What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Cellblock2429]

and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.

The problem with that is a court appearance takes up to three years, so in the meantime, they are let loose in society and never show up for court; at least 80% of them don't. They select their favorite sanctuary city to hide in.

The left believes they have an issue there that will turn people against Trump; especially women, so they're not letting it go for anything. These protests were arranged and paid for by your usual leftist entities.

The left lies to get votes. It's like when they were talking about equal pay for equal work during DumBama's second term. They wanted to get more women voters. The problem was we already have an equal pay for equal work law. It was signed in the early 60's. But they didn't tell the folks that. We on the right had to point it out.

/----/ The way LIbtards claim women are paid less than men is by averaging out the pay scales going back 100 years. Currently women are often paid more than men but the statistics won't reflect that if you factor in the pay scales starting in 1915.

 

[Flopper]

again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.

We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.

You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.

Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.

So we become a less populated country. Why is that such a bad thing to the left? Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.

The US population in 1970 was 205 million people. That's more than a third less of what we have today. What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?

6.1% unemployment
5.6% inflation
Country was in recession
Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.

The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population. This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.

Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt.

Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled. These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.

And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it. In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

 

[Flopper]

and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.

Even after Trump's executive order and a federal judge ordering the separation to end, the government can't seem to locate all the kids. Could that be because ICE didn't bother to put id brackets on the kids? When the foster care people ask a five year old their mother's name, he says, "Mama".

The government had no real plan to handle the separation and even less to unite them. This whole thing smacks of another ill planned action from the Orange Clown.

 

[AZGAL]

YES the separating the very small tender age children was a bad idea. That mistake was due to a gap between two laws. It has been corrected. There were id bracelets and humane treatment of the children. The media is so lying and crazy so why should anyone believe that children were lost. Not likely.

 

[Flopper]

It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular. Not one of them had a problem with it either.

Um, no, nobody expected Trump to win the Popular Vote. EVERY LAST FUCKING POLL had him losing the popular vote.

View attachment 202170

I'm talking about what people on this blog were discussing.

You think people on the blogs are representative of the American voter?

 

[Flopper]

YES the separating the very small tender age children was a bad idea. That mistake was due to a gap between two laws. It has been corrected. There were id bracelets and humane treatment of the children. The media is so lying and crazy so why should anyone believe that children were lost. Not likely.

Well, if they know where the kids are and where the parents are, surely the Trump administration can figure out how to bring the two together.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular. Not one of them had a problem with it either.

Um, no, nobody expected Trump to win the Popular Vote. EVERY LAST FUCKING POLL had him losing the popular vote.

View attachment 202170

I'm talking about what people on this blog were discussing.

You think people on the blogs are representative of the American voter?

Never said that. What I said is that when it was thought (by some here) that Trump might get the popular vote and Hillary the EC, they were just fine with it.

Now that the Democrats are losing a few elections, they want to change the rules so that they can win. Trust me, if Trump got the popular vote and Hillary won, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them.

 

[Flopper]

YES the separating the very small tender age children was a bad idea. That mistake was due to a gap between two laws. It has been corrected. There were id bracelets and humane treatment of the children. The media is so lying and crazy so why should anyone believe that children were lost. Not likely.

If that's the case, then why is Lidia Karine Souza, a Brazilian applying for asylum now going thru hell trying find her son. She's completed a 40 page questionnaire, fingerprinting of her relatives in the US and still more documents and after two weeks her 9 year old son was still missing.

After getting a lawyer she learned her son was being held in a government contracted facility in Chicago, sick with Chickenpox. She has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to demand her son be immediately released.

This smacks of a Trump plan to show asylum seekers what it's in store for them if they seek asylum in the US.
Brazilian immigrant mom heads to court to get her son back

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.

So we become a less populated country. Why is that such a bad thing to the left? Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.

The US population in 1970 was 205 million people. That's more than a third less of what we have today. What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?

6.1% unemployment
5.6% inflation
Country was in recession
Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.

The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population. This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.

Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt.

Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled. These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.

And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it. In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.

The problem with that is a court appearance takes up to three years, so in the meantime, they are let loose in society and never show up for court; at least 80% of them don't. They select their favorite sanctuary city to hide in.

The left believes they have an issue there that will turn people against Trump; especially women, so they're not letting it go for anything. These protests were arranged and paid for by your usual leftist entities.

The left lies to get votes. It's like when they were talking about equal pay for equal work during DumBama's second term. They wanted to get more women voters. The problem was we already have an equal pay for equal work law. It was signed in the early 60's. But they didn't tell the folks that. We on the right had to point it out.

/----/ The way LIbtards claim women are paid less than men is by averaging out the pay scales going back 100 years. Currently women are often paid more than men but the statistics won't reflect that if you factor in the pay scales starting in 1915.

I did some research and found that yes, sometimes women get paid less than men for the same job But there are circumstances to that.

For one, women produce less. They go a little slower than men especially when it comes to packaging or lifting heavy material. Women take maternity leave, sometimes for a year or more. It's unfair to their coworkers that they come back making the same wage as them with perfect attendance records. Women are still the caretakers of the children, so when a kid gets the flu or something, the women is the one who takes off of work to nurse the child back to health. Same thing if one has a kid that gets in trouble all the time. The mother frequently has to leave work to pickup their child from school or the police station.

Employers only care about one thing, and that is profit. The worker that creates the most profit for the company is the employers favorite employee. It doesn't matter what gender, race or religion you are.

 

[AZGAL]

I do not agree with some of your post Sorry Dude... I often agree with you but parting is such sweet sorrow! This thread is about immigration.

 

[AZGAL]

SORRY Far LIBERAL DUDE- I do not agree with you either. The Brazilian, Ms. Souza is a scam artist and needs to be sent home packing. There are many places she and her son could go in mostly peaceful and prosperous Brazil!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I do not agree with some of your post Sorry Dude... I often agree with you but parting is such sweet sorrow! This thread is about immigration.

I didn't create this option, only saying what I found on the internet about it.

 

[Ame®icano]

GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds Ray .

I think I know and it's obvious when people vote. DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.

I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction. More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies. They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.

For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money. The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people. The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union. Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions. It was a money laundering scheme all along.

So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?

You're bit confused here.

 

[Flopper]

6.1% unemployment
5.6% inflation
Country was in recession
Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.

The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population. This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.

Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt.

Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled. These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.

And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it. In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

The Planned Parenthood numbers come from their annual report. Almost all the money that planned parenthood get's from the federal government goes thru medicaid. This means the service provider must submit a claim to Medicaid listing the procedure codes. Medicaid can not expend federal funds on abortion. In 15 states Medicaid will cover abortions but it has to cover it with either state funds. If state Medicaid were using federal funds for abortion it would certainly show in state audits and provider audits.

Your suggestion that Planned Parenthood swaps funds so federal funds pay for services other than abortion thus freeing up money for abortions make no sense at all. Why would they want to do that? There non-government funding (60% of revenue) can be spent on abortion or other services so there is no swap any funds.

Planned Parenthood 2014 Stats:
Patents seen 5,000,000

Abortion

• Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
• 323,999 abortions were performed in 2014, according to the organization.

Sexual education

• Planned Parenthood says it provides sex education to 1.5 million young people and adults each year.

Pregnancy prevention and birth control

• Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 579,000 unintended pregnancies per year.
• Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to the 2015 GAO report.

In 2014, Planned Parenthood saw:

• 2 milion reversible contraception patients
• 941,589 emergency contraception kits
• 3,445 vasectomies
• 718 female sterilization procedures

Pregnancy tests: 1.1 million tests done in 2014
Prenatal care: provided to 17,419 people in 2014
Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment

• Planned Parenthood says this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates.)
• 4.2 million tests and treatments provided in 2014
• This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided.

Pap smears (cervical cancer screening): 270,000 per year
Breast exams: 360,000 per year
Research: Planned Parenthood said in its 2013-14 annual report that it


Planned Parenthood: Fast facts and revealing numbers - CNN
Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?

 

[depotoo]

You tell me-

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. | HuffPost

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

 

[Flopper]

6.1% unemployment
5.6% inflation
Country was in recession
Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.

The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population. This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.

Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt.

Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled. These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.

And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it. In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your suggestion that Planned Parenthood swaps funds so federal funds pay for services other than abortion thus freeing up money for abortions make no sense at all. Why would they want to do that? There non-government funding (60% of revenue) can be spent on abortion or other services so there is no swap any funds.

It works like this: Let's say PP allocates five million dollars for breast exams, prenatal care, and birth control, much of it federal money. Then they allocate two million for abortions; money that comes from places outside of government.

Now Republicans decide to quit funding PP. So what they do now is allocate three million dollars for the services they used to provide with federal money, and use the extra two million to continue abortions.

It's simply a bait and switch game. You can't separate these funds realistically. Sure, you can do it on paper, but there is no possible way to say that taxpayer money didn't indirectly go for abortions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled. These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.

And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it. In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

 

[AZGAL]

As stated above in different words- There is no asylum for people from Brazil. Ms. Lidia Souza was just doing what many other Brazilians from her territory do- make up a fantasy about going to the United States illegally rather than relocate elsewhere to a part of Brazil that suits her life better. According to an old article, this habit of people from Valadares, Brazil has included an industry of making fake passports for some to leave and join their relatives already in the USA. No surprise that she had relatives here. She seems to be an able bodied, young, attractive woman who probably has a cell phone and she could have relocated elsewhere in Brazil:

Leaving ValadaresA Dangerous Journey for Brazil's Illegal Migrants

In spite of the upswing in their country's fortunes under President Lula da Silva, many Brazilians continue to leave their home in search of a better life in the United States. Yet Mexico's drug war represents a dangerous hurdle in the path of many illegal migrants.
By Jens Glüsing © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
October 01, 2010 04:55 PM

The Land of Opportunity

The Brazilian dream of making a better life in the colder north arose in the 1940s when the mining company Vale do Rio Doce built a railway line to the coast with US assistance. The American engineers working on the project furnished their houses in the style they knew from home. They imported fridges and stereos, and paid their maids, gardeners and cleaners in dollars.

The sons of the farmers and shopkeepers of Valadares marveled at the American Way of Life. When the Americans left, many Brazilians followed them to the US, bringing their families over a few years later. All those who returned enthused about the Land of Opportunity, in which you could earn in a single year what it would take a decade to make in Brazil.In the 1980s

hyperinflation and economic crisis persuaded hundreds of thousands of Brazilians to flee to the US. Governador Valadares became the capital of the nouveau-riche and the document forgers. In the back rooms of the city's travel agencies, counterfeiters copied passports, visas and birth certificates.-------------------------- Eventually US consulates were automatically suspicious of anyone who came from Valadares.