Millions of Illegal Aliens From All Over The World Head For U.S. Border

#2,226
#2,226
Court cites free speech in Striking Down part of federal law over statements on illegal immigration

A federal appeals court has tossed out parts of a law that would punish those who would knowingly encourage immigrants to come to, or remain, in the U.S. illegally.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit concluded the federal law unconstitutionally bans a range of protected speech.

The Justice Department prosecuted a San Jose woman who ran an immigration consulting firm, for allegedly helping arrange green cards for those working in the country illegally.

The judges concluded the law’s reach was overbroad.

Court cites free speech in striking down part of federal law over statements on illegal immigration
 
#2,227
#2,227
LouderVol said:
not sure where to put this, and I tried finding the actual study but this is a close as I got. source seems like it would be biased but it sources its materials. haven't read it all. a lot of information here that would be interesting to both sides of the argument.

they say 63% of non citizens are on welfare, but a large percentage of those on welfare work.

If I skimmed correctly they are saying there was an output of 60 billion in welfare to non citizens. not sure on the input.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that it's "households", not non-citizens. This is an important distinction because non-citizen households are very different from native households. For example, the same study showed that native households are 3.5x more likely to be completely on the dole (93% of non-citizen households with 1 welfare recipient has 1+ income earner, 76% for natives). Household A might have 4 workers and 2 kids getting food stamps, while household B might have 3 people completely living off the state. These are two very different circumstances, but that 63% figure treats them the same.

We need to see net expenditure per capita to get an honest view.
 
#2,228
#2,228
n_huffhines said:
It's worth noting that it's "households", not non-citizens. This is an important distinction because non-citizen households are very different from native households. For example, the same study showed that native households are 3.5x more likely to be completely on the dole (93% of non-citizen households with 1 welfare recipient has 1+ income earner, 76% for natives). Household A might have 4 workers and 2 kids getting food stamps, while household B might have 3 people completely livjng off the state. These are two completely different circumstances, but that 63% figure treats thrm the same.

We need to see net expenditure per capita to get an honest view.
Click to expand...
That settles it then. Bring in more of 'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and SpaceCoastVol
#2,229
#2,229
n_huffhines said:
It's worth noting that it's "households", not non-citizens. This is an important distinction because non-citizen households are very different from native households. For example, the same study showed that native households are 3.5x more likely to be completely on the dole (93% of non-citizen households with 1 welfare recipient has 1+ income earner, 76% for natives). Household A might have 4 workers and 2 kids getting food stamps, while household B might have 3 people completely livjng off the state. These are two completely different circumstances, but that 63% figure treats thrm the same.

We need to see net expenditure per capita to get an honest view.
Click to expand...
Why are we spending any welfare on non-citizens? I thought it was illegal for non-citizens to get welfare benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, SpaceCoastVol, Franklin Pierce and 1 other person
#2,230
#2,230
37L1 said:
Why are we spending any welfare on non-citizens? I thought it was illegal for non-citizens to get welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

Well, the kids in the non-citizen household probably are citizens. I'm not sure how non-citizens get it, outside of fraud? Maybe hospital care is countes here?

Why do we spend anything on welfare?
 
#2,231
#2,231
37L1 said:
Why are we spending any welfare on non-citizens? I thought it was illegal for non-citizens to get welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

Kids get the benefits for the parents. Fix the anchor baby provision (like most of the world has done) and many problems go away. Outside this hemisphere very few countries award citizenship to babies born of non citizen parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#2,232
#2,232
n_huffhines said:
It's worth noting that it's "households", not non-citizens. This is an important distinction because non-citizen households are very different from native households. For example, the same study showed that native households are 3.5x more likely to be completely on the dole (93% of non-citizen households with 1 welfare recipient has 1+ income earner, 76% for natives). Household A might have 4 workers and 2 kids getting food stamps, while household B might have 3 people completely living off the state. These are two very different circumstances, but that 63% figure treats them the same.

We need to see net expenditure per capita to get an honest view.
Click to expand...
i may misremember but I think there was an expenditure per capita listed somewhere as native vs non native.

and it also shows the natives on welfare are working at a lesser rate than non-natives on welfare but not at anything close to 3.5x. and doesn't what you have in parentheses settle the question?
 
#2,233
#2,233
AM64 said:
Kids get the benefits for the parents. Fix the anchor baby provision (like most of the world has done) and many problems go away. Outside this hemisphere very few countries award citizenship to babies born of non citizen parents.
Click to expand...
I would start with a timer. like the parent has to be in the US for 10 years and paying taxes for the baby to be a citizen. or 5 years or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 82_VOL_83 and SpaceCoastVol
#2,234
#2,234
LouderVol said:
i may misremember but I think there was an expenditure per capita listed somewhere as native vs non native.

and it also shows the natives on welfare are working at a lesser rate than non-natives on welfare but not at anything close to 3.5x. and doesn't what you have in parentheses settle the question?
Click to expand...

Link?

24% is 3.5x more than 7%
 
Last edited:
#2,236
#2,236
LouderVol said:
I would start with a timer. like the parent has to be in the US for 10 years and paying taxes for the baby to be a citizen. or 5 years or whatever.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that as long as long as the parent was legally in the US for that time span. I still have an old fashioned hangup about not being able to benefit from an illegal act, and I tend to equate babies of illegals receiving US citizenship with someone just handed a stack of free money by a bank robber on his way out of Dodge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#2,238
#2,238
Honduran migrant, 19, gives Birth to a Baby boy less than 24 hours after climbing over the border fence in Tijuana and setting foot in the United States

A 19-year-old Honduran woman who wanted to give birth to her second child in the United States had a son within 24 hours of climbing the border wall.

Maryury Elizabeth Serrano-Hernandez, 19, went into labor November 27, less than 24 hours after she climbed over the border fence in Tijuana with her husband, 20, and two-year-old son.
7045550-6463519-Maryury_Elizabeth_Serrano_Hernandez_left_went_into_labor_last_we-a-3_1544029302668.jpg


Migrant teen gives birth in US hospital after climbing border wall | Daily Mail Online
 
#2,239
#2,239
Franklin Pierce said:
Honduran migrant, 19, gives Birth to a Baby boy less than 24 hours after climbing over the border fence in Tijuana and setting foot in the United States

A 19-year-old Honduran woman who wanted to give birth to her second child in the United States had a son within 24 hours of climbing the border wall.

Maryury Elizabeth Serrano-Hernandez, 19, went into labor November 27, less than 24 hours after she climbed over the border fence in Tijuana with her husband, 20, and two-year-old son.
7045550-6463519-Maryury_Elizabeth_Serrano_Hernandez_left_went_into_labor_last_we-a-3_1544029302668.jpg


Migrant teen gives birth in US hospital after climbing border wall | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
Kick them both the **** out. Or make her give up the kid. She does not come with the child. it is NOT a package deal. Or at least shouldn't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and AM64
#2,240
#2,240
SpaceCoastVol said:
Kick them both the **** out. Or make her give up the kid. She does not come with the child. it is NOT a package deal. Or at least shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

She tried very hard to push out that baby on American soil. The Illegals are well versed on American immigration law before they begin their trek to America.

Now, the woman is ANCHORED in an American neighborhood, and the American taxpayers just Paid her medical bills for the birth of the Anchor baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad, NurseGoodVol and AM64
#2,241
#2,241
Franklin Pierce said:
She tried very hard to push out that baby on American soil. The Illegals are well versed on American immigration law before they begin their trek to America.

Now, the woman is ANCHORED in an American neighborhood, and the American taxpayers just Paid her medical bills for the birth of the Anchor baby.
Click to expand...
That needs to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,242
#2,242
SpaceCoastVol said:
That needs to stop.
Click to expand...

The democrats in congress want Open Borders because they want the Votes of the Illegals.

The Republicans in congress want Open Borders for the cheap illegal alien Labor for business.

The elites in congress on both sides don't give a damn about the consequences.
 
#2,243
#2,243
Americans Billed $27 Million to Fund ‘Reintegration’ Gift Bags for Deported Central Americans
GAO-640x480.png


Since 2014, American taxpayers have been billed nearly $30 million to fund school supplies, toys, clothing, and coloring books for migrants returning to Central America after being deported from the United States.
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reveals that USAID has spent $27 million worth of U.S. taxpayer money, since 2014, on departing gift bags for migrants deported from the U.S. back to Central America.
As part of this “reintegration” effort, young migrants are provided with U.S. taxpayer-funded school supplies, toys, coloring books, dolls, toiletries, backpacks, and clothes, all of which can be seen below:
https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/12/Screen-Shot-2018-12-07-at-11.41.41-AM.png
Screen-Shot-2018-12-07-at-11.41.41-AM.png


Screen-Shot-2018-12-07-at-11.42.09-AM.png

The cost of the USAID program is yet another bill that American taxpayers are forced to subsidize on top of the annual $116 billion that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers. This amount does not include the money stripped from Americans through wage suppression, job displacement, and rising housing prices due to mass illegal and legal immigration. Criminal illegal aliens in prison also cost about $1.4 billion to taxpayers every year.

Americans Billed $27M in 'Reintegration' Gift Bags for Deportees
 
#2,250
#2,250
SpaceCoastVol said:
Mom has a choice. Get citizenship, eave the kid, or take the kid back to Mexico with her. SHE is not a ****ing citizen of The United States of America. SHE can gtfo until she can legally be here.
Click to expand...

Triggered.

My question is, from a policy perspective, what is the best solution for us with regard to the kid if it's staying? How do we ensure the US sees the best result with this newborn citizen?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top