly Two Thirds Of Non-Citizen Households On Welfare

Another day, another revelation as the great fleecing of the U.S. taxpayer continues unabated. A Center for Immigration Studies review of U.S. Census Bureau data reveals a stunning 63% of households in the U.S. headed by non-citizens are on some form of welfare. That’s just shy of two out of every three proving to be a burden to the American people. So much for the lie that massive immigration enriches our nation.

Dead Weight

The information CIS uncovered is infuriating in a number of ways. The 63% figure is almost twice the rate of native-headed American households that use welfare, which is a disturbingly high 35% as it is. But non-citizen households (45%) also utilize food programs at a much higher rate than natives (21%), and disproportionately tap into Medicaid programs as well (50% vs. 23%).

The most telling statistic in the review, however, is that welfare use rises among non-citizens the longer they are in our country. “Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent,” CIS discovered.

Rather than serving as a temporary safety net, our welfare programs are proving to be a lifestyle staple for non-citizens sponging off the American taxpayer. Of course, many of these non-citizens do work, but they are low-skilled Hispanics from Central America laboring at poverty-level jobs. A 2015 CIS report found that 67% of households headed by immigrant farm workers are on public assistance of some form. Swollen-eyed Big Ag industrial farmers crying out about the need to find workers willing to do “the jobs Americans won’t do” are in fact having their cheap payrolls subsidized by the welfare programs of this nation.

Bitter Factors

At a time when native-born Americans are working long hours with less vacation time and fewer benefits, we are being forced to carry the millstone of foreign squatters on our backs. Massive immigration has led to overcrowded cities and towns, aggravating traffic congestion that leads to an even more draining daily commute for Americans just so we can we have the privilege of having our wages heavily taxed to financially support the very same invaders who are making our work day more exhausting. This is madness.

Read More: https://www.libertynation.com/nearly-two-thirds-of-non-citizen-households-on-welfare/


Compared to 35% of native households
By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler on December 2, 2018

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

New “public charge” rules issued by the Trump administration expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, receipt of which may prevent a prospective immigrant from receiving lawful permanent residence (a green card). Analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) shows welfare use by households headed by non-citizens is very high. The desire to reduce these rates among future immigrants is the primary justification for the rule change. Immigrant advocacy groups are right to worry that the high welfare use of non-citizens may impact the ability of some to receive green cards, though the actual impacts of the rules are unclear because they do not include all the benefits non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules. As welfare participation varies dramatically by education level, significantly reducing future welfare use rates would require public charge rules that take into consideration education levels and resulting income and likely welfare use.

Of non-citizens in Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally. Non-citizens also include long-term temporary visitors (e.g. guestworkers and foreign students) and permanent residents who have not naturalized (green card holders). Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.

Among the findings:

  • In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
  • Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
  • Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
  • Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
  • While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

The following figures include EITC:

  • No single program explains non-citizens’ higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households compared to 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared to 30 percent for natives.
  • Welfare use tends to be high for both newer arrivals and long-time residents. Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent.
  • Welfare receipt by working households is very common. Of non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent have at least one worker, as do 76 percent of native households receiving welfare. In fact, non-citizen households are more likely overall to have a worker than are native households.1
  • The primary reason welfare use is so high among non-citizens is that a much larger share of non-citizens have modest levels of education and, as a result, they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates than natives.
  • Of all non-citizen households, 58 percent are headed by immigrants who have no more than a high school education, compared to 36 percent of native households.
  • Of households headed by non-citizens with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs. In contrast, 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate use one or more welfare programs.
  • Like non-citizens, welfare use also varies significantly for natives by educational attainment, with the least educated having much higher welfare use than the most educated.
  • Using education levels and likely future income to determine the probability of welfare use among new green card applicants — and denying permanent residency to those likely to utilize such programs — would almost certainly reduce welfare use among future permanent residents.
  • Of households headed by naturalized immigrants (U.S. citizens), 50 percent used one or more welfare programs. Naturalized-citizen households tend to have lower welfare use than non-citizen households for most types of programs, but higher use rates than native households for virtually every major program.
  • Welfare use is significantly higher for non-citizens than for natives in all four top immigrant-receiving states. In California, 72 percent of non-citizen-headed households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 35 percent for native-headed households. In Texas, the figures are 69 percent vs. 35 percent; in New York they are 53 percent vs. 38 percent; and in Florida, 56 percent of non-citizen-headed households use at least welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native households.

Read More: https://www.cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

What changed with the Liberals and Immigration? Why did they go from Liberal to Leftist? 

It’s funny that all of these Democrats agree with most American’s views on illegal immigration… just in the past.

What changed with them? Why did they go from liberal to leftist?

Harry Reid 1993: ‘No Sane Country’ Would Do Birthright Citizenship; 9-20-1993:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY4yHeYSjw

Clinton: Send some immigrant kids home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1FP6t0OUlk&feature=youtu.be

President Obama Gives a Policy Speech on Immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuuzTJBE5Y

Schumer on illegal aliens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL2k8jbnAs

Dianne Feinstein opposing ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aqOfDbZmj8

Bill Clinton Receives Standing O In 1995 State Of The Union For Tough Stance On Illegal Immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy8UwpenlEA

I think it’s simply media manipulation. No one realized that their go-to media sources have changed?
Just today, listening to NPR on the immigrant thing…they present a human interest story about family and voting, but inside the story is a bunch of stuff about immigration, but they never actually present any facts or even differentiate between legal and illegal immigration and the benefits and costs of each. It’s just low-information, emotional content, meant to sway voters w/out any facts.  https://www.npr.org/2018/11/01/662855443/a-couples-plan-to-vote-on-issues-related-to-family

Illegal immigrants are presented as a good thing because “they do the jobs other’s don’t want to.” But they don’t mention that’s really an argument for corporate profits. The corporations want low wage workers so they can have more profits.

Because corporations claim they can’t afford to pay Americans living wages, we accept illegal workers, forced to live in horrible conditions, many to a room, in shifts, with few protections or rights, as second class humans, living illegally, in the shadows

The same illegal labor market actually undercuts poor Americans’ wages and opportunities and additionally the money that is earned by illegal immigrants leaves the community when it’s sent overseas as remittances.

That money, spent by the legal residents, would have been recycled into the local economy and enriched a poor community. Why doesn’t NPR or the Democrats care about poor Americans? Why do they want illegals immigrants? Why do they equate legal and illegal immigrants?

NPR and others claim it’s their human rights to live wherever they want, but they leave out the rights of the residents who live in the country they’re immigrating to.

Do the people who live legally in a country have a right to keep their homeland?

Do they have a right to their own culture?

Illegal immigrants cost billions a year in Federal, State and Local expenses. But with the loss of wages to poor Americans and the loss of money in local economies makes the cost much  higher.

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

The Cost of Illegal Immigration
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11829/illegal-immigration-cost

Then there’s the open borders thing. It’s very dangerous to encourage illegal crossings. 80% of females making the illegal crossing at the southern border are raped during the journey and many of the women and children are being trafficked.

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

Operational Contract Support Joint Exercise combats human trafficking
https://www.army.mil/article/165364/operational_contract_support_joint_exercise_combats_human_trafficking

GLOBAL STUDY ON SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS 2018
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glosom/GLOSOM_2018_ExecutiveSummary_web_small.pdf

The drug cartels also use the border for human smuggling including guns, drugs, and child sex trafficking and banks like HSBC have been caught profitting from their activity.

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

HSBC has form: remember Mexico and laundered drug money
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money

Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War Is a Joke

Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War Is a Joke

4 Things The Media Won’t Tell You About The Border Crisis
http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/20/4-things-media-wont-tell-border-crisis/

The Federal Government Steels Children After All?

#WhereAreTheChildren

‘Where are the Girls?’: Child Trafficking Feared as DHS Can’t Say Where Immigrant Girls are Being Held

Fears of child trafficking are rising as independent media and citizens realize that the only footage of children refugees is boys. DHS was asked where the girls are, and they could not answer.

As the debate swarms over illegal immigration, Americans on both the left and the right are at each other’s throats pointing fingers over who’s responsible. In the meantime, what was a “conspiracy theory” a month ago is now being confirmed by the very people accused of keeping people in cages. One question, however, has just been raised which gives one a dark and sickly feeling inside when thinking about the potential answers to it: “Where are the girls?”

There is something particularly disturbing about the minuscule amount of footage recently released by HHS last week—it only shows boys, and only boys age 10 and up. Where are the girls? Where are the toddlers? Where are the babies?

Could it be that HHS is only releasing footage of these older boys to portray an image of less suffering and compliant young men in order to keep the public happy? Are the places where girls are kept so disturbing that none of this footage can be released?

According to official policy, the government does not remove toddlers and babies from their mothers. However, as TFTP reported, a mother from Honduras who came to the U.S. seeking asylum with her family said she was breastfeeding her infant at a detention center when her baby was suddenly taken from her with no warning and no explanation.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/where-are-the-girls-child-trafficking-feared-as-dhs-cant-say-where-immigrant-girls-are-being-held/

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…

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

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

migrants in Germany

  • “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” — Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley.
  • It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall — five and a half times more, and every year.
  • “Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes…” — John R. Lott.
  • In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. Many of these drugs [were] smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels.”

In his State of the Union address on January 30, US President Donald J. Trump referred to the brutal murder of two 16-year-old girls from Long Island in December 2016 by members of the “savage MS-13 gang,” responsible for a spate of other gruesome killings in the area, as well.

Many of these gang members, he explained, had entered the United States illegally. “For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities,” he said.

Calling on Congress “to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed… criminal gangs to break into our country,” he listed the four pillars of his immigration-reform proposal:

  • A path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents.
  • The construction of a “great wall on the southern border” and enforcement by agents patrolling and securing the border.
  • Ending the visa lottery, “a program that randomly plans out green cards without regard for skill, merit, for the safety of American people.”
  • Ending the “current, broken system” of chain migration of distant relatives, and limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.

Although he did not specify this in his speech, Trump reportedly is seeking $25 billion from Congress to fund the wall. Opponents of the wall have been arguing that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than legal immigrants or native-born Americans; that illegal immigration has been a boon to the economy, rather than a drain on it; and that the cost both of deportation and a wall far exceeds the benefits of both. These claims are repeatedly voiced by the Trump administration’s detractors, as part of their campaign to accuse the president of racism; but what are the facts?

To set the record straight, let us take a look at a number of those that have been obscured or ignored by the media.

As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reveals that, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall – five and a half times more, and every year.

The same goes for the cost of deporting illegal immigrants. According to Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies,

“…The average cost of a deportation is much smaller than the net fiscal drain created by the average illegal immigrant,” in part due to the fact that “illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education…creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.”

The question of the rates of criminality among illegal aliens vs. those of legal immigrants and American-born citizens has been examined by John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, using Arizona’s prison population as a microcosm for study. According to Lott, the ability to measure the crime-rate among illegal immigrants in the U.S. has been difficult, due to many factors, including the lack of a national data base and “primitive” methodology – such as “simple, cross-sectional analysis to see whether areas with higher immigrant populations have higher crime rates,” and “a purely time series approach… look at the United States as a whole and note that crime has decreased since 1990 as immigration has increased.” The advantage of the Arizona Department of Corrections study, Lott says, is that

“over our 32.5-year period, we know each prisoner who entered the prison system, their criminal convictions history, and whether he is a documented or undocumented immigrant. The only mystery is why this type of data has not been utilized until now.”

Peter Kirsanow wryly solved the mystery in National Review, writing:

“Unfortunately, almost every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure of illegal-immigrant crime data more tenaciously than disclosure of nuclear launch codes.”

According to Lott, whose research spans 1985-2017:

“Arizona’s prison population data allow us to compare undocumented immigrants’ share of the prison population with their estimated share of the state population…For the first time, we break down the data to examine differences between US citizens, undocumented immigrants, and legal permanent residents. One advantage of using convictions rather than just reported crimes is that convictions depend on a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of evidence and thus are much less likely to count innocent people.”

The findings are unequivocal, as the following summary illustrates:

“Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens…There are dramatic differences between in the criminal histories of convicts who are U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants…

“[Y]oung undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes. If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.”

These numbers do not even include the cost to American taxpayers of the toll taken on America’s children by illegally imported drugs. Although available information on this is at best spotty, the key finding from the DEA’s 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment is that the “most commonly reported greatest drug threat was heroin, at 44.1 percent of law enforcement responses… This was followed by 29.8 percent of respondents indicating methamphetamine was their greatest drug threat, 9.3 percent reporting controlled prescription drugs…”

This tells us something about the extent of the problem, but not enough. The 2010 drug-threat assessment, released a year after the previous administration took office, revealed that,

“From January through November 2009, U.S. seizures of illegal drugs in transit exceeded 1,626 metric tons, indicating that DTOs succeed in moving several thousand tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA into the United States annually. There are unique smuggling and transportation methods…”

In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. As was noted by the BBC at the time, “Many of these drugs are smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels…”

The late Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” His successors in Congress would do well to remember this while debating the issue of illegal immigration. They certainly need to keep it in mind when voting on the administration’s proposed plan.

Read More: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11829/illegal-immigration-cost

Soros-sponsored immigration network in Italy | GEFIRA

Why is it cool and “progressive” for billionaires to fund revolutions and destabilization around the world so they can profit from failed states?

If there was ever a purpose for government I would think it would be to protect the people from billionaires paying to destabilize their country.

Oh, too late, and it’s even here now. They have been doing this around the world since the 50’s. Did anyone think this manufactured regime change wouldn’t come back home…? P.D.

Soros-sponsored immigration network in Italy

Why is there a migrant crisis in the Mediterranean? Why are NGOs involved? Because there is an extensive network of open borders activists and organizations behind it; many of them are directly funded by or cooperated with George Soros’ Open Society. Is it illegal? Not really. Political activism is an essential part of democratic societies. However, sometimes it goes too far, or the promoted causes prove to be either unrealistic or unsustainable.
The network of the “immigration lobby’’ in Italy is made up of International NGOs financed by the Open Society Foundation (green), Italian NGOs financed by OSF (blue), and organizations with shared projects with OSF (purple).

 

Soros Italian NGO network
Soros Italian NGO network

The network, as exemplified by CILDI, is extensive and intricate. It ranges from former ministers, Kyenge (Immigration) and Bonino (foreign affairs), both directly responsible for the large influx of migrants being forcefully accepted into Italy, to support groups promoting press censorship, but also providing juridical support, advocacy and publications.
Only in few cases one can inspect their budgets, not exactly a trait suggesting transparency and openness.

The main theme of the Open Society network is to use anti-discrimination laws to promote unlimited migration via the abolition of borders. The idea is clearly stated in the manifesto of many organizations. Most organizations promote their extreme views as “fact based’’ or “common sense’’ to give themselves an aura of scientific approach, while providing subjective and ideological interpretation of data and omitting inconvenient information. That is also why they omit the nationality of the criminal. It’s equivalent to admitting there is a problem but it should not be talked about. This is typical of totalitarian regimes, not democratic and certainly not “open’’ societies. The stated goal of “correct information on the theme of immigration’’ is certainly not achieved this way.

Finally, the no-borders strategy is being implemented with the widespread action of the immigration lobby in favour of NGOs operating in the Mediterranean. Whether through its funding or publications covering the topic, conferences, research or information channels for migrants, the network effectively provides support for migrants, regardless of whether they are legal or illegal…

Read More: gefira.org/en/2017/07/13/soros-sponsored-immigration-network-in-italy/