He wasn't kidding: Federal agents conduct immigration enforcement raids in at least six states

[ColonelAngus]

These deportations don't mean shit without a secure border. They will come back.

We had better jail them if they return.

 

[Winston]

Dude, the $7 billion is ONLY the amount illegals are scamming us on tax refunds, per the IRS inspector general. The total amount illegals are costing us is enormous. Food, housing, costly emergency room healthcare, education, hundreds of thousands of them in prisons, court costs, border security, property damage, theft, police, illegal drug related costs, its billions and billions of dollars.

The US spends (or more accurately, is robbed by its neighboring countries) of hundreds of billions per year by the transfer of their impoverished populations into the country.

How do I know this? NYS spent $4.5 BILLION ALONE on educating illegal alien children last year - that is calculated by taking the 110K illegal kids multiplied by $35K to annually educate (including ESL classes plus free breakfasts and lunches) each child. This number is not disputed by NYS, this is only ONE state out of 50, and does NOT include healthcare, welfare, housing, etc. When other major illegal alien haven states like CA are added - who lost FIFTY-SEVEN hospitals due to the non-payment of their bills by illegals - one starts to realize the cost of having these people in the country is immense, in the hundreds of billions each year.

It would be cheaper to pay far more for your lawn to be mowed, strawberries picked, hotel beds made, etc., by higher-paid americans than to pay illegals the astronomical amount of taxes americans are paying to support the mass poor of central / south america. Plus everything would be FAR less crowded; less resources like water used, fewer gallons of oil burned / fewer cars on the road burned so less pollution, etc.

It would be a win-win for americans at all income levels - except for the fucking whore bastard democraps who won't be able to purchase the illegals' votes.

Look. There is no such thing as an "illegal child". Period. Most of them you are calling illegal were born here. That makes them as much of a citizen as you and I. And the rest, if they are minors, long standing jurist prudence and countless court rulings have determined that they are assumed to have been born here. Not like they had much of a say in the matter anyway.

And they are not a "cost", not by any stretch of the imagination. Only a totally uneducated xenophobic short thinking knee jerk reactionary would think so. I will tell you who they are, the ones that are going to be paying your Social Security check. You won't be getting much of a check if they are living in Mexico.

Here is the deal, those children, if they stay in the United States, will use both welfare and health care services at a lower rate than white Anglo-Saxon Sons of the Revolution members. They will have a higher average education level, a higher average income, and a longer life expectancy than that same good old boy. They will pay more in taxes, have more children, and use less resources than the average redneck. So yeah, I understand the fear, but my family has been here longer than there has been a United States. We have seen it all before. Bring em on.

 

[pismoe]

Build the WALL , patrol the border , keep them from making a living if they are illegal or the USA can just surrender i suppose. I Care but heck , I'm older so probably won't affect me no matter which way it goes Colonel . [i still don't speak spanish or put dirty filthy used toilet paper in a wastebasket in the bathroom and probably never will ]

 

[pismoe]

These deportations don't mean shit without a secure border. They will come back.

We had better jail them if they return.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jailing , ok with me , Sheriff Arpaio had the right idea of jails with some of his big jails in the desert . Still , jails cost taxpayers money .

 

[Winston]

And are you going to take over those jobs they left behind?
Who do you think will fed those American kids they left behind? Clothing, schooling, care etc etc? YOU DUMB FUCK.

Since you are dumb racist peasant.......... Can you afford the price hikes all over the groceries and services? You are stupid.

What's wrong with illegals taking their kids with them?

Dude this just shows you don't know what you are talking about .........
Guadalupe Garcia was deported yesterday to Mexico from Arizona leaving 2 kids behind. This is just one parents...... Think in millions let say 20+ million kids.
1. Who do you think will take care those kids? All they have to do is go to welfare which we never have to provide food and shelters for these American kids before. Think if you deport these parents by the millions.
2. It's been proven that they will leave their kids behind. Why? because just like this mother. Why would she take her kids when there are no future on the other side?

I see you danced around the question, so one more time: what's wrong with the illegals taking their kids with them when they are deported?

What I'm telling you are the realities and facts no bullshit.
I already answered your question..... You just didn't accept the reality.
Why would they ( or you) take their American kids to a place where there is no home, no hope and no future?
Maybe you are not aware that there are tens of thousands of unaccompanied children without parents that are already here and they are not even American kids. We are feeding and housing them.

These American kids without parents will be a disaster in the making. If you think keeping illegals are expensive? Think real hard who will shelter all these American kids without parents. Don't forget all the ............. pain and sufferings, jobs they left behind, jobs that need to be filled in, services they provided and the high prices of commodities.

That begs the question: where do kids that are born there live? What do they do about no hope or future?

Obviously parents find a way as they have children all the time. So yes, they will have home and food just like all the other children there. Then when they get old enough, if they want to move back, they can.

So let me see if I got this right. You would rather those children be socialized and educated in Mexico and then come back, instead of being socialized and educated here? Look, if they are born here to Mexican parents they are citizens of both the United States and Mexico. If they are going to live here, where would you rather they learn about living and working with other people. Here or in Mexico?

 

[Winston]

Five, any jobs opened up from illegals leaving will be filled by American workers. It's not like we have a shortage of them.

LMAO

Yeah buddies, they just lining up to work in the tomato and tobacco fields or spray toxic chemicals on the Christmas trees. And everyone wants to de-bone chickens. Hell, they are lining up outside the doors at the slaughter houses. I know for a fact a good strawberry picker can net twenty bucks plus an hour doing piece work. I doubt there is an American that could make minimum wage doing it. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Winston]

The idea of anything other than an open border is totally UNAMERICAN.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

Our nation has had tariffs and border security mostly at our ports from almost the time this nation was born.

You obviously are an ignorant opinionated fucktard.

Yeah, tariffs and border security to enforce them. Did they stop people from coming? Who did they stop? Did they stop slaves? Did they stop pirates? Did they stop Jews? Muslims? Chinese? Germans? Irish? Who did they stop?

Dumbass

Who were the first "illegal immigrants"?

 

[Winston]

The vast majority of spending on so-called "illegal immigrants" is for the education of their, now listen very carefully, NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN CHILDREN If you got a problem with that, take it up with the Constitution.

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

 

[pismoe]

this guy sure loves and works frantically to justify and import more illegals into the USA . Also looks to tell Americans how lucky they are to be housing , paying and supporting illegal aliens all throughout the USA ehh Winston ??

 

[pismoe]

The vast majority of spending on so-called "illegal immigrants" is for the education of their, now listen very carefully, NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN CHILDREN If you got a problem with that, take it up with the Constitution.

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- big deal , ------------------- that being said the Colonies that became the USA was built on a Foundation of Western law and the Foundations were built by a group people primarily from a very small area of the world . President Trump is simply following the law and that the reason that he was elected President Winston !!

 

[Preacher]

Now if all the illegals here would just self deport! Come to think of it haven't seen as many lately around hmmm....it's certainly whiter than it has been!

 

[Winston]

The vast majority of spending on so-called "illegal immigrants" is for the education of their, now listen very carefully, NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN CHILDREN If you got a problem with that, take it up with the Constitution.

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- big deal , ------------------- that being said the Colonies that became the USA was built on a Foundation of Western law and the Foundations were built by a group people primarily from a very small area of the world . President Trump is simply following the law and that the reason that he was elected President Winston !!

What immigration laws were this nation founded upon? I can tell you. NONE. Because they didn't believe in them. It was almost a hundred years before we passed any immigration laws at all. And just to tell you how bad a job the government does of picking and choosing citizens, it was the Asians that were first forbidden entry.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The vast majority of spending on so-called "illegal immigrants" is for the education of their, now listen very carefully, NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN CHILDREN If you got a problem with that, take it up with the Constitution.

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

How could you not buy the argument? As my link explains, there was no immigration laws at the time. That came later. The purpose of the 14th was intended for former slaves and their families so they could be considered citizens of this country. Here is one of the explanations of the amendment:

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14thAmendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

So as you can see, not only was the amendment not for immigrants, the amendment prohibits anchor babies as they are referred to today.

 

[pismoe]

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- big deal , ------------------- that being said the Colonies that became the USA was built on a Foundation of Western law and the Foundations were built by a group people primarily from a very small area of the world . President Trump is simply following the law and that the reason that he was elected President Winston !!

What immigration laws were this nation founded upon? I can tell you. NONE. Because they didn't believe in them. It was almost a hundred years before we passed any immigration laws at all. And just to tell you how bad a job the government does of picking and choosing citizens, it was the Asians that were first forbidden entry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- doesn't matter , that was then and this is NOW Winston

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Five, any jobs opened up from illegals leaving will be filled by American workers. It's not like we have a shortage of them.

LMAO

Yeah buddies, they just lining up to work in the tomato and tobacco fields or spray toxic chemicals on the Christmas trees. And everyone wants to de-bone chickens. Hell, they are lining up outside the doors at the slaughter houses. I know for a fact a good strawberry picker can net twenty bucks plus an hour doing piece work. I doubt there is an American that could make minimum wage doing it. Don't kid yourself.

What would happen is supply and demand of the workforce would take place.

If strawberry farms can't find Americans to do the job, they simply have to offer better money to attract employees. Now this may mean that we pay more for our produce (or chickens) but it also provides jobs that Americans can live on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What's wrong with illegals taking their kids with them?

Dude this just shows you don't know what you are talking about .........
Guadalupe Garcia was deported yesterday to Mexico from Arizona leaving 2 kids behind. This is just one parents...... Think in millions let say 20+ million kids.
1. Who do you think will take care those kids? All they have to do is go to welfare which we never have to provide food and shelters for these American kids before. Think if you deport these parents by the millions.
2. It's been proven that they will leave their kids behind. Why? because just like this mother. Why would she take her kids when there are no future on the other side?

I see you danced around the question, so one more time: what's wrong with the illegals taking their kids with them when they are deported?

What I'm telling you are the realities and facts no bullshit.
I already answered your question..... You just didn't accept the reality.
Why would they ( or you) take their American kids to a place where there is no home, no hope and no future?
Maybe you are not aware that there are tens of thousands of unaccompanied children without parents that are already here and they are not even American kids. We are feeding and housing them.

These American kids without parents will be a disaster in the making. If you think keeping illegals are expensive? Think real hard who will shelter all these American kids without parents. Don't forget all the ............. pain and sufferings, jobs they left behind, jobs that need to be filled in, services they provided and the high prices of commodities.

That begs the question: where do kids that are born there live? What do they do about no hope or future?

Obviously parents find a way as they have children all the time. So yes, they will have home and food just like all the other children there. Then when they get old enough, if they want to move back, they can.

So let me see if I got this right. You would rather those children be socialized and educated in Mexico and then come back, instead of being socialized and educated here? Look, if they are born here to Mexican parents they are citizens of both the United States and Mexico. If they are going to live here, where would you rather they learn about living and working with other people. Here or in Mexico?

It's not our job to educate them here simply because they are anchor babies. Yes, go back to Mexico or wherever. Who knows, maybe some of them would rather live there than come back here. Watch the show House Hunters International sometime on HGTV. They have Americans moving all over the world and yes, some to third world countries and they take their children with them. They do just fine. And yes, American parents buy (or rent) housing in Mexico.

 

[pismoe]

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- big deal , ------------------- that being said the Colonies that became the USA was built on a Foundation of Western law and the Foundations were built by a group people primarily from a very small area of the world . President Trump is simply following the law and that the reason that he was elected President Winston !!

What immigration laws were this nation founded upon? I can tell you. NONE. Because they didn't believe in them. It was almost a hundred years before we passed any immigration laws at all. And just to tell you how bad a job the government does of picking and choosing citizens, it was the Asians that were first forbidden entry.

------------------------------------------------------------ once again , big deal . At an earlier time the orientals / chinese from thousands of miles away were let in to the USA to build the transcontinental Rail Road , they were paid for their work as labor and their choice to work as labor was their decision . Railroad was NOT a chinese invention and they probably coulda stayed in China Winston .

 

[pismoe]

Five, any jobs opened up from illegals leaving will be filled by American workers. It's not like we have a shortage of them.

LMAO

Yeah buddies, they just lining up to work in the tomato and tobacco fields or spray toxic chemicals on the Christmas trees. And everyone wants to de-bone chickens. Hell, they are lining up outside the doors at the slaughter houses. I know for a fact a good strawberry picker can net twenty bucks plus an hour doing piece work. I doubt there is an American that could make minimum wage doing it. Don't kid yourself.

What would happen is supply and demand of the workforce would take place.

If strawberry farms can't find Americans to do the job, they simply have to offer better money to attract employees. Now this may mean that we pay more for our produce (or chickens) but it also provides jobs that Americans can live on.

----------------------------------------------------------- exactly right , if people want strawberries let them pay what strawberries cost !!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Sorry buttercup - the U.S. Constitution does not cover anchor babies. The spirit of the constitution was for people who were made citizens - so that their children would not have to go through the citizenship process (and if they failed - what nation would they legally be citizens of?). Stop making shit up.

Who said US constitution doesn't cover anchor babies? You? What do you think is happening now? Did someone took off their benefits or constitutional right? Did any of these anchor babies went to court telling them they don't have constitution rights?

Are you thinking about anchor babies that was born last year or anchor babies that was born 20 to 40 years ago?

I posted why they are not covered. If you wish to ignore it, that's your problem.

I am not buying the argument. It defies history. Here is the deal. There would not even be a United States of America if it were not for the greatest military hero in our history. A child dropped off on a dock in Colonial Virginia that grew into a giant of a man that Washington himself credited for winning the Revolutionary War.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- big deal , ------------------- that being said the Colonies that became the USA was built on a Foundation of Western law and the Foundations were built by a group people primarily from a very small area of the world . President Trump is simply following the law and that the reason that he was elected President Winston !!

What immigration laws were this nation founded upon? I can tell you. NONE. Because they didn't believe in them. It was almost a hundred years before we passed any immigration laws at all. And just to tell you how bad a job the government does of picking and choosing citizens, it was the Asians that were first forbidden entry.

Uh its because y6oh didnt have mass migration

Are you just this stupid?

Indians tried to settle in the us and they didnt do so well.

Mexivans and the us had a war or two.

Please learn history and context before you post.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've actually heard that the figure is $99 billion per year. I find it hard to believe that we are "only" spending $7 billion per year on millions of illegal aliens when you consider the housing, the food, the healthcare, the education, etc. It has to be more than $7 billion.

The thing is - greedy fucks like Lakhota and danielpalos won't foot the bill for those in need. But they want to demand that everyone else do it.

Dude, the $7 billion is ONLY the amount illegals are scamming us on tax refunds, per the IRS inspector general. The total amount illegals are costing us is enormous. Food, housing, costly emergency room healthcare, education, hundreds of thousands of them in prisons, court costs, border security, property damage, theft, police, illegal drug related costs, its billions and billions of dollars.

And let's not also forget this:

Remittances are monies sent by foreign-born workers (legal immigrants and illegal aliens) back to their home country. The transfers are facilitated by sending money through banks, making investments in the home country, or by returning to the home country while retaining bank accounts and other assets in the United States.

Remittances are essentially a tax-free transfer of wealth out of the U.S. Approximately $20 billion of Mexican remittances each year disappear from the U.S. economy via the institutionalized money transfer industry, never to return.

Remittances - a massive transfer of wealth out of America | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research

Are you under the mistaken impression that is a bad thing. Think about it, a direct quote,

Approximately $20 billion of Mexican remittances each year disappear from the U.S. economy

OK, poof, bring it all back. Twenty billion extra dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Thing that would be good? Can you say inflation? Matter of fact, the number one factor keeping inflation down has not been the Fed's lid on interest rates. It has been those foreign remittances exiting the economy.

You expect me to believe that? No, anytime money leaves the US it's a bad thing. If you think it's a good thing, I don't see Mexico trying to stop the money from getting into their country. Money leaving our country doesn't do squat to inflation.

You might think it counter-intuitive but yes, those remittances are a net positive for the United States and a negative for Mexico. On the positive, outside of keeping inflation down, those remittances also make the United States more competitive with Mexico in regards to exports. Primarily because of the negative effects those remittances have on Mexico, spurring inflation in both prices and Peso's. It also causes increased social inequality in the receiving country as well as making it less competitive on the world market. It is what economist call "easy money", and that usually leads to negative economic and social effects.

I know, some of this is at an advanced economics level, international trade and currency valuation. But think of it like this, I don't think I have ever heard of a hostile nation attempting to attack it's enemy by taking money out of the economy. But it is a common tactic, flood an enemies economy with counterfeit money and initiate hyperinflation and you can wreck the entire society.

It's called a cheap excuse with nothing to back it up. But okay, let's take your argument down to a different level:

Is your household better off with more money or less? Is your city or town better off with more money or less? How about your state?

If more money leaving the United States is good, then why not get rid of all our money and send it to other countries? After all, if some money leaving is good, then all money leaving should be better, right?

What causes inflation are wages and taxation. Don't believe me, then look at what homes cost in California. Look at what homes cost in the New England states compared to the midwest. That's what causes inflation, not money leaving the country.