Thursday, December 13, 2018

TRUMP VOTERS DEMAND WALL AGAINST NARCOMEX - PELOSI HOWLS DON'T WALL MEXICO OUT OF OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS

Democrats can't stand the thought of protecting Americans

Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media tout themselves as concerned for those addicted to drugs and regularly support increased spending money for therapy.  But they refuse to fund building the wall and for border security on the Mexican border.
The wall would significantly stop the flow of illegal drugs through the Mexican border to the USA, which would reduce the supply of illegal drugs that cause addiction and deaths by overdose.  The Democrats and media support spending money to deal with the effects of drugs smuggled across the border but refuse to spend money to stop the smuggling.
There is no doubt that illegal drugs and most heroin come across the Mexican border.  And now we have fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 80-100 times stronger than morphine.  According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), "[c]landestinely-produced fentanyl is primarily manufactured in Mexico.

The Mexican cartels are producing fentanyl and also receive it from China to smuggle it to the USA.  It is very profitable for the cartels.

In 2017, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, with at least 30,000 attributed to fentanyl.
President Trump has called for a border wall to stop illegal immigration and to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, such as heroin and fentanyl.  It is common sense and logical that building a wall and fully securing the southern border would reduce the flow of such drugs, reducing deaths and addiction.
Yet the Democrats refuse to fund the border wall and border security.
Senator Schumer and Speaker-Elect Pelosi agree to spend $1.5 billion for "border security" but not for a wall.  President Trump is asking for only $5 billion.  It is estimated that $27 to $40 billion is needed to fully fund the wall.
It is time to fully fund the border wall.  The Trump Shutdown should focus on the record number of Americans who die due to drugs smuggled from Mexico.  The focus should be on the Democrats and media that ignore the danger to Americans.  This debate should be coupled with the number of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.
Democrats and their media will quibble about the exact number of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.  But the point is that such crimes are avoidable if the border is secured.
President Trump must be supported to shut down the federal government to finally force funding the wall to  protect Americans.  The issue is protecting Americans.
Iran is the principal state sponsor and supporter of terrorism.  Iran has promised to destroy Israel.  Iran's Parliament chanted "death to America" while burning our flag.  The Dems and their media supported giving $150 billion to Iran but, they refuse to spend more than $1.5 billion to protect Americans, when they know that spending $27 to $40 billion would save thousands of Americans from death and addiction.
The bottom line is that the Dems and their media do not care about the security and safety of Americans.

Experts: 44% of DACA Illegal Aliens Worked Without Valid Social Security Numbers – JOHN BINDER

Under a DACA amnesty, American taxpayers would be left 


with a $26 billion bill. About one in five DACA illegal aliens, 

after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at 

least one in seven would go on Medicaid. Since DACA’s 

inception under Obama, more than 2,100 illegal aliens have 

been kicked off the program after it was revealed that they 


were either criminals or gang members. JOHN BINDER

Nearly 2-in-3 Trump Voters Support Government Shutdown for Border Wall














https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/nearly-2-in-3-trump-voters-support-government-shutdown-for-border-wall/

border_california
SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP/Getty Images
3:26

Nearly 2-in-3 supporters of President Trump and Republican voters say they support shutting down the federal government in order to secure full funding for a border wall on the United States-Mexico border.

The latest Marist Poll reveals that 65 percent of Trump supporters and 65 percent of GOP voters say the president should not compromise on his proposed border wall, even if it means a government shutdown.
Among those who call themselves “strong Republicans,” nearly eight-in-ten say Trump should shut down the government to secure the border wall funding.
A plurality of about 47 percent of Trump’s base, the white working class, say the president should stay strong on the border wall and not compromise, even with the possibility of a government shutdown.
Non-college educated white men, 50 percent; white evangelical Christians, 53 percent; and Americans living in rural communities, 51 percent, are the most supportive demographic groups of shutting down the government to secure the $25 billion needed to build the border wall.
When asked if building the border wall to stop soaring illegal immigration at the southern border was an “immediate priority,” about 67 percent of Trump supporters and 63 percent of Republican voters said yes, the border wall is an immediate priority for the nation.
A plurality of the white working class, 42 percent, said the border wall is an immediate priority, as well as 45 percent of non-college educated white men and 42 percent of Americans in rural communities, who said the same.
As Breitbart News reported, Trump said on Tuesday he is fully committed to shutting down the federal government if Democrats do not help fund his border wall, although Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he and fellow Democrats would not waver in refusing to fund the wall.
Currently, the House version of the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, as Breitbart News reported, includes only $5 billion for the border wall but ties the funding to a variety of cheap labor giveaways to the big business lobby, the outsourcing industry, and the open borders lobby, including:
The House DHS spending bill does not include any additional funding for the Border Patrol to effectively detain illegal aliens without releasing them into the American general public.
The bill also does not provide Trump with the funding for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to hire an additional 1,000 ICE agents. Trump has said for more than a year that he wants to increase the number of ICE agents, but the GOP Congress failed to provide the funding.
The continuing rise of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, researchers say, indicates that Fiscal Year 2019 will see the largest level of illegal immigration into the country in more than a decade.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


POSTED! NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!!!




WEST HOLLYWOOD WELCOME MAT FOR ILLEGALS...
Not a single employer of illegals ever prosecuted in this LA RAZA SANCTUARY CITY where they print voting ballots in Spanish so illegals can vote for more!

Over 95% DACA Applications, Renewals for Illegal Aliens Approved Under Trump



daca-activists
Frederic-Brown/AFP/Getty
2:39


More than 95 percent of illegal aliens who applied for or renewed their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status — which provides temporary amnesty — received approval in the past two years of President Trump’s administration.

Newly released data on the DACA program reveals that approval and renewal rates for the almost 700,000 DACA-enrolled illegal aliens remain extremely high.
Although Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended DACA last year, the program’s termination has been held up in the courts, hence already enrolled illegal aliens are allowed to renew their temporary amnesty. That renewal is good for two years.
The data, analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies, reveals that in Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, there was  more than 95 percent approval rate for eligible illegal aliens who applied for or renewed their DACA status.

(Center for Immigration Studies)
In Fiscal Year 2017, the approval rate for DACA was one of the highest since 2012, with eligible illegal aliens having a more than 97 percent chance of receiving the temporary amnesty if they applied. In Fiscal Year 2018, when DACA illegal aliens rushed to renew their status, the approval rate was more than 96 percent.
Every year, in fact, of the DACA program — except for Fiscal Year 2014 — had a more than 95 percent approval rate for illegal aliens who applied for the temporary amnesty.
The data also highlights that the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens enrolled in DACA are from Mexico. Nearly 80 percent are from that country, while the second largest group of DACA illegal aliens are from Central America, including El Salvador and Honduras — both of which suffer from severe gang problems and rampant crime.

(Center for Immigration Studies) 
Most recently, proponents of DACA in the Republican and Democrat establishment have touted the idea of trading an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens in exchange for some funding for Trump’s proposed border wall.
Such a plan, however, would render the border wall useless in its intended goal to reduce illegal and legal immigration to the country to increase the U.S. wages of America’s working and middle class. A DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and it would drive future migrations, both illegal and legal, to the country for generations.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitba


CBP: Illegal Families Crossing Border at a Rate That Will ‘More Than Double Last Year’s Record Number’











By Melanie Arter | December 11, 2018 | 12:54 PM EST


CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan (Screenshot)
(CNSNews.com) – Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said Tuesday that at the rate that illegal immigrant family units have entered the U.S. in the last 30 days, they will more than double last year’s record number of family units.

“At the border, we face changing trends in illegal crossings that impact security, exploit our laws and challenge our resources and personnel. To put this aspect of our mission in context, one day of crossings, last Monday, December 3rd highlights the trends that we are confronting,” McAleenan said in his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“On that day, we saw the highest numbers of arrivals at our southwest border in years – 3,029 illegal entries in inadmissible persons arrived at our border last Monday. Eighty-five percent of them crossed illegally. CBP apprehended or encountered 1,731 members of family groups and 350 unaccompanied children,” he said.

“This means that the illegal crossings and inadmissibles last Monday included over 1,100 children in a single day. This snapshot is emblematic of the steady trends that we’ve been seeing for many months - increasing crossings overall with a dramatic surge in a percentage of family units and a growing proportion of central Americans coming to our border,” McAleenan added.

“More broadly for the last 30 days, we’ve seen over 2,000 unlawful entries between ports and undocumented arrivals at ports of entry each day. Over 1,070 family members are arriving on a consistent basis. To put this in perspective, we’ll more than double last year’s record number of family units at this rate,” he said.

McAleenan also addressed the notion that the current numbers are lower than historical peaks and that some have concluded that there is no crisis. On the contrary, he said, “it is indeed both a border security and a humanitarian crisis.”

I’ve heard a number of commentators observe that even at these levels, the numbers we are seeing are lower than historical peaks and as a result, there suggests that we are seeing at the borders today is not a crisis. I fundamentally disagree with this assessment. From the experience of our agents and officers on the ground, it is indeed both a border security and a humanitarian crisis,” he said.

“What many looking at the total numbers fail to understand is the difference in what is happening now in terms of who is crossing, the risks that they are facing in the journey and the consequences for our system,” the commissioner said.

“First, up until this decade, most of those crossing the border illegally were single adult males. Now the majority crossing are family units and unaccompanied children. This was fewer than 10 percent up until the year 2012 – 59 percent of crossings last month were families and unaccompanied children,” he said.

The commissioner said illegal immigrants from Central America crossing the border have surpassed those from Mexico.

“Second, migration from Mexico remains at historically low levels while the majority of illegal border crossings now come from three countries in Central America: Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Central America has now exceeded Mexican migration four out of the last five years and reached 70 percent of crossings last month,” he said.

“November was the first month in recorded history where more people arrived from another country than Mexico, with Guatemala exceeding Mexico by 3,000. The third major trend is a dramatic increase in claims of fears of return or asylum claims. Between 2000 and 2013, fewer than one percent of those encountered at our border claimed asylum,” McAleenan said.

“Last year at ports of entry, the number of asylum claims more than doubled to 38,269. Nearly 31 percent of those deemed inadmissible at ports of entry claimed asylum,” he added.

The commissioner credited the “increases in demographic changes in crossings” to vulnerabilities in immigration law which are “well-known to smugglers and migrants.”

“These weaknesses in our laws now represent the most significant factors impacting border security, and they include the asylum gap where approximately 80 percent of individuals meet the initial credible fear bar in the asylum process while only 10 to 20 percent are found to have valid asylum claims at the end of their immigration court proceedings,” McAleenan added.








DACA Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B



amnesty
Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
5:36


A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall funding would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the administration, depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the 2020 election.

As Breitbart News has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA program last year, although it’s official termination has been held up in court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an initiative supported by the donor class.
Such a plan, most recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but increased legal immigration to the country.
Last year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at the southern border, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process known as “chain migration.”
According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S. imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact, increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for taxpayers.
Additionally, about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56 percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on Medicaid.
Another study, reported by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The plan is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security measures.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder



THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED


Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.

*

“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE

 

Census Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households 
By Paul Bedard 
Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018 

“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank. 

The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare. 
. . . 
Their key findings in the analysis: 

* 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. 

*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). 
. . . 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households 

 

Let’s Shrink Illegal Alien Population, Save Billions at Same Time



 By David North |



The usually discussed techniques for lowering the size of the illegal alien population are two in number:
  • Reducing the inflow of illegals, such as by building a wall; and
  • Mandating the departure of others through deportation.
There is a third variable, rarely discussed, that reaches the same goal without coercion and could be something that Democrats and Republicans might agree on: the subsidized and voluntary departure of some of the undocumented and other aging, low-income foreign-born. It probably would require an act of Congress.
I am thinking of a technique for selectively encouraging the emigration of those among the foreign-born who are most likely to become welfare users in the future. It would save billions and billions of federal dollars a year, and some state funds as well.
It is based on, among other things, the fact that most of the illegals are from warmer climates than our own, and reminds me of a conversation I had years ago on this subject with a Jamaica-born resident of the United States who told me of her fond memories of the warmth of that island: "Don't forget, old bones are cold bones."
Hence, the proposed Return to Warmth (RTW) program, which would directly subsidize the departure of numerous foreign-born persons, many of them here illegally, and would indirectly help the economies of the nations from which they migrated. That would be the genial face of the RTW program, which fits with its deliberately friendly name.
Meanwhile, it would prevent large numbers of these migrants from participating in our Medicare program and other (less expensive) income transfer programs, saving billions a year, and thus making RTW attractive to conservatives.
Let's look at some specifics.
In the following table, we show the roughly estimated 2017 per capita costs to the United States of the foreign-born Social Security beneficiaries while in the United States, and while in their home countries. It is drawn from government data easily available on the internet, such as the Medicare budget (which was $720 billion in 2017) and on similar sources for the numbers of beneficiaries.
The table is also based on the fact that many Social Security beneficiaries, including many of the foreign-born, can draw their checks in most of the rest of the world, but would not be able to participate in other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income. All four require residence in the United States.
Given the information above, one might assume that virtually no one would want to take their Social Security benefits abroad. That is not the case.
More than 650,000 Social Security checks are mailed overseas each month and this number (and the percentage of retirees who do this) is slowly but steadily increasing, according to various issues of the of the Social Security Administration's Annual Statistical Supplement. Here are the totals and the percentages of all beneficiaries for three recent years:
During the early 1990s the percentage was about 0.75 percent.
Clearly this is an arrangement that is, slowly, growing in popularity. My suggestion is that we deliberately increase its size.
The evidence, incidentally, suggests strongly that most of these checks are notgoing to wealthy people who have decided to retire to the Riviera rather than Boca Raton. Average annual payouts of Social Security benefits were $15,208 nationally in 2017, and only $8,178 for those getting their checks abroad. Thus, the overseas checks were only 54 percent of the national average, reflecting the substantially lower lifetime incomes of those who retired abroad. This is not a rich population.
While I cannot document it, I learned some years ago, in a conversation with a SSA staffer, that more than 90 percent of those getting checks overseas were not born in the United States.
Proposal
The U.S. should create a new program (RTW) to encourage these movements back to the home countries, providing a range of new benefits to stimulate such returns, but designing them in such a way that the returnees will tend to stay returned once they have left.
If the United States can save $17,000 a year on each of hundreds of thousands of people, and all of them will stop making the impact that the rest of us do on the environment, this country will be making major progress, without using any coercion at all. And the savings of some $17,000 a year, per capita, means that it would be appropriate to offer some really enticing rewards to those thinking about leaving the country.
Who Would Qualify? Since a major part of the motivation is to reduce the illegal alien population, such persons would not be disqualified. I would limit it to foreign-born persons who qualify now, or will soon, for Social Security retirement, of whatever civil status, from illegal to citizen. It would only apply to people wanting to return to their native lands, and might not apply to a comparative few whose homes are within, say, 300 miles of the U.S. borders. (These people would be tempted to live secretly in the United States while collecting abroad.)
Dependents of the beneficiary could qualify, at any age, but the principals would have to be 61 years of age or older.
The Reward Package. This has to be enticing enough to encourage Social Security beneficiaries to seek it, despite the basic math outlined above (which many of them might sense, even without knowing the details.) Such a package might include:
  • Retirement benefits at the age of 61, instead of the usual 62;
  • A 10 percent bonus on the Social Security benefit while the beneficiary is abroad;
  • Free one-way plane tickets for the principal and the dependents; and
  • Checks totaling $5,000, half on arrival in the home country, and the other half a year later, but only paid in person, at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
Holy cow, some might say, you are going to be giving some illegals 10 percent more in Social Security for the rest of their lives! Isn't that an extravagant waste?
The 10 percent increase, based on current Social Security data, would mean that the overseas individual would get an additional $818 a year. That would be more than balanced by the Medicare savings of $10,778 a year; maybe we should set the Social Security benefit increase at 25 percent or more.
The monthly checks would have to be cashed in the home country, in person, by the beneficiary, and within 60 days of their issuance. Further, such checks would need to be endorsed by the beneficiary along with a thumb print of that person, and a note on the back of the check indicating the name of the cashier who accepted the check, and the date thereof. Banks that showed a pattern of check abuse would be barred from depositing these checks in the future.
All receiving any part of the bonus package would have to agree in writing to not seek to return to the United States under any circumstances for three or five years; if they did (or their checks were cashed in the United States), the government would halve the future benefit checks until the bonuses had been repaid. If they came back to the United States twice within those years, the beneficiary would be no longer be eligible for SSA retirement checks unless, perhaps, they were citizens, in which case a milder penalty would be exacted. (No one using the RTW benefits would be eligible to apply for naturalization, or any other immigration benefit.)
The benefit package suggested above is not set in stone; it could be altered, but it would have to offer the foreign-born a substantial benefit. Provisions should be made to use tax funds to compensate the Social Security system for its additional costs.
The benefits should be made available to those in deportation hearings, if they were otherwise eligible, thus reducing the backlogs in the immigration courts.
Someone who had received the rewards described above could ask to be excused from the program by voluntarily returning the extra moneys; but this would be rare, and would be available to only those who had been in the United States legally at the time of retirement.
Other Advantages of RTW. Other advantages to the government of RTW would be lowering pressure on energy assistance plans for the poor; on public housing, which in many cities includes special housing for the elderly; and on non-public food banks and the like. In addition, there would be the less obvious advantages of a lower population and less wear and tear on the built environment.
In the specific instance of shutting down Temporary Protected Status for people from some nations, it would ease the departure of the older ones. Perhaps some TPS beneficiaries within a year or two of the RTW minimum age could be given special dispensations.
As for the returnees, the principal advantage to them would be the lower costs of living in the homelands, as opposed to those costs in the United States. There would also be the previously cited warmer weather (for most), the ease of returning to a situation where everyone uses one's native language, and for many, losing the fear of deportation. In short, a win-win situation.
This suggestion takes a long view of the question of migrant utilization of our income transfer programs and would impose some short-term costs on the government (the reward packages) in exchange for steady savings in the future. It certainly would be subject to attempted abuse, but in the long run it would start saving us $17,000 a year times hundreds of thousands of people.
It would be a quiet program, in contrast to the wall and border skirmishes, but it would inevitably lead to fewer illegal aliens in the nation, and lower welfare costs.
Why not try it for a while?
David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, has over 40 years of immigration policy experience.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant

Welfare



US Customs and Border Patrol
 4 Dec 201811,383
2:45

More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.

The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

NON-CITIZEN HOUSEHOLDS ALMOSTTWICE AS LIKELY TO BE ON WELFARE


December 3, 2018

Some truths are just basic and obvious. Yet the media insists on shoveling out nonsense about how Elon Musk and Sergey Brin are representative of the average immigrant. They're not. They used to be more representative before Ted Kennedy decided to replicate the ideal political ecosystem of the Democrats across the country. And so now here we are.
Skilled immigration is tough to manage. Unskilled migration is everywhere. With the inevitable results shown in his CIS study.
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).
Mass migration, of the kind that the Left champions, is dangerous and destructive. It's also hideously expensive. As unskilled migration continues, American competitiveness declines to match those countries where the migrants originate from. 
We're losing our work ethic, our skill sets and our reputation for innovation.
And meanwhile we sink ever deeper into a welfare state of the kind that the Democrats can always run and win on.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.



A sign in a market window advertises this store accepts food stamps in New York, on Oct. 7, 2010. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Majority of Non-Citizen Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds

 

HTTPS://WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM/NEARLY-TWO-THIRDS-OF-NON-CITIZENS-ACCESS-WELFARE-PROGRAMS-REPORT-FINDS_2729720.HTML?REF=BRIEF_NEWS&UTM_SOURCE=EPOCH+TIMES+NEWSLETTERS&UTM_CAMPAIGN=6D

BY ALYSIA E. GARRISON

December 3, 2018 Updated: December 4, 2018
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“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 CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.
The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.

It Pays to be Illegal in California

 By JENNIFER G. HICKEY  May 10, 2018 
It certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending $250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently, undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000 uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than 100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget proposal in January.
Given Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting illegal immigrant support.

Majority of Non-Citizen Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds



   
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“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 CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.
The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.

Migrant caravan descends into a 


shakedown


Sure the caravan migrants who were promised easy entry and free stuff in America are frustrated.
They are, after all, being asked to take a number and get to the back of the line on their asylum claims. The sweetener of course, is that they can live and work in the U.S. for about two or three years, free and clear, earning money, before a court rejects their cost-free asylum claims and sends them back home.
Many migrants knew this, based on interviews with caravan migrants in the past two months, and that was their game all along.
But then, there are the others, the ones who really did expect to get something for free from Uncle Sam. Here's the latest from that element of the group, as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Two groups of Central American migrants made separate marches on the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana Tuesday, demanding that they be processed through the asylum system more quickly and in greater numbers, that deportations be halted and that President Trumpeither let them into the country or pay them $50,000 each to go home.
On the one-month anniversary of their arrival into Tijuana, caravan members are pressing the United States to take action but they are dwindling in numbers since more than 6,000 first arrived to the city’s shelters.
The 'reparations' of course, are for the U.S.'s role in supposedly messing up their country, as if Hondurans were incapable of doing such a thing on their own. Not a lot of confidence in their countrymen's capacities, it seems. And not a lot of criticism for the far-left organizers who led them down this garden path, only to leave them with nothing. In fact, based on the kind of demands being posted onPueblo Sin Fronteras's website, the demands have the look of having been crafted from those quarters. Apparently, the caravan has descended into irrelvance and as migrants either pack up. seek jobs in Mexico, or slip through to the U.S., possibly with the aid of cartel human smugglers, and migrants have told the press the Pueblo organizers are nowhere to be found.
Well, now they are, and they're marshalled their forces to call on Uncle Sam to hand them money. Lots of money, $50,000 a head. Not out of mercy, but out of a debt owed. Or a payment to go away. And to raise the political project to the front and center once again, as Rick Moran observes in this PJ Media piece here. Any questions as to why the Tijuana residents were so turned off by the migrants' sense of entitlement that they organized protests of their own? 
What leaps out here is the outrageousness of the demands, which is a typical tactic of the most extremist elements of the left. Terrorists are famous for making crazy demands, but so are other kinds of radicals and mau-mauers. It's a signature tactic of the left, the louder and crazier the demand the more likely it is to turn up in the news. Mau-mauing, Jesse Jackson, it's all the same sort of warfare. The caravan organizers are banking on Americans being so revulsed by illegal immigration that the U.S. will just shell out for them and pay them big bucks to go away. They see how payouts work in America, and they'd like those even better than the privilege of living in America.
One can only hope that the sorry truth about this group and its political project are duly noted.


JEFF SESSION’S LONG BATTLE FOR THE AMERICAN WORKER
 He is the only one in the country that has consistently spoken out for the AMERICAN WORKER!
Sessions should keep dragging Trump out of his amnesty closet and build the wall against NARCOMEX!



DACA Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B


amnesty
Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
5:36

A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall funding would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the administration, depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the 2020 election.

As Breitbart News has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA program last year, although it’s official termination has been held up in court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an initiative supported by the donor class.
Such a plan, most recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but increased legal immigration to the country.
Last year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at the southern border, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process known as “chain migration.”
According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S. imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact, increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for taxpayers.
Additionally, about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56 percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on Medicaid.
Another study, reported by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The plan is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security measures.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


Trump May Build More Tent Cities Amid Skyrocketing Illegal Immigration



People peer from a tent at police talking with other migrants inside the Barretal migrant shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, Thursday, Dec. 6, 2018. Thousands of migrants on the Mexico side of the border are living in crowded tent cities in Tijuana after a grueling weeks-long journey through Mexico on foot …
AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell
 325
2:20


President Trump’s administration may build more tent cities to detain and house illegal aliens and Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) amid a border crisis wherein illegal immigration has skyrocketed to decade-high levels.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data released to NPR reveals that the administration’s first round of tent cities to house border crossers are near full capacity, with nearly 15,000 UACs in federal custody.
Currently, HHS has more than 100 facilities to house the UACs, but about 92 percent of those facilities are full. The possibility of full-capacity at the tent cities is forcing the Trump administration to weigh the option of building more tent cities, a plan that would be sure to help wipe out the Catch and Release process whereby border crossers are caught and then released due to the lack of federal detention space.
The NPR report admits that the vast majority of the UACs detained in the tent cities are young Central American boys who arrived alone at the southern border. Despite seeking asylum, fleeing poverty, crime, or gang violence are not eligible claims for asylum in the U.S.
The potential plan to expand tent cities comes as illegal immigration to the country has soared to record levels over the past two months.
In November 2018, there were close to 52,000 border crossings on the southern border, alone, marking the highest level of illegal immigration in the month of November since 2006.
The continuing rise of illegal immigration at the southern border indicates that Fiscal Year 2019 will see the biggest boom of illegal immigration in more than a decade, with more than 600,000 border crossings, according to Princeton Researcher Steven Kopits.
In October 2018, illegal immigration at the southern border soared to the highest level for a single month since April 2014. The month’s illegal immigration levels are almost exactly double what southwest border crossings were this same month in 2017.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

No comments: