Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child born in 2013 would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday.
Given that illegal-alien households are normally low-income households (three out of five illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty line), one would expect that a significant portion of that cost will fall on the government. And that’s exactly what‘s happening.
According to CIS, 71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.
Birthright Citizenship Is a Magnet for Illegal Immigrants, and It Has Real Economic Costs | National Review Online
Why should we consider the CIS a reliable source for accurate, objective statistics?
Seemed that the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security thought so!
Is that run by Republicans?
Muslims? You really just tossed that on the pile out of nowhere?350,000 anchors, plus the 100,000. Muslims a month, plus welcoming anyone that can walk, means no more America. It is the change you voted for.
You should join the Know Nothing party.350,000 anchors, plus the 100,000. Muslims a month, plus welcoming anyone that can walk, means no more America. It is the change you voted for.
350,000 anchors, plus the 100,000. Muslims a month, plus welcoming anyone that can walk, means no more America. It is the change you voted for.
LOL.....pretty hilarious post.
Considering that we are a nation of immigrants.
In 1900 you would have been complaining about the Italians and Irish.
In 1890 you would have been complaining about the Chinese.
yes we are a nation of immigrants WHO ASSIMILATED.......do you see the muslims assimilating...? the millions of mexicans on our southern border who don't even bother to learn English....?
Today, it's Muslims. Yesterday, it was Catholics and Mormons:
350,000 anchors, plus the 100,000. Muslims a month, plus welcoming anyone that can walk, means no more America. It is the change you voted for.
LOL.....pretty hilarious post.
Considering that we are a nation of immigrants.
In 1900 you would have been complaining about the Italians and Irish.
In 1890 you would have been complaining about the Chinese.
The whole, 'we are a nation of immigrants' is referring to the time when we allowed immigrants into this country based on available room and available jobs once Americans were employed. It was a time when Immigrants were processed according to the laws of this country..
We know, you hate little brown Americans. What a shame for you then that we have this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Yeah except....
Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."
In that case, if an undocumented couple entered the US and set up a household while still "owing allegiance to a foreign power AND being subject to US jurisdiction means "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States", as you claim, then your argument fails on one or another level of your argument or both. Given the US Government does, indeed, have the jurisdiction to deport the undocumented individuals, or the breaking of other laws, or under Common Law.
So if the mother owes alliance to Mexico, then so does her baby.
The same way that a baby born to a US woman travelling overseas is still an American.
WTF does that have to do with the price of potatoes?Throw up a few pics of the Irish decapitating people, raping them and burning them alive, drowning them alive, slaughtering children in their class rooms, and then we'll talk similarities.
Throw up a few pics of the Irish decapitating people, raping them and burning them alive, drowning them alive, slaughtering children in their class rooms, and then we'll talk similarities.
You'll fail miserably if you think you can compare the Irish immigrants with Muslims. And your ability to hurt my feeling with pictures is 0. Actually, we're a lovely bunch, even when we're kicking your ass:Throw up a few pics of the Irish decapitating people, raping them and burning them alive, drowning them alive, slaughtering children in their class rooms, and then we'll talk similarities.
Oh I think we can talk just fine. You want to ignore how you are echoing the sentiments of those who told wanted to exclude the Irish and Italians and Chinese and Jews and Japanese, etc, etc.
The Chicago Post editorialized:
“The Irish fill our prisons, our poor houses . . . Scratch a convict or a pauper, and the chances are that you tickle the skin of an Irish Catholic. Putting them on a boat and sending them home would end crime in this country.”
The Irish: the illegal immigrants of yesteryear
350,000 anchors, plus the 100,000. Muslims a month, plus welcoming anyone that can walk, means no more America. It is the change you voted for.
LOL.....pretty hilarious post.
Considering that we are a nation of immigrants.
In 1900 you would have been complaining about the Italians and Irish.
In 1890 you would have been complaining about the Chinese.
The whole, 'we are a nation of immigrants' is referring to the time when we allowed immigrants into this country based on available room and available jobs once Americans were employed. It was a time when Immigrants were processed according to the laws of this country..
LOL- where do you create such BS?
I am descended from immigrants- who arrived around 1680. Our country has always been flooded with immigrants- and we have always had people like you complaining about immigrants- Chinese- Jews- Italians- Irish- Mexicans-Japanese.
For most of our history our borders were essentially open- people moved freely from Mexico to the United States and vice versa- same with Canada. People arrived by the boat loads- and unless they had obvious diseases they were allowed into the country. Then people started pushing to keep out 'undesirables'- basically folks not like them.
The English called the Irish dirty and lazy. And then later the Irish and the English did the same towards Italians.
Among our prouder moments of restricting immigration to 'the laws of this country' were the Chinese Exclusion Act- to prevent Chinese from coming in and competing with Anglo's- and the restrictions on the immigration of Jews in the 1930's.
Do I think we should have reasonable immigration policies?
Absolutely.
But America is the way it is because of the myriad of Immigrants we have welcomed into the United States.
