AMERICA'S GREATEST THREAT EVER: MEXICO'S INVASION, OCCUPATION and LOOTING in our open borders! .....
"More significant still, a former Mexican official, Jorge Castañeda, threatened to unleash Mexican cartels onto the U.S. to retaliate for deportations of illegal immigrants and the construction of a border wall.
Friday, July 15, 2016
OBAMA AND HIS CRIMINAL ILLEGALS.................... Will they go vote for La Raza Hillaria?
ICE Official Offers Excuses as Feds Fail to Deport Nearly a Million Illegals
While Republican lawmakers have expressed frustration that nearly a million illegal immigrants with final orders of deportation remain in the United States, the situation is under control and merely par for the course, according to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official.
Thursday, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) pressed ICE Deputy Director Daniel Ragsdale on the 953,507 aliens with final orders of removal who the government has failed to deport.
“Sir, I believe that is a number that is an aggregate number over many many years, it is folks we consider under docket-control that have seen either immigration judges or have filed federal appeals,” Ragsdale responded.
VIDEO: THE STAGGERING COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Chaffetz expressed incredulity that such a high number of illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. despite final orders of deportation.
“I would again, suggest that number includes people under docket-control. Some of those people may have, in fact, withholding of removal,” Ragsdale said.
The Utah lawmaker stressed that despite Ragsdale’s excuses, the 953,507 figure is a number from ICE, Ragsdale’s agency.
“It may very well be accurate,” Ragsdale said. “What I am suggesting is that number does not mean every single one of these people are amenable to removal as of right now.”
When pressed for more clarity, Ragsdale continued, “In other words, someone who may be [from] a country, of let’s say Syria, where they have a criminal record and could not get asylum, they still might be granted a different form of protection, they would be included in that number.”
When Chaffetz interjected that an order for removal should result in removal, Ragsdale responded that the issue is “a little more complicated.”
“It’s not quite that simple. So in other words, you get a removal order but we may not remove you to the country from where you’re from,” Ragsdale said.
“But they’re not in this country legally, they’re ordered removed, so in your Syria example, then what do you do?” Chaffetz asked.
“That is why they are included in that number,” the ICE official responded, affirming that aliens in that situation are allowed to remain in the United States, unless a third party country agrees to take them.
WASHINGTON, DC (July 11, 2016) — A recent report by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), which distributes what used to be called food stamps, provides benefits to families with an illegal alien (or other ineligible alien) wage earner in it, while denying benefits to an identical family comprised of only U.S. citizens.
Although two families may be identical in terms of income and family size, states have the option of including only part of the wages of an employed ineligible alien when calculating SNAP eligibility. Those states which do not count all the income of the ineligible aliens make it easier for a family with an illegal alien present to qualify for food stamps than for an identical all-citizen family. Ineligible aliens, in the food stamp program, are primarily illegal aliens and those green card holders who have been in that status for less than five years.
David North, a fellow with the Center and author of the report, said, “A bias exists against those here legally when calculating eligibility for food stamps. This overt bias, which most legislators are probably not even aware of, translates into an estimated 1.4 billion dollar cost to tax payers.”
Only six states or territories show no bias and include all family income: Arizona, Guam, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah.
The majority of states employ a "proration" policy posture, meaning families including an employed ineligible alien can secure food stamps when an all-citizen family of the same size and with the same income would be denied the benefits. States are not incentivized to change their proration policy as the federal government pays for SNAP, not the state governments.
The proration formula is inherently unfair to the citizen family, and it also comes with a price tag. The Center calculated the cost of this proration policy and found that well over one billion dollars was being unnecessarily spent.