PDA

View Full Version : Priebus hints Trump has no immediate plan to end Obama's DACA for young illegals




Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:01 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/22/priebus-hints-trump-has-no-immediate-plan-to-end-obamas-daca-for-young-illegals-seeks-long-term-fix.html

Going to focus instead on "criminals".


President Trump has no immediate plans to use his executive powers to undo the Obama administration’s order that protects some young illegal immigrants known as “dreamers,” White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus made clear Sunday, in previewing the new administration’s first full week.

“I think we’re going to work with the House and Senate leadership, as well as to get a long-term solution on that issue,” Priebus told “Fox News Sunday.” “I'm not going to make any commitments to you, but … I'm obviously foreshadowed there a little bit.”

Immigration advocates had warned since essentially the start of the 2016 presidential race that Trump, if elected, would crack down on illegal immigration.

To be sure, Trump won the race on a platform that included vows to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants.

But many already in the country and others have expressed greater concerns about Trump undoing President Obama's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive action that defers deportation for an estimated 700,000 illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents -- and known as "dreamers."

During the campaign, Trump said illegal immigrants would be deported starting the first hour he was in office.

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:04 PM
During the campaign, Trump said illegal immigrants would be deported starting the first hour he was in office.

Citation needed.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:12 PM
http://time.com/4643995/donald-trump-immigration-criminals-daca/


White House Says Criminals Will Be Trump's Priority on Immigration


President Trump may not immediately reverse the Obama Administration policy that protected young immigrants from being deported, his White House signaled on Monday.

"The focus is going to be on people who have done harm to our country," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday.

During the first press briefing of the Trump Administration, Spicer said on the issue of immigration, the president would prioritize security and criminals in the country illegally when he was asked about the future of the recipients of President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

Over 700,000 young immigrants have benefited from the policy. DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, had been worried in the lead up to Trump's inauguration given his election promise to rescind all of President Obama's executive actions. On Monday, a group of immigration advocates and Democratic Senators called for protections for immigrants from Trump and Congress during an event on Capitol Hill.

Under the Obama administration, criminals and those who threatened national security, border security, and public safety were the top priorities for immigration enforcement following a 2014 memorandum from then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.According to Johnson's Department of Homeland Security exit memo, in fiscal year 2016 98% of enforcement actions and 99% of removals aligned with the Obama administration enforcement priorities and some 90% of people who were deported from the interior of the U.S. had been convicted of serious crimes. President Obama's administration also deported more people than his predecessor President George W. Bush.


So at least for the near future, Trump will continue Obama policies on immigration.

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:14 PM
Keep looking. :cool:

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:14 PM
Citation needed.

Easy to find. You could have found it yourself. "Day one. My first hour in office. Those people are gone!" Thank you for playing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2JJVPntQL8

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:20 PM
Easy to find. You could have found it yourself. "Day one. My first hour in office. Those people are gone!" Thank you for playing.

What people? He was not talking about "dreamers". :confused:

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:22 PM
He was talking about all illegal immigrants. Not just dreamers.

specsaregood
01-24-2017, 12:22 PM
I'm pretty sure he has always had that list prioritized starting with the illegals with criminal records, "bad hombres" and whatnot, finally working his way down to "dreamers". It certainly hasn't been a secret, his press secretary restated exactly that just yesterday.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 12:23 PM
Neg rep. ZippyJuan.

TER
01-24-2017, 12:30 PM
Neg rep. ZippyJuan.

I agree. I'm going to neg rep him from now on for his paid propaganda.

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:32 PM
He was talking about all illegal immigrants. Not just dreamers.

Do you have a hearing problem? :confused:

FSP-Rebel
01-24-2017, 12:35 PM
I'm pretty sure he has always had that list prioritized starting with the illegals with criminal records, "bad hombres" and whatnot, finally working his way down to "dreamers". It certainly hasn't been a secret, his press secretary restated exactly that just yesterday.

I'd certainly hope that he'd get rid of the bad hombres first. The dreamers are already on file and won't be hard to find should he go that route. Personally, I'd just cut off any public benefits for current illegals and let them either stay and work or self deport. Also, tighten up the voting rolls so non-citizens truly can't vote nor can democrats plot their dirty deeds around current voting laws.

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:37 PM
Zippy "The Wet Pants" Juan. :cool:

TER
01-24-2017, 12:42 PM
Personally, I don't mind if the dreamers already here stay as long as new laws stop the influx of illegal immigration and the government acts to enforce these laws, and as if the criminal illegals are deported.

Like FSP-Rebel said above, get rid of the bad element first. As for the dreamers, if they eventually pay their fair share and become productive, law-abiding citizens, then I see no problem with it, IMO.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:43 PM
I'd certainly hope that he'd get rid of the bad hombres first. The dreamers are already on file and won't be hard to find should he go that route. Personally, I'd just cut off any public benefits for current illegals and let them either stay and work or self deport. Also, tighten up the voting rolls so non-citizens truly can't vote nor can democrats plot their dirty deeds around current voting laws.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal Government benefits. And they can't vote.

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:45 PM
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal Government benefits. And they can't vote.

Zippy, you were nabbed lying again and now doing this? Do you think it is cool? :cool:

TER
01-24-2017, 12:45 PM
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal Government benefits. And they can't vote.

Hahahahahaha!!

Except they get many government benefits and they most certainly do vote.

TER
01-24-2017, 12:47 PM
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal Government benefits. And they can't vote.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving negative reputation to Zippyjuan again.

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:48 PM
Hahahahahaha!!

Except they get many government benefits and they most certainly do vote.

It is not them exactly. It is their cousin who lives in Mexico and gets a cut for using his ID in US. Talk about social mobility. :D

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 12:50 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving negative reputation to Zippyjuan again.



LOL

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:51 PM
Hahahahahaha!!

Except they get many government benefits and they most certainly do vote.

Links?

timosman
01-24-2017, 12:53 PM
Links?

Why don't you take some time out and think about what you are doing? We all will be here. :)

TER
01-24-2017, 12:54 PM
Links?

Nah, too cold for golf.

Plus, I have meetings to go to today. Some of us get paid for real work instead of for spreading lies and propaganda.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:56 PM
https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/


Since their inception, programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its precursor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), have been inaccessible to undocumented immigrants and people in the United States on temporary visas.

However, the 1996 federal welfare and immigration laws introduced an unprecedented new era of restrictionism. Prior to these laws’ enactment, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. generally were eligible for assistance in a manner similar to U.S. citizens. After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer.

Legal immigrants are not eligible until they have been legally in the country for five years.

TER
01-24-2017, 12:57 PM
https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/



Legal immigrants are not eligible until they have been legally in the country for five years.

How about when they visit the Emergency Room? Do they have to wait five years to get assistance?

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 12:57 PM
That is not a federal benefit. Emergency rooms are required to treat anybody regardless of insurance or immigration status.

TER
01-24-2017, 12:58 PM
That is not a federal benefit.

Oh, it is not the tax payers who pay for it?

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 01:00 PM
That is not a federal benefit. Emergency rooms are required to treat anybody regardless of insurance or immigration status.

Hospital and state programs that run emergency room assistance programs receive no federal funding?

TER
01-24-2017, 01:03 PM
Zippy has to go check the manual now on how to respond. Let's give him a minute.

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 01:04 PM
And they can't vote.

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:04 PM
Everybody pays. It is in higher hospital costs. It in in higher insurance rates.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 01:06 PM
Zippy has to go check the manual now on how to respond. Let's give him a minute.


There are several on the account. The guy lately is not the original and has really been second rate.

TER
01-24-2017, 01:06 PM
Everybody pays. It is in higher hospital costs. It in in higher insurance rates.

What a duplicitous answer.

Do the hospitals not get government assistance by way of tax payer money to mitigate these costs?

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:08 PM
Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

A review of that study: http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys


Third, the panel shows clear evidence that the respondents who were identified as non-citizen voters by Richman et al. were misclassified. Clearly misclassified observations are the 20 respondents who reported being citizens in 2010 and non-citizens in 2012. Of those 20 respondents, a total of 3 respondents are classified by Catalist as having voted in 2010. Additionally, exactly 1 person is estimated to have voted in 2010, having been a non-citizen in 2010 and a citizen in 2012. (Note: This might not be an error as the person could have legally become a citizen in the intervening two years.) Both of these categories might include some citizens who are incorrectly classified as non-citizens in one of the waves.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 01:10 PM
I voted one star-terrible for a ZippyJuan thread.

TER
01-24-2017, 01:13 PM
What a duplicitous answer.

Do the hospitals not get government assistance by way of tax payer money to mitigate these costs?

Hi Zippy. Can you answer this simple question?

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 01:14 PM
A review of that study: http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys

Yes, I already saw that, and of course a progressive "study" will come out to counter the first.

From the study you just linked:


The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

You're a smart man zip.

Do you honestly believe that the percentage of non-citzen voters, in a country with anywhere from 5 to 30 million illegal immigrants, depending on whose numbers you want to believe, is zero?

Really?

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:14 PM
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth


The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.00004 percent and 0.0009 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.”

A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.

Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012-2016.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:18 PM
Yes, I already saw that, and of course a progressive "study" will come out to counter the first.

From the study you just linked:



You're a smart man zip.

Do you honestly believe that the percentage of non-citzen voters, in a country with anywhere from 5 to 30 million illegal immigrants, depending on whose numbers you want to believe, is zero?

Really?

Was it zero? Probably not. Was it five million? Probably not. The real numbers seem to be extremely low though.

Are illegal immigrants eligible to vote (which was my claim)? No. Are they eligible for Social Security? No. Are they eligible for Medicare/ Medicaid? No. Are they eligible for food stamps (SNAP)? No. Are they eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children? No.

"Ending federal benefits for illegal immigrants" changes nothing because they are currently not eligible.

TER
01-24-2017, 01:22 PM
Was it zero? Probably not. Was it five million? Probably not. The real numbers seem to be extremely low though.

Are illegal immigrants eligible to vote (which was my claim)? No.

And yet, you admit they do (though, how frequently, is not known)

Any chance you can answer the question I asked you above? Do hospitals get tax payer money to mitigate the cost of illegal immigrants using hospitals?

timosman
01-24-2017, 01:22 PM
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Ok Zippy, you win. I think you have convinced everybody. The system is perfect. If there is anything contradicting this it is our flawed perception of reality. :cool:

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 01:23 PM
Hi Zippy. Can you answer this simple question?


No, he won't answer. He'll post and after the thread gets old with nobody reading, he'll go on to the next big thing. That's what he does. He makes threads or consistently posts second in a thread. Practically always contrary posts.

He's done in my book. Nine years already. He's going down.

timosman
01-24-2017, 01:24 PM
Was it zero? Probably not. Was it five million? Probably not. The real numbers seem to be extremely low though.

Are illegal immigrants eligible to vote (which was my claim)? No. Are they eligible for Social Security? No. Are they eligible for Medicare/ Medicaid? No. Are they eligible for food stamps (SNAP)? No. Are they eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children? No.

"Ending federal benefits for illegal immigrants" changes nothing because they are currently not eligible.

So why the fuck do they live here? :confused:

TER
01-24-2017, 01:26 PM
No, he won't answer. He'll post and after the thread gets old with nobody reading, he'll go on to the next big thing. That's what he does. He makes threads or consistently posts second in a thread. Practically always contrary posts.

He's done in my book. Nine years already. He's going down.

The pathetic part is that some self-proclaimed liberty posters here defend him and state he is abiding by the site mission when it is so crystal clear that he is a paid troll (which he still, btw, has yet to deny, and only confirms it to any rational mind)

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:35 PM
So why the $#@! do they live here? :confused:

For the opportunity to have a better life. If you are lazy and only want freebies you aren't going to make the effort to leave the comfort of your own home where you grew up and know everybody and can probably get freebies there too. That takes risk and effort and lots of work. It is what this country was built on.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 01:36 PM
The pathetic part is that some self-proclaimed liberty posters here defend him and state he is abiding by the site mission when it is so crystal clear that he is a paid troll (which he still, btw, has yet to deny, and only confirms it to any rational mind)


+ rep


And just ask him his voting choice in 2016. You will get the usual clowning, and the he's off to the next big thread.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:38 PM
+ rep


And just ask him his voting choice in 2016. You will get the usual clowning, and the he's off to the next big thread.

I have said many times I voted for Gary Johnson. But who cares?

TER
01-24-2017, 01:39 PM
For the opportunity to have a better life. If you are lazy and only want freebies you aren't going to make the effort to leave the comfort of your own home where you grew up and know everybody and can probably get freebies there too. That takes risk and effort and lots of work. It is what this country was built on.

Look, the guy who tried to get Hillary elected is lecturing us on the ideals of America.

TER
01-24-2017, 01:39 PM
I have said many times I voted for Gary Johnson. But who cares?

Are you paid to post here?

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:40 PM
No. Are you?

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:41 PM
Look, the guy who tried to get Hillary elected is lecturing us on the ideals of America.

Even Ron Paul was against Trump. Against Trump is not necessarily for Clinton. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/ron-paul-wont-vote-donald-trump/2016/05/04/id/727244/


Ron Paul says he won't vote for presumed Republican nominee Donald Trump in the presidential elections, even if it meant it would hand the election to Democratic front-runer Hillary Clinton.

The former Republican congressman who ran for president with the Libertarian Party in 1988 said that it would not matter who won when he was asked in an appearance on the Morning with Maria Bartiromo Program on Fox Business Network.

Paul, who was also a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012, said neither candidate offers any solutions to the serious problems that the country faces and that "control of the system is much bigger than the political parties."


When pressed if he was not going to cast a ballot at all in November, Paul said he would vote for an alternative but declined to give a name, saying "There's bound to be somebody that believes in something that comes closer to what the American tradition is all about and free markets. I'm not going to vote for tariffs. It would be pretty hard for me to do that."

TER
01-24-2017, 01:42 PM
Are you paid to post here?


No. Are you?

You aren't? I doubt it, so I will bookmark this. Thanks!

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 01:42 PM
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Who said anything about impersonation fraud?

In CA, you can register to vote with a D/L, which over 800,000 have been issued to illegals.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/28/dmv-licensed-800000-undocumented-immigrants-under-2-year-old-law/

Lacking any ID at all, you can still register to vote.


The voter registration application asks for your driver license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four numbers on your Social Security card. If you do not have a driver license, California identification card or Social Security card, you may leave that space blank. Your county elections official will assign a number to you that will be used to identify you as a voter

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/registering-vote

The fraud is not people impersonating others, but rather illegals gaming the system by lying about being a legal US citizen.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:45 PM
Voter registrations are still verified. They check the information before your name is added to voter rolls.

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 01:46 PM
Was it zero? Probably not. Was it five million? Probably not. The real numbers seem to be extremely low though.

Well, hard to tell, when you're doing something illegal, you're not likely to fess up to it or take part in survey data mining to collect numbers on it.


Are illegal immigrants eligible to vote (which was my claim)? No. Are they eligible for Social Security? No. Are they eligible for Medicare/ Medicaid? No. Are they eligible for food stamps (SNAP)? No. Are they eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children? No.

Whoa whoa whoa...that is NOT what you said.

You said they CAN'T vote,.

Clearly they do.

Are they eligible or legally authorized to do so, no, of course not, and I never would have argued that point with you.

FSP-Rebel
01-24-2017, 01:48 PM
Illegals benefit from public services/handouts by using the status of their US-born children, mainly for food stamps and medicaid.

You can read more about immigrants in general: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 01:49 PM
I have said many times I voted for Gary Johnson. But who cares?


Really? Where did you say that? Links please.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:50 PM
Well, hard to tell, when you're doing something illegal, you're not likely to fess up to it or take part in survey data mining to collect numbers on it.



Whoa whoa whoa...that is NOT what you said.

You said they DON'T vote or collect any of those benefits.

Clearly they do.

Are they eligible or legally authorized to do so, no, of course not, and I never would have argued that point with you.


"Ending federal benefits for illegal immigrants" changes nothing because they are currently not eligible.

Let's go back and replay the tape and see what it says. From post #15:


Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal Government benefits. And they can't vote.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 01:52 PM
Are you paid to post here?


No. Are you?


You aren't? I doubt it, so I will bookmark this. Thanks!


Ter, Zip is interpreting that very technically. No, he is not paid per post like the people in the Philippines making fake glowing reviews on Home Depot's website.

Yes, he is doing this as part of his job.

Once again, Zip blurs the de jure and the de facto. He is a shrewd one.

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 01:54 PM
Let's go back and replay the tape and see what it says. From post #15:

Yeah, give a second, the posts are backing up.

You said:


Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal Government benefits. And they can't vote.

Then you said:


Are illegal immigrants eligible to vote (which was my claim)?

Apples and bowling balls.

I never would have argued the point that they were not eligible to vote.

Clearly they are not.

But you said that they can't vote.

Clearly, they can and do.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 01:55 PM
Illegals benefit from public services/handouts by using the status of their US-born children, mainly for food stamps and medicaid.

You can read more about immigrants in general: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

US born children of immigrants are US Citizens. US citizens may qualify for benefits.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 02:03 PM
Really? Where did you say that? Links please.

Since it is of such earth shattering importance to you: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?502892-I-Voted-Today

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 02:03 PM
I have said many times I voted for Gary Johnson. But who cares?


Really? Where did you say that? Links please.


I am still waiting for an answer. I want the links where you said "many times" that you voted for Gary Johnson. I don't know how you define "many," but it would have to be at least three.

I also want to see your voting choices in the past 9 years since you have been on here. Did you ever vote for Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer in the past 9 years? Is your congressman that guy named Juan in San Diego? If so, did you vote for him?

What has been your voter registration party the past nine years?

And I want your voting choices on all the issues you just mentioned in your post #62's link.


Thanks!

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 02:07 PM
See above post.

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 02:13 PM
Was it zero? Probably not. Was it five million? Probably not. The real numbers seem to be extremely low though.

Ok, so we are in agreement that a study that shows 0 percent of total voters in a national election, were undocumented immigrants voting when they were in fact ineligible to do so, is bogus.

So all we're arguing now is the number of undocumented immigrants that voted while ineligible to do so.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 02:17 PM
Actual documented cases of an illegal immigrant voting are very difficult to find. Yeah- I do agree it is probably not zero. But the fact that it is so hard to find any suggests that it is extremely rare (and not in the "millions" as some claim).

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 02:23 PM
Actual documented cases of an illegal immigrant voting are very difficult to find. Yeah- I do agree it is probably not zero. But the fact that it is so hard to find any suggests that it is extremely rare (and not in the "millions" as some claim).

Of course it is...it's "illegal".

I disagree.

I have no reason to doubt the study posted in the IBD op/ed.

I'll split the difference with you, from 0 to 3 million as claimed in my OP in this thread.

1.5 million.

That is substantial.

FSP-Rebel
01-24-2017, 02:26 PM
US born children of immigrants are US Citizens. US citizens may qualify for benefits.

They know if they can squeeze inside the border to have children, then they can game the system for benefits and you know this. Granting anchor babies citizenship and allowing their illegal relatives to profit from it is not a healthy immigration policy and it should have never existed to begin with. And I'm directly referring to illegal immigrants use of this coincidence, not normalized immigrants in good standing (though I still have issue w/ that since all immigrants that come here should be able to assimilate and take care of themselves). And, public benefits shouldn't even be realistic in this country but for the globalists screwing over of the job scene and the Fed which makes excessive public spending possible.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-24-2017, 02:26 PM
See above post.


No, I read that post. It is not there. I will ask you one more time.


I want the links where you said "many times" that you voted for Gary Johnson. I don't know how you define "many," but it would have to be at least three.

I also want to see your voting choices in the past 9 years since you have been on here. Did you ever vote for Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer in the past 9 years? Is your congressman that guy named Juan in San Diego? If so, did you vote for him?

What has been your voter registration party the past nine years?

And I want your voting choices on all the issues you just mentioned in your post #62's link.


Thanks!

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 02:35 PM
They know if they can squeeze inside the border to have children, then they can game the system for benefits and you know this. Granting anchor babies citizenship and allowing their illegal relatives to profit from it is not a healthy immigration policy and it should have never existed to begin with. And I'm directly referring to illegal immigrants use of this coincidence, not normalized immigrants in good standing (though I still have issue w/ that since all immigrants that come here should be able to assimilate and take care of themselves). And, public benefits shouldn't even be realistic in this country but for the globalists screwing over of the job scene and the Fed which makes excessive public spending possible.

If they are only coming for benefits, why did they stop coming when the recession hit and the government expanded benefits to people? Because they were coming for jobs and the jobs dried up.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/09/PH_2016.09.20_Unauthorized-02.png

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

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/09/FT_15.09.10_BirthsToUnauthorizedImmigrants_LineCha rt310px.png


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/


It's important to note that having an "anchor baby" won't do much to help a Mexican mom become a U.S. citizen. Because citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21 -- and because if the parents were ever illegal, they would have to return home for 10 years before applying to come in -- having a baby to secure citizenship for its parents is an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.

However, having a citizen child can produce some short-term benefits, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute. Pregnant women and nursing mothers could be eligible for certain benefits under the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) program, which provides food and nutrition vouchers, and their children could enroll in Medicaid, although the undocumented parents could not. Having a child can also help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation, but only 4,000 unauthorized immigrants can receive such status per year, and the alien has to have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years. That means very long odds, Rosenblum said.

Zippyjuan
01-24-2017, 02:50 PM
The Chinese on the other hand ARE coming for the purpose of having babies in the US. But they are leaving shortly afterwards and spending lots of money while they are here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/01/china-us-birth-tourism_n_7187180.html


The conversation about immigrant families in the U.S. is typically centered around people from Latin America seeking economic opportunities in the States. But as incomes in China rise and visa hurdles fall, women from China are making up a larger share of foreign births in the U.S, and they’re complicating many of the popular ideas about immigrant mothers.

Most of the Chinese mothers come with large sums of cash at their fingertips, money they often spend on houses and luxury goods. While many, like Ma, enter and give birth in the U.S. legally, others buy package plans from “birth tourism” agencies — profit-seeking and sometimes illegal organizations that arrange accommodations and hospital visits for groups of Chinese women. These businesses have clustered in California, a top tourism destination that also boasts large Chinese-American communities that make many expectant mothers feel at home.


But foremost in many Chinese parents’ minds are the educational opportunities available in the U.S. Weary of their country’s test-obsessed education system, record numbers of Chinese parents have been sending their children to American kindergartens, Ph.D. programs and everything in between. An American passport makes many of these opportunities cheaper and more accessible.

Having a child in California is not cheap for Chinese parents: Package deals at maternity hotels often start at $20,000 and go much higher. Ma and Zhu chose to rent a room from a friend in Long Beach, but they still estimate that they spent around $30,000 in total.

But even those high outlays essentially pay for themselves in many cases. If Ma and Zhu had given birth to their second child in China, they likely would have faced fines equal to $40,000 for violation of the country’s “one-child policy.”

Anti Federalist
01-27-2017, 04:01 PM
Ok, so we are in agreement that a study that shows 0 percent of total voters in a national election, were undocumented immigrants voting when they were in fact ineligible to do so, is bogus.

So all we're arguing now is the number of undocumented immigrants that voted while ineligible to do so.

Blimp