Former Mexican Ambassador: 30 Million Illegals Living in the US

[Ronin Truth]

Newsmax

Former Mexican Ambassador: 30 Million Illegals Living in the US

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:01 PMBy: Jason Devaney

Mexico's former ambassador to the United States said Tuesday there are 30 million "undocumented immigrants" currently living in the United States, far more than the U.S. government's claim of around 11 million.

"If you were to deport the 30 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, that's going to cost you about $130 billion," Arturo Sarukhan told MSNBC.

As Sarukhan continued to talk, a graphic flashed on the screen that said it would cost $137.5 billion to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Near the end of the interview, Sarukhan spoke about a 2014 Senate proposal dealing with immigration and referred to the number of illegals living in the U.S. as 11.3 million. He repeated that figure shortly before the segment ended.

In the video, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — a Republican candidate for president — alluded to there being "12 or 13 million" illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The actual number of illegals living in the U.S. is unknown, but the American government estimates it to be somewhere around 11 million.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said last month that he believes the number of illegals in the U.S. is around 30 million, a figure he said came from "other people" and "various newspapers."

Two years ago, a group of former Border Patrol agents wrote in an open letter that the number of illegals in the U.S. was more like 18-20 million.

Related Stories:

•Donald Trump on 'Meet the Press': Illegals 'Have to Go'

•Sen. Sessions: Trump Immigration Plan Has Been Promised for 30 Years


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/former-mexico-ambassador-30/2015/08/18/id/670740/

[Zippyjuan]

Headline misleads. He corrected the figure later on in the speech.


As Sarukhan continued to talk, a graphic flashed on the screen that said it would cost $137.5 billion to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.


Near the end of the interview, Sarukhan spoke about a 2014 Senate proposal dealing with immigration and referred to the number of illegals living in the U.S. as 11.3 million. He repeated that figure shortly before the segment ended.

The graphic confirm he meant to say 11 million- not 30 million.

[Origanalist]

Headline misleads. He corrected the figure later on in the speech.





The graphic confirm he meant to say 11 million- not 30 million.

11 million, lol. This is a country of what, 360 million? I think it's safe to say 11 million is a bit on the conservative side.

[johnelvyn]

Strict action to be taken against them.
Thanks
johnelvyn (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?65456-johnelvyn)

Credit Card Consolidation (http://www.vantageacceptance.com/credit-card-bill-consolidation/)

[alucard13mm]

To be honest.. Mexico shouldnt say anything bad about USA. What does it say about Mexico when 30 million of its citizens think its better to live in the USA? lol

[Ronin Truth]

How many Americans would be sneaking into Mexico if their stupid government was handing out just way too much free stuff?

[tod evans]

How many Americans would be sneaking into Mexico if their stupid government was handing out just way too much free stuff?

The cities would be empty.....

Hey! That's not a bad idea....;)

[Ronin Truth]

The cities would be empty.....

Hey! That's not a bad idea....;)

Now we just need to convince the Mexican government to do something that stupid. :rolleyes:

Hey, maybe they're working to empty out their cities. :D

[FindLiberty]

...and pay for the wall. lol

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/


More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.

Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014; Family Reunification Top Reason for Return

More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico.

[Ronin Truth]

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

More of those uninvited and unwelcome are here, than are leaving. :p :mad: They really just need to go back home and fix their own country.

[Zippyjuan]

Maybe we should hire more cops or DHS employees (and raise taxes to pay for it) to go around and check everybody's IDs. We can have spot checks at work and at school and the right to stop anybody on the street to see if they are citizens or not. Papers Please! Will that promote liberty?

Ron Paul: http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm


Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

http://m8.i.pbase.com/g9/65/652665/2/163323998.jfeUkVDd.jpg

[helmuth_hubener]

Deporting all illegal immigrants will be a huge boon for liberty. Huge benefits will accrue to our cause, long term. Demographics is destiny.

Immigrants vote overwhelmingly leftist and overwhelmingly Democrat. Eliminate them and the math changes. The remaining native population wants a far smaller government. But the welfare parasites have been streaming in even faster than the natives have been converting to small government leaners. Get rid of the tens of millions of immigrants with whom the Democrats are rigging the game, and the government can be shrunk.

If the immigrants are not deported, there is no future for a conservative or small government party in America. None. European (non-hispanic) Whites are the only racial group in favor of smaller government. Once they are a minority, the idea of America is done. If it's not already. But then it's really toast. No coming back. La Raza will have won. We will just be North Mexico. And, if enough rapeugees keep streaming in, the Western Middle East. And a far-flung province of India. Etc. But there will be nothing uniquely American here. And there will be no sizable constituency for limited government.

[Zippyjuan]

Immigrants vote overwhelmingly leftist and overwhelmingly Democrat.

Couple of things to note. One- illegal immigrants can't vote. Getting rid of them changes nothing. Legal immigrants can't vote until they become citizens. Should we ban citizens from voting based on what party they may vote for? Or have a "party loyalty" test before they can become citizens? Two- "conservative voters" are descendants of immigrants too. If we banned immigration long ago, the would not be here either.


Get rid of the tens of millions of immigrants with whom the Democrats are rigging the game, and the government can be shrunk.

Conservatives gave up on "smaller government" a long time ago too. When they control Congress, how many times have they voted for or even proposed a smaller budget? (All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives).

[helmuth_hubener]

Zippyjuan, your agenda is larger government.

Thus, naturally, you favor more unlimited, uncontrolled streaming in of welfare queens.

Great. Can't fault you for that. You understand what is going to further your agenda.

I, and most of the others on RonPaulForums, favor smaller government, as you know.

So, we of course do not want things that will result in the outcome that your agenda is advanced. Your agenda is bad. It is evil.

[Zippyjuan]

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government welfare programs. If your concern is the size of welfare programs, I don't see any suggestions on that other than spending billions to expand the police state (bigger government) and deport immigrants. Obviously the issue isn't welfare or smaller government since such action does not address either problem.


So, we of course do not want things that will result in the outcome that your agenda is advanced. Your agenda is bad. It is evil.

Expanding the Police State is good. Got it.

[helmuth_hubener]

Zippyjuan's agenda is larger government.

He supports the unlimited, mass importation of third-world socialists.

Should YOU?

[Zippyjuan]

Who is calling for bigger government on this issue? Me? Where do I say we should have unlimited mass importations? Link please? Being opposed to EXPANDING our existing border and police state does not automatically translate to wanting ZERO border and police state. Not wanting to spend billions deporting people whose only crime is existing is also not necessarily favoring unlimited mass importations. Sure- continue to not allow them to have federal benefits. Sure, deport immigrants who commit crimes. Ron Paul agrees with all of this.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/


Illegal immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for our economic crisis. But with free markets and private property, the need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Most immigrants, regardless of the color of their skin, are open to the ideals of liberty: private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and a foreign policy designed for peace.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201


"I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

"Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."

Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.

[phill4paul]

Zippyjuan's agenda is larger government.

He supports the unlimited, mass importation of third-world socialists.

Should YOU?

My agenda is smaller government.

I support regulated border entry points with an easier Visa process thus allowing what enforcement capabilities that are present to focus on criminal elements, I support individual landowner rights of self-defense of property up to and including the killing of trespassers, and a REDUCTION of government welfare, but do not support rounding up illegals and deporting them or building a wall thus INCREASING government.

[helmuth_hubener]

My agenda is smaller government.

Excellent!

And I don't particularly or strongly disagree with your paragraph explaining your ideal policy. I would make some addendums, like ELIMINATE government welfare instead of "REDUCTION" of it.

Can you see and agree that it is detrimental to the goal of smaller government to import tens of millions, approaching and soon to be hundreds of millions, of third-world socialists?

[Zippyjuan]

How many tens of millions are we "importing" every year?

Just two numbers for now.
US population January, 2016: 322,762,018
US population January, 2015: 320,090,857
Change: 2.7 million. That includes births, deaths, and immigration. Are we importing tens of millions every year? Are they all from third world countries?

[phill4paul]

Excellent!

And I don't particularly or strongly disagree with your paragraph explaining your ideal policy. I would make some addendums, like ELIMINATE government welfare instead of "REDUCTION" of it.

Can you see and agree that it is detrimental to the goal of smaller government to import tens of millions, approaching and soon to be hundreds of millions, of third-world socialists?

Ah, yes, I didn't convey a reduction of government through elimination of welfare. Thank you for catching that.

No, I cannot see and agree that the importation of foreign labor by small, or large, business owners is a detriment. The government is not "importing" them they are simply coming. And they are being hired. If they were not being hired at wages superior to what they could make in their own country they would quit coming. That is something a free-market could work out.
I do not totally buy the selling meme that they are all here living on welfare and welfare alone. I have known several and none received welfare. Including one of my favorite workers. But, if this is happening, as pro-deportation advocates believe, then it seems this is the right and proper place to start. With a REDUCTION of government instead of an INCREASE of government. No? If not, then tell me of a specific instance where an increase of government lead to a reduction in government. I've never, in my lifetime, known the government to work in this fashion.

[helmuth_hubener]

But, if this is happening, as pro-deportation advocates believe, then it seems this is the right and proper place to start. It would be. It would be. I love the idea. Unfortunately, it was ruled unconstitutional. California tried doing this way back in 1994. The voter initiative to ban illegal immigrants from receiving welfare passed overwhelmingly. Overwhelmingly.

The courts ruled it unconstitutional.

That's that.

As for government increasing by deporting illegal immigrants, first understand I am not exactly advocating for federal government-forced deportation myself. But with that understood, to answer your question: when Eisenhower mass-deported illegal immigrants in the 1950s, there was no resulting increase in government scope, size, or budget afterward. I see no reason, realistically, to think another mass-deportation would be any different. It would be a one-time event. Once 95% or 99% of illegal immigrants have been deported, that's it. There's been no new laws created, no new departments to linger on forever. The lasting consequence would be:

1. A lower population (less crowded cities, less traffic, etc.)
2. Easier victories for small government candidates and causes.
3. A decrease in the power and influence of the Democratic Party.
4. Less disease (one third of the Somali refugees in Minnesota have tuberculosis! Why do we not screen for disease, at least!? Very simple. Because: more Democratic voters. Infectious or not.)
5. A demographic future for America as a distinct place from Mexico (and Central America, India, and the rest of the world). Right now we don't have that. Right now our future is Northern Mexico.

[tod evans]

It's both Phil, our fine government is bringing 'refugees' in by the thousands...

I've got no beef with a working man just as I have no use for a leech, and that includes all of government.

[Zippyjuan]

4. Less disease (one third of the Somali refugees in Minnesota have tuberculosis! Why do we not screen for disease, at least!? Very simple. Because: more Democratic voters. Infectious or not.)

False. Even the first number of 22% was misleading- the actual number referred to persons who tested positive for having been exposed to TB at some point in their lives- they did not necessarily actually have TB.


In 2014, 22 percent of refugees screened tested positive for LTBI (latent tuberculosis infection).
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/17/22-resettled-refugees-minnesota-tested-positive-tuberculosis/

Latent tuberculosis: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/general/ltbiandactivetb.htm

Persons with latent TB infection do not feel sick and do not have any symptoms. They are infected with M. tuberculosis, but do not have TB disease. The only sign of TB infection is a positive reaction to the tuberculin skin test or TB blood test. Persons with latent TB infection are not infectious and cannot spread TB infection to others.

In 2015, there were a total of 150 cases of TB in the entire state. That is down from 239 in 2001 despite more Somali immigrants moving to the state. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/tb/stats/tbcounty.pdf

About 25,000 Somalis live in Minnesota. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Americans If all those TB cases were Somali refugees (and we don't know if they were), then 0.6% of Somali refugees had TB in 2015.


5. A demographic future for America as a distinct place from Mexico (and Central America, India, and the rest of the world). Right now we don't have that. Right now our future is Northern Mexico.

Only about ten percent of all immigrants last year came from Mexico. Most are now coming from Asian countries. It used to be the darned Italians or Germans or Irish or Jews coming to the country which was going to destroy it. "We're going to become a European ghetto!" Always have to blame somebody.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-surge-f8.png

[phill4paul]

As for government increasing by deporting illegal immigrants, first understand I am not exactly advocating for federal government-forced deportation myself. But with that understood, to answer your question: when Eisenhower mass-deported illegal immigrants in the 1950s, there was no resulting increase in government scope, size, or budget afterward. I see no reason, realistically, to think another mass-deportation would be any different. .

You're seriously advocating that Operation "Wetback" was a resounding success and didn't increase the size and scope of the Federal government? Really?

[Zippyjuan]

You're seriously advocating that Operation "Wetback" was a resounding success and didn't increase the size and scope of the Federal government? Really?

Operation Wet- Back was started in 1955. Did it slow or reduce spending?

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Chart4_0.jpg

Did it slow immigration?

http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/USA-Immigration-Annual1.jpg

[helmuth_hubener]

You're seriously advocating that Operation "Wetback" was a resounding success and didn't increase the size and scope of the Federal government? Really?
It certainly did not increase either the size or the scope of the government in any lasting or significant way. You seem to disagree and feel extremely strongly that it did permanently grow the government in some major way. In what way is that? Perhaps you are aware of something I'm not?

And please do keep in mind: Zippyjuan is on your side. Hardcore. That should give you pause. It really should. This is his #1 issue right now! "Must...keep...illegals...here." And you know why that is. So, do you really want to be on his side, helping his cause? The cause of big government and socialism? Something to ponder.

[devil21]

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government welfare programs.

Ahh...but the hordes of anchor babies they are popping out are. They breed like rabbits! And those anchor babies are newly minted securitized tax slaves to be used as collateral against more debt from the bankers. It's no surprise our bankster captured "representatives" don't do a thing about immigration....

[Danke]

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal government welfare programs. If your concern is the size of welfare programs, I don't see any suggestions on that other than spending billions to expand the police state (bigger government) and deport immigrants. Obviously the issue isn't welfare or smaller government since such action does not address either problem.



Expanding the Police State is good. Got it.

That is a myth that has been dispelled here many times. For one example just look at public schools and the meal program.

[helmuth_hubener]

That is a myth that has been dispelled here many times. For one example just look at public schools and the meal program.
There exists no leftist talking point that Zippyjuan has ever once pummeled us with that he has ever abandoned, no matter how thoroughly it has been debunked and destroyed. He'll just keep repeating it anyway. Forever. That's why I'm not even bothering to address his misleading half truths and charts.

[Anti Federalist]

Regardless of whether they have TB or not, why are Somalis being re-located to fucking Minnesota, if for nothing else but to produce a radical and rapid change in the demographic makeup of that state?



False. Even the first number of 22% was misleading- the actual number referred to persons who tested positive for having been exposed to TB at some point in their lives- they did not necessarily actually have TB.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/17/22-resettled-refugees-minnesota-tested-positive-tuberculosis/

Latent tuberculosis: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/general/ltbiandactivetb.htm


In 2015, there were a total of 150 cases of TB in the entire state. That is down from 239 in 2001 despite more Somali immigrants moving to the state. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/tb/stats/tbcounty.pdf

About 25,000 Somalis live in Minnesota. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Americans If all those TB cases were Somali refugees (and we don't know if they were), then 0.6% of Somali refugees had TB in 2015.



Only about ten percent of all immigrants last year came from Mexico. Most are now coming from Asian countries. It used to be the darned Italians or Germans or Irish or Jews coming to the country which was going to destroy it. "We're going to become a European ghetto!" Always have to blame somebody.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-surge-f8.png

[Danke]

Regardless of whether they have TB or not, why are Somalis being re-located to fucking Minnesota, if for nothing else but to produce a radical and rapid change in the demographic makeup of that state?

Just got off an international trip. And there was a whole line of them being escorted through customs by some government workers.

[phill4paul]

It certainly did not increase either the size or the scope of the government in any lasting or significant way. You seem to disagree and feel extremely strongly that it did permanently grow the government in some major way. In what way is that? Perhaps you are aware of something I'm not?

And please do keep in mind: Zippyjuan is on your side. Hardcore. That should give you pause. It really should. This is his #1 issue right now! "Must...keep...illegals...here." And you know why that is. So, do you really want to be on his side, helping his cause? The cause of big government and socialism? Something to ponder.

Lasting or significant? Again, have you ever witnessed a government program that was reduced in scale?

1954 Immigration and Naturalization Service 40 41 39 39
1955 Immigration and Naturalization Service 40 44 45 45
Protective services and alien control.--Increased expenditures for protective services and alien control are recommended to strengthen the border patrol operations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and to maintain the Federal Bureau of Investigation at its present effectiveness in the fiscal year 1956.
1956: Protective services and alien control. --Increased appropriations are recommended to strengthen the border patrol operations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, primarily on our southern border. The Federal Bureau of Investigation will continue at its present employment level.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9919


In the end it wasn't Operation Wetback that stemmed the tide of illegal aliens. Operation Wetback was negligible at best. It was the Braceros Program.

Enforcement Didn’t End Unlawful Immigration in 1950s, More Visas Did: http://www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-didnt-end-unlawful-immigration-1950s-more-visas-did

So after you deport illegal aliens how are you going to keep them out without increasing the size and scope of the government? Simply rounding them up in a "one time operation" won't solve anything. They will simply come back in.

[Zippyjuan]

That is a myth that has been dispelled here many times. For one example just look at public schools and the meal program.

Public schools are under state rules. As for meals- they are not eligible for the Federal food stamp program which is also known as "SNAP". Legal immigrants must wait five years before they are eligible. States may offer other programs which may or may not allow illegal immigrants to participate.


SNAP Policy on Non-Citizen Eligibility

Last Published: 03/11/2016
A person must be a U.S. citizen or an eligible, lawfully-present non-citizen to qualify for SNAP benefits. Non-citizens who are eligible based on their immigration status must also satisfy other SNAP eligibility requirements such as income and resource limits to receive SNAP benefits.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap-policy-non-citizen-eligibility

If a child is a legal citizen by birth, they are eligible. But then they are not an illegal immigrant.

[devil21]

Just got off an international trip. And there was a whole line of them being escorted through customs buy some government workers.

Do you mind sharing what you observed?

(Dunno if it's your kinda thing to engage in but in the future take video of stuff like that.)

[Zippyjuan]

Regardless of whether they have TB or not, why are Somalis being re-located to $#@!ing Minnesota, if for nothing else but to produce a radical and rapid change in the demographic makeup of that state?

I believe they are allowed to settle wherever they want to. As for demographics, Minnesota has a population of 5.5 million so 25,000 would be one half of one percent of the entire state.

[Zippyjuan]

Ahh...but the hordes of anchor babies they are popping out are. They breed like rabbits! And those anchor babies are newly minted securitized tax slaves to be used as collateral against more debt from the bankers. It's no surprise our bankster captured "representatives" don't do a thing about immigration....

http://cis.org/declining-fertility


The Declining Fertility of Immigrants and Natives

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-fertility-f4_0.png


Noting that this includes legal along with illegal immigrants. What about just illegals? They are declining too.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/11/number-of-babies-born-in-u-s-to-unauthorized-immigrants-declines/


Number of babies born in U.S. to unauthorized immigrants declines


About 295,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in 2013, making up 8% of the 3.9 million U.S. births that year, according to a new, preliminary Pew Research Center estimate based on the latest available federal government data. This was a decline from a peak of 370,000 in 2007.

Annual U.S. Births to Unauthorized Immigrants, 1980-2013Births to unauthorized-immigrant parents rose sharply from 1980 to the mid-2000s, but dipped since then, echoing overall population trends for unauthorized immigrants. In 2007, an estimated 9% of all U.S. babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents, meaning that at least one parent was an unauthorized immigrant.


http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/09/FT_15.09.10_BirthsToUnauthorizedImmigrants_LineCha rt310px.png

Note that there was an absolute decline in total births- not just a decline in the birth rate.

[devil21]

Give Julio his customary saturday afternoon 24 pack of Tecate and you can expect a freshly incubating tax slave by the following morning.

Btw, your charts are really old.

[phill4paul]

Give Julio his customary saturday afternoon 24 pack of Tecate and you can expect a freshly incubating tax slave by the following morning.

Btw, your charts are really old.

Give a West-By-God-Virginian white trailer trash crank whore an 8 ball or some Oxy and you have the same. Only the gov. will provide welfare to BOTH mother and child and probably lock daddy up for failure to support thus adding another layer of cost. But, hey, they're Americans!

[devil21]

Give a West-By-God-Virginian white trailer trash crank whore an 8 ball or some Oxy and you have the same. Only the gov. will provide welfare to BOTH mother and child and probably lock daddy up for failure to support thus adding another layer of cost. But, hey, they're Americans!

This thread isn't about white trailer trash on Oxy.

[Zippyjuan]

Give Julio his customary saturday afternoon 24 pack of Tecate and you can expect a freshly incubating tax slave by the following morning.

Btw, your charts are really old.

Source of the second was published just last September - data from two years back (includes all of 2013)- not that old. Do you have newer data which contradicts them?

[phill4paul]

This thread isn't about white trailer trash on Oxy.

It about the number of illegals and what might be the reasons they are attracted to living here. Welfare is one of the reasons mentioned, though not proven. Ending the welfare state is a way that has been mentioned for ending illegal immigration. You made a snarky remark regarding Mexican immigrants and their creation of "anchor babies". I pointed out the hypocrisy of such snark. Let me know if you need to be caught up on anything else. Glad to be of help.

[juleswin]

I believe they are allowed to settle wherever they want to. As for demographics, Minnesota has a population of 5.5 million so 25,000 would be one half of one percent of the entire state.

If they are refugees then they are settled by the organization watching over them. And usually, they try to settle them in areas where they would have a mentor from their country to watch over them. Somalis are usually settled in Minnesota, Burmese in Nebraska etc etc. But yes they can settle anywhere if they have family member or sponsor family available otherwise they are settled in same areas

[devil21]

Source of the second was published just last September - data from two years back (includes all of 2013)- not that old. Do you have newer data which contradicts them?

No I don't. With the Border Patrol busing them around the country the last couple years, I can't imagine why there's no new data released. :confused: Heck, the thread OP itself alleges that the "official" figures are huge lies any way so why would anyone believe your fancy charts to be true?

Companion thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496080-Census-Illegal-immigration-up-57


It about the number of illegals and what might be the reasons they are attracted to living here. Welfare is one of the reasons mentioned, though not proven. Ending the welfare state is a way that has been mentioned for ending illegal immigration. You made a snarky remark regarding Mexican immigrants and their creation of "anchor babies". I pointed out the hypocrisy of such snark. Let me know if you need to be caught up on anything else. Glad to be of help.

You saw hypocrisy that wasn't there. If you wish to start a thread about mountain white people on Oxy then feel free and we can tackle that one also. I tend to stick with what the thread is about. The anchor baby comment was clearly a rebuttal to Zippy's lack of full disclosure as to the true source of the welfare state drain from illegal immigrants, not the only source of drain.

[Ronin Truth]

No I don't. With the Border Patrol busing them around the country the last couple years, I can't imagine why there's no new data released. :confused: Heck, the thread OP itself alleges that the "official" figures are huge lies any way so why would anyone believe your fancy charts to be true?

Companion thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496080-Census-Illegal-immigration-up-57



You saw hypocrisy that wasn't there. If you wish to start a thread about mountain white people on Oxy then feel free and we can tackle that one also. I tend to stick with what the thread is about. The anchor baby comment was clearly a rebuttal to Zippy's lack of full disclosure as to the true source of the welfare state drain from illegal immigrants, not the only source of drain.

Thank you for your efforts to remain "ON TOPIC". They are truly appreciated. ;) :)

[Zippyjuan]

It about the number of illegals and what might be the reasons they are attracted to living here. Welfare is one of the reasons mentioned, though not proven. Ending the welfare state is a way that has been mentioned for ending illegal immigration. You made a snarky remark regarding Mexican immigrants and their creation of "anchor babies". I pointed out the hypocrisy of such snark. Let me know if you need to be caught up on anything else. Glad to be of help.

Most came for jobs. Note that they quit coming (and started leaving) when the recession hit in 2007.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/07/FT_15.07.23_UnauthImmigrants.png

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

[helmuth_hubener]

Right now our future is Northern Mexico. But, but, but: Asians!
Yes, Northern Mexico. Asians are not a demographic threat. Blacks numbers are flat, too. Hispanics are the ones taking over America, as you very well know, Speedy Gonzales. Their numbers are *not* leveling off, as you deceptively try to present -- they are skyrocketing with no end in sight. And you like it that way. You are happy with that situation.

I am not, because Hispanics are socialists. Our nation with a 20%, then 30%, then 40%, then 50% Hispanic population is a nation with no future whatsoever as what America is supposed to be. Because what I think America is supposed to be, what the rest of RPF except for you thinks America should be, bears absolutely no resemblance to what these illegal Hispanic invaders think America should be.

The Founding Fathers had one vision of America.

La Raza ("The Master Race") has another vision.

Pick one. Speedy Gonzales picks La Raza, an Anti-American, pro-Mexican, re-Colonization, Hispanic Supremacist group (no surprise). The explicit goal of La Raza ("The Master Race") is to make America into Northern Mexico. To "re-Colonize" it and to have the master race, as they see it, Hispanics, restored to their "rightful" spot to rule over us. I pick the Founding Fathers.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/29/06/33A3A36000000578-3565010-Police_in_riot_gear_form_a_line_to_break_up_a_grou p_of_protester-a-124_1461908302297.jpg

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/04/ChO4dtdVEAAPhhl-640x480.jpg

[johnelvyn]

Regardless of whether they have TB or not, why are Somalis being re-located to Minnesota, to produce a radical and rapid change in the demographic makeup of that state