REPORT: Migrant Apprehensions at Border in 2019 Hit 12-Year High
File Photo: U.S. Border Patrol video screenshot
2:53
The apprehension of migrants who illegally cross the border between ports of entry hit a 12-year high during Fiscal Year 2019, a report published over the weekend reveals. Unofficial numbers show the apprehension of more than 850,000 migrants during the just-ended fiscal year.
Border Patrol agents apprehended a total of slightly more than 851,000 migrants who illegally crossed the border between ports of entry, according to an article published by the Washington Examiner. The report appears to contain unofficial information regarding the apprehension of approximately 40,000 migrants in September, the final month of Fiscal Year 2019.
Officials with U.S. Customs and Border Protection would not confirm the September numbers published by the Washington DC-based newspaper. “We have not released our September numbers yet,” a CBP official told Breitbart Texas.
If the reported September numbers are accurate, this would bring the total apprehension of migrants illegally entering the U.S. and being apprehended by Border Patrol agents to more than 851,000, the highest number since 2007.
The reported apprehension of 40,000 migrants in September 2019 is slightly lower than the approximately 41,000 in September 2018 and slightly more than the nearly 40,000 in September 2016. Both of these previous Septembers represent high-water marks for the past five years.
The Washington Examiner did not report how many of the 40,000 were family units or unaccompanied minors. Year-to-date apprehensions of family units through August 31, 2019, show the apprehension of more than 457,000 family units — with one month to go. The total apprehension of family units in all of Fiscal Year 2018 was just slightly over 107,000, according to Border Patrol reports.
Border Patrol statistics on family unit apprehensions only go back to 2013 when there were 14,855 total family unit apprehensions. Prior to Fiscal Year 2018, there had never been more than 100,000 migrant family apprehensions reported in a single year.
The numbers reported in this article only account for apprehensions along the nine southwest Border Patrol sectors. They do not include northern border crossings or apprehensions at ports of entry.
Official year-end numbers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials are expected to be released in the next few weeks.
JAMES WALSH
THE OBAMA-BIDEN HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting
booths!
How the Democrat party
surrendered America to Mexico:
“The watchdogs
at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama
administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices
Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington
Times
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the
Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN,
belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and
California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers
via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two
pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
“The cost
of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit.
Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President
Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million
illegals
Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY TO FLOOD
AMERICAN WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
“The watchdogs
at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama
administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices
Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington
Times
Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of
LA RAZA “The Race”… now calling itself UNIDOSus.
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the
Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN,
belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and
California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers
via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
GLOBALIST BARACK OBAMA
AND NANCY PELOSI’S CONSPIRACY TO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY AND KEEP AMERICA
FLOODED WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and
Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the
eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
“One of the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama
administration was "Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the
Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal
gun sales to go through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in
order to track buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican
drug cartels. Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found
throughout the United States and Mexico. Two of them were used to k ill Border
Patrol Agent Brian Terry.” BETH BAUMANN
DURING OBAMA'S 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME,
HE OPERATED LA RAZA (NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ. HE FUNDED THE MEX FASCIST PARTY WITH
U.S. TAX DOLLARS.
BOTH
OF OBAMA’S SECRETARY of (ILLEGAL) LABOR WERE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. THESE WERE
HILDA SOLIS AND TOM PEREZ.
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two
pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
Jose Angel Gutierrez,
professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza
Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging
white America. They are d ying. They are s hitting in their pants with
fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the g ringo, and what I mean by
that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to k ill him!"
Previous
generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to
Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica , by Jose Vasconcelos,
Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to
this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal
State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards,
blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack
enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is
replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD
BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
At least 20 municipalities in the Mexican state of Zacatecas have been nearly abandoned because of emigration to the United States.
In an interview with the newspaper El Universal , Ignacio Fraire Zuniga, a representative of the National Institute of Migration (known as INM in Spanish), said the state ranks third in the number of its citizens who have left, after Michoacan and Oaxaca. "If there are one and a half million Zacatecans here," he said, "in the United States there are another million and a half."
"This exodus should not fill us with pride," he said, "people who migrate to another country never do it for pleasure, but for necessity and it is something we do not want. [Mobility] should be something optional for people and not an obligation to have a better quality of life."
The municipalities that are affected are in the canyon region of Zacatecas, including Jerez, Tlaltenago, Jalpa, Juchipila, Nochistlan, Frensnillo, Sombrete, Rio Grande, Juan Aldama, and Miguel Auza.
Migration in the state has been an issue for years, and government officials have readily acknowledged the problem. At the same time, the state benefits from remittances sent by Mexicans working in the United States.
Fraire Zuniga said that, "Most have a relative, friend, or cousin on the other side of the border. What comes from remittances is very similar to what the federation [the national government] invests throughout the state, and Zacatecas has developed an annual budget of 25 billion pesos."
Javier Mendoza Villalpando, a delegate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Zacatecas, said the state receives almost 18 billion pesos annually in remittances.
Compared to 35% of native households
Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center.
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.
Methods
Programs Examined. The major welfare programs examined in this report are Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food program, free or subsidized school lunch and breakfast, food stamps (officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Medicaid, public housing, and rent subsidies.
Data Source. Data for this analysis comes from the public-use file of the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which is the newest SIPP data available.2
Why Use the SIPP? The SIPP is ideally suited for studying welfare programs because, unlike other Census surveys that measure welfare, the SIPP was specifically designed for this purpose. As the Census Bureau states on its website, the purpose of the SIPP is to "provide accurate and comprehensive information about the income and program participation of individuals and households."3 4 5
One recent improvement in the SIPP that was not available when we conducted our 2015 study is the inclusion of a question on use of the EITC, making for even more complete coverage of the nation's welfare programs. The EITC is by far the nation's largest cash program to low-income workers, paying out nearly $60 billion in 2014.6 7 8
As we showed in our 2015 analysis using the 2012 SIPP, 66 percent of households headed by non-citizens who do not have a green card, and who are mostly illegal immigrants, have very high welfare use rates — excluding the EITC.9 10
Examining Welfare Use by Household. A large body of prior research has examined welfare use and the fiscal impact of immigrants by looking at households because it makes the most sense. The National Research Council did so in its fiscal estimates in 1997 because it argued that "the household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed."11 12 13 14
The primary reason researchers have not looked at individuals is that, as Simon pointed out, eligibility for welfare programs is typically based on the income of all family or household members. Moreover, welfare benefits can often be consumed by all members of the household, such as food purchased with food stamps. Also, if the government provides food or health insurance to children, it creates a clear benefit to adult members of the household who will not have to spend money on these things. In addition, some of the welfare use variables in the SIPP are reported at the household level, not the individual level.
Some advocates for expansive immigration argue that household comparisons are unfair or biased against immigrants because someday the children who receive welfare may possibly pay back the costs of these programs in taxes as adults. Of course, the same argument could be made for the children of natives to whom immigrants are compared in this analysis. Moreover, excluding children obscures the fundamental issue that a very large share of immigrants are unable to support their own children and turn to taxpayer-funded means-tested programs. In terms of the policy debate over immigration and the implications for public coffers, this is the central concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment