Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[paddymurphy]

I have, which is why I know that when people are deported they don't always take the kiddos with them. They send them here, and leave them here, because this is where they can have a better life. That should make you happy, but it won't.

well then they arent deported you idiot. that was what you were replying to; somebody claiming republicans want to deport American citizens.

you idiots have Attention Deficit Disorder or something; in your rush to sanctimonious clowns you're all over the map

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!

I know the numbers, and why you want the little brown ones to go...

All of them not just brown ones.
This has got to stop, it's insane.
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth | TIME.com
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth
Lured by U.S. citizenship for their children, thousands of Chinese women give birth annually in the States, supporting a thriving birth-tourism industry

Then amend the fucking constitution. That is the only way to change the law.

 

[bendog]

That's odd. I don't see a single thing in the above law that makes the illegal alien a felon. Just those that knowingly aid and assist them, like employers.

try again.

Just holding a job to aid an illegal spouse or illegal children to remain, providing them housing, money, food and transportation qualifies, dummy. I didn't post the complete link, go read it.

It is odd that no illegal alien has ever been charged with a felony based solely on being in the US without documentation on a first offense, not even under the Bush administration.

I think that you should not give up your other job to become an attorney.

Maybe if we get an AG who is willing to deal with the problem you might see them getting inventive, if you were an illegal and a prosecutor gave you a choice of self deporting or facing a decade in jail, what do you think they would do? Just because the tool hasn't been used, doesn't mean it's not available. Of course if the aiding and abetting laws were fully used, your dear leader would be looking at a few million years in jail for illegally deferring prosecution, deportation and providing work permits to more than 3 million and the folks running these sanctuary cities could be facing hundreds of years.

Are you aware of what they have been doing down here about IA for the last 10 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

 

[bendog]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

Evidently you don't understand english composition, when terms are separated by a comma they stand alone. What is it you didn't understand when he said: And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States."

 

[OKTexas]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th had no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

 

[peach174]

well then they arent deported you idiot. that was what you were replying to; somebody claiming republicans want to deport American citizens.

you idiots have Attention Deficit Disorder or something; in your rush to sanctimonious clowns you're all over the map

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!

I know the numbers, and why you want the little brown ones to go...

All of them not just brown ones.
This has got to stop, it's insane.
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth | TIME.com
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth
Lured by U.S. citizenship for their children, thousands of Chinese women give birth annually in the States, supporting a thriving birth-tourism industry

Then amend the fucking constitution. That is the only way to change the law.

We don't need to amend it.

 

[OKTexas]

Just holding a job to aid an illegal spouse or illegal children to remain, providing them housing, money, food and transportation qualifies, dummy. I didn't post the complete link, go read it.

It is odd that no illegal alien has ever been charged with a felony based solely on being in the US without documentation on a first offense, not even under the Bush administration.

I think that you should not give up your other job to become an attorney.

Maybe if we get an AG who is willing to deal with the problem you might see them getting inventive, if you were an illegal and a prosecutor gave you a choice of self deporting or facing a decade in jail, what do you think they would do? Just because the tool hasn't been used, doesn't mean it's not available. Of course if the aiding and abetting laws were fully used, your dear leader would be looking at a few million years in jail for illegally deferring prosecution, deportation and providing work permits to more than 3 million and the folks running these sanctuary cities could be facing hundreds of years.

Are you aware of what they have been doing down here about IA for the last 10 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

Not really, when a person applies for a temporary visa they are essentially entering into a contract to return home as agreed, just being here beyond that date is all that would be necessary to put them on a plane. Terms of the bond could stipulate that, so there would no denial of due process.

 

[bendog]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

 

[bendog]

It is odd that no illegal alien has ever been charged with a felony based solely on being in the US without documentation on a first offense, not even under the Bush administration.

I think that you should not give up your other job to become an attorney.

Maybe if we get an AG who is willing to deal with the problem you might see them getting inventive, if you were an illegal and a prosecutor gave you a choice of self deporting or facing a decade in jail, what do you think they would do? Just because the tool hasn't been used, doesn't mean it's not available. Of course if the aiding and abetting laws were fully used, your dear leader would be looking at a few million years in jail for illegally deferring prosecution, deportation and providing work permits to more than 3 million and the folks running these sanctuary cities could be facing hundreds of years.

Are you aware of what they have been doing down here about IA for the last 10 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

Not really, when a person applies for a temporary visa they are essentially entering into a contract to return home as agreed, just being here beyond that date is all that would be necessary to put them on a plane. Terms of the bond could stipulate that, so there would no denial of due process.

Sorry Tex, but due process requires a judicial hearing. The exception is when a deportee goes back voluntarily, or if he/she NEVER had a legal right to be here, and under present law, has only been here a short time and is apprehended near the border
Expedited removal deportations: Immigrants don't get due process | The New Republic

 

[OKTexas]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[bendog]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm for the rule of law. Original intent is a fallacy, because on abortion guns the 14th, you name it, original intent can be argued either way.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe if we get an AG who is willing to deal with the problem you might see them getting inventive, if you were an illegal and a prosecutor gave you a choice of self deporting or facing a decade in jail, what do you think they would do? Just because the tool hasn't been used, doesn't mean it's not available. Of course if the aiding and abetting laws were fully used, your dear leader would be looking at a few million years in jail for illegally deferring prosecution, deportation and providing work permits to more than 3 million and the folks running these sanctuary cities could be facing hundreds of years.

Are you aware of what they have been doing down here about IA for the last 10 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

Not really, when a person applies for a temporary visa they are essentially entering into a contract to return home as agreed, just being here beyond that date is all that would be necessary to put them on a plane. Terms of the bond could stipulate that, so there would no denial of due process.

Sorry Tex, but due process requires a judicial hearing. The exception is when a deportee goes back voluntarily, or if he/she NEVER had a legal right to be here, and under present law, has only been here a short time and is apprehended near the border
Expedited removal deportations: Immigrants don't get due process | The New Republic

What I proposed was a change to the law, can't you read?

 

[deltex1]

NOt including the fence, that Mexico does not have the money to pay for, and would not pay for, even if they did, especially since a large % of illegals are from other countries.

"Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.

So when you multiply that cost for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., that comes to $137.5 billion."


Donald Trump s Deportation Plan Would Cost 100-200 Billion - NBC News

How much would the libtard amnesty plan cost?

 

[OKTexas]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm for the rule of law. Original intent is a fallacy, because on abortion guns the 14th, you name it, original intent can be argued either way.

The quotes I provided form the guy that wrote the language of the 14th is in no way ambiguous, Feel free to argue otherwise, but you would be wrong.

 

[bendog]

Are you aware of what they have been doing down here about IA for the last 10 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

Not really, when a person applies for a temporary visa they are essentially entering into a contract to return home as agreed, just being here beyond that date is all that would be necessary to put them on a plane. Terms of the bond could stipulate that, so there would no denial of due process.

Sorry Tex, but due process requires a judicial hearing. The exception is when a deportee goes back voluntarily, or if he/she NEVER had a legal right to be here, and under present law, has only been here a short time and is apprehended near the border
Expedited removal deportations: Immigrants don't get due process | The New Republic

What I proposed was a change to the law, can't you read?

Yes, but you appear unable to comprehend that the change you proposed would be unconstitutional, because the ONLY exception to due process requiring a judicial hearing is the deportee was never legally here. Your "proposal" cannot fly because deportees cannot waive a right to challenge their visa should have been extended.

 

[deltex1]

NOt including the fence, that Mexico does not have the money to pay for, and would not pay for, even if they did, especially since a large % of illegals are from other countries.

"Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.

So when you multiply that cost for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., that comes to $137.5 billion."


Donald Trump s Deportation Plan Would Cost 100-200 Billion - NBC News

How much would the libtard amnesty plan cost?

30 million illegals with benefits...how fucked up is that?

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

Not really, when a person applies for a temporary visa they are essentially entering into a contract to return home as agreed, just being here beyond that date is all that would be necessary to put them on a plane. Terms of the bond could stipulate that, so there would no denial of due process.

Sorry Tex, but due process requires a judicial hearing. The exception is when a deportee goes back voluntarily, or if he/she NEVER had a legal right to be here, and under present law, has only been here a short time and is apprehended near the border
Expedited removal deportations: Immigrants don't get due process | The New Republic

What I proposed was a change to the law, can't you read?

Yes, but you appear unable to comprehend that the change you proposed would be unconstitutional, because the ONLY exception to due process requiring a judicial hearing is the deportee was never legally here. Your "proposal" cannot fly because deportees cannot waive a right to challenge their visa should have been extended.

Of course they can, as part of the application, they can ask for an extension before the visa expires, if it's denied they got to go.

 

[bendog]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm for the rule of law. Original intent is a fallacy, because on abortion guns the 14th, you name it, original intent can be argued either way.

The quotes I provided form the guy that wrote the language of the 14th is in no way ambiguous, Feel free to argue otherwise, but you would be wrong.

I maybe could have been better clear (-: Possibly, it might be constitutional to not give anyone a visa unless the promised, and posted a bond, to depart when legally required to do so. But, if the deportee claimed he actually had a legal right to be here even though his visa expired, then there has to be court hearing. The legal right to be here claim could be a simple as "they said my visa got extended" to "I deserve refugee status."

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm for the rule of law. Original intent is a fallacy, because on abortion guns the 14th, you name it, original intent can be argued either way.

The quotes I provided form the guy that wrote the language of the 14th is in no way ambiguous, Feel free to argue otherwise, but you would be wrong.

I maybe could have been better clear (-: Possibly, it might be constitutional to not give anyone a visa unless the promised, and posted a bond, to depart when legally required to do so. But, if the deportee claimed he actually had a legal right to be here even though his visa expired, then there has to be court hearing. The legal right to be here claim could be a simple as "they said my visa got extended" to "I deserve refugee status."

Any more straws you want to grasp at?

 

[Vandalshandle]

NOt including the fence, that Mexico does not have the money to pay for, and would not pay for, even if they did, especially since a large % of illegals are from other countries.

"Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.

So when you multiply that cost for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., that comes to $137.5 billion."


Donald Trump s Deportation Plan Would Cost 100-200 Billion - NBC News

How much would the libtard amnesty plan cost?

30 million illegals with benefits...how fucked up is that?

Are you sure it is not 60 million illegals?