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

[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.

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

Exactly. I won't mind paying three bucks for a head of lettuce if it gives Americans jobs than buying a head for a buck fifty because some foreigner picked it.

 

[hunarcy]

Just pander. Why do we still have a war on drugs? He could end it by executive order. Only the national socialist right wing, prefers a War on Illegals to ending our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs, that affects, mostly US citizens.

So Barack Obama is "right-wing" in your limited little mind? Because he vehemently agrees with President Trump's policies on these criminals invading our nation.

10USC311 is also legal. Our drug war is not legal. We have a Commerce Clause not a War on Drugs clause.

So, you think the Controlled Substances Act is illegal? Or that enforcing that law is illegal? Make your case.

the general government has no police power over the several States. it Only applies in the federal districts.

LMAO! You are precious. Sorry for taking you seriously this morning. I didn't realize it was performance art for you.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, both the town and the household is better off with less money IF it comes with the same amount of goods. Those foreign remittances are sending out money without displacing any goods. Inflation, at it's core, is too many dollars chasing too few goods. Look at what homes cost in California, because of all those dollars chasing a limited amount of homes. In the midwest, fewer dollars are chasing more homes.

Now the no money argument is a clear logical fallacy, appeal to extremes.

Dollars leaving, no goods lost--fewer dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Yes, a good thing for the economy. The dollars enter Mexico, are converted to peso's. Drives up demand and therefore value of peso's verses the dollar. Increases competitiveness of American exporters. Now more peso's are in Mexico, same amount of goods. Inflation. Some Mexicans have relatives sending money, some don't. Increases social divide and rocks the community.

 

[rhodescholar]

Statement #1:

Why would they ( or you) take their American kids to a place where there is no home, no hope and no future?

Statement #2:

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.

We ARE so ******* aware of them you have no clue.

IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ME OR THE UNITED STATES to support these people. They have illegally entered the country, not even as refugees but as economic migrants. No sane human without an agenda would ever justify the support of having to provide food, clothing, shelter, free education, free healthcare, for tens of millions of poor streaming in from outside the country - it will lead to the eventual bankruptcy of the nation.

The countries from where these people are immigration from are responsible for them, and these people need to figure out how to make their native countries more functional, successful and economically sustainable - not act as parasites off the American public, who is already under enormous pressure economically to survive. It is hard enough to generate sufficient income to support one's own family in 2017, having to support many others is not acceptable.

It is long past time for the system the democraps created to increase their electability to be eradicated, and thank goodness that Trump or someone like him came along; my only disappointment is he did not come 30 years sooner.

 

[rhodescholar]

Still don't have a clue what's the reality. Why in the world they will deport themselves when there are no food, home, shelter, school...... you lucky if you have a place to take a dump. There are no such things as self deportation. Dude get real.

But but but we keep hearing from the liberals how the illegals are leaving the US in droves every week because the US economy is so tough - does that mean the leftist media and the pro-illegal alien crowd has been caught lying again?

 

[rhodescholar]

1. Why?

What does that mean? The parents were aware they were illegally trespassing into the country, and that their life here could be stopped at any time.

2. Then change the constitution retroactively.

If I had the power to do so, I would terminate the anchor baby BS going back to 1965, eliminating the citizenship for tens of millions born to illegal parents.

3.1. You are right nothing will stop them if they take their kids with them. But nobody will stop them if they leave their kids behind either.

Then the parents should be told their kids cannot remain in the US if they are under 21.

And what kind of shit parent would leave their kids to fend for themselves in a foreign country 2,000 miles away?

3.2. Who give a ****? You and me bc you will end up taking care of these kids. Which we never have to worry in the first place.

We are ALREADY ******* PAYING FOR THEM, it is clueless liberals who are trying to obfuscate/camouflage that fact. THAT is what I want to stop; I am no longer willing to pay taxes to support them.

3.3. Obviously you are thinking like an Americans. They think survivals. They came here for better life taking their kids with no certainty is not acceptable to anybody. Are you going to take your kids with no home, no school and no future to the other side when you know I will take care of your kids? Think.

So you're willing to bring 15 kids into your home to pay for them? Put your money where your mouth is, and stop expecting me the taxpayer to have to do so. If you believe that america should raise and support these kids, you can ******* forget it, not going to happen.

What I'm telling you are the reality and facts in life.

What you are offering does not occur elsewhere on earth, and as someone from another part of the planet I can assure you of that fact. All you are providing is leftist pablum nonsense that america owes these kids anything - we don't, in any way.

If you are worried about cost. Think how much will it cost to shelter 20 millions (at the minimum ) of these kids.

20 MM is ludicrous, but why the flying **** should the US taxpayer have so support any of them? A quirk /legal mis-reading by some idiot democraps claim they are citizens entitled to support, a claim I and most other rational humans worldwide do NOT.

Who will fill in those jobs they left behind? You? What will happen to their car and home loans by the millions in numbers? What happen to the banks?

LOL are you ******* kidding? Any idiotic company that lent money to an illegal deserves to lose their funds, they are ******* fools.

What happen to the enterprises they left behind like.............. home care, elderly care, convalescence home, restaurants, cleaning services, agricultural products, groceries etc etc etc that totally depends on these people? If you don't have an answer to all of these or just ignore the facts and reality. Then I feel sorry for you. Just because getting rid of illegals doesn't mean it will end your misery.

The US survived quite nicely WITHOUT massive amounts of illegals in the economy from 1775 to 1965 just fine. A lot of the income inequality derives from the existence of the illegal alien-buttressed underclass, and besides reducing my taxes, overcrowding on the highways and schools, etc, would welcome the reduction in illegal alien kids who are taking the space of americans in colleges and elsewhere.

 

[rhodescholar]

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.

Yep, that's how the country functioned for almost 200 years.

 

[Iceweasel]

You must be a delusional fool. You can't refute something and in your demented mind it becomes a lie. How pitiful.

You've got no game, don't pretend you do. Support your assertion that Russia's Communist Party backs Trump or be a lying fool. Those are your only options.

 

[JQPublic1]

You must be a delusional fool. You can't refute something and in your demented mind it becomes a lie. How pitiful.

You've got no game, don't pretend you do. Support your assertion that Russia's Communist
Party backs Trump or be a lying fool. Those are your only options.

I don't take orders from konservatives, Screw you! Go research yourself and get back with me when ya find something of import!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Yes, both the town and the household is better off with less money IF it comes with the same amount of goods. Those foreign remittances are sending out money without displacing any goods. Inflation, at it's core, is too many dollars chasing too few goods. Look at what homes cost in California, because of all those dollars chasing a limited amount of homes. In the midwest, fewer dollars are chasing more homes.

Now the no money argument is a clear logical fallacy, appeal to extremes.

Dollars leaving, no goods lost--fewer dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Yes, a good thing for the economy. The dollars enter Mexico, are converted to peso's. Drives up demand and therefore value of peso's verses the dollar. Increases competitiveness of American exporters. Now more peso's are in Mexico, same amount of goods. Inflation. Some Mexicans have relatives sending money, some don't. Increases social divide and rocks the community.

Wrong. What you're talking about is people having to pay more money for goods due to shortages which would not be the case by mass deportation. Furthermore it would have to be national for it to have any effect on inflation.

25 billion dollars is not going to have any effect on inflation because we are an economy of trillions of dollars. If you keep 25 billion dollars a year here at home, you are dividing that money by millions and millions of Americans. Even if it were to have an effect, it would be so little that it would hardly be noticeable.

Inflation is caused by widespread factors such as interest rate increases, labor costs, taxation, supply and demand. The only inflation factor would be labor costs, but again, so little it wouldn't do much of anything because it would only affect specific industries and not all.

 

[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.

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.

I wanted to get back to this. Like most conservatives, you have taken a single statement from the debate concerning the 14th amendment and proclaimed it to mean something. Here, let me drop you right into the middle of the debate,

Congressional Globe Links: U.S. Congressional Documents
Try 1866 starting at page 2890

Pretty cool. Your man Jacob Howard, his big fear, the famous gypsy invasion of Pennsylvania. Kind of like the famous Boiling Green massacre. I dropped you right in to John Conness rebuttal. He defended the citizenship rights of Chinese immigrant children, condemned the anti-chinese legislation in California, and lost his seat for his principled stand. Some pretty damn good arguments but the whole deal was settled by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

 

[Winston]

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

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.

Yes, both the town and the household is better off with less money IF it comes with the same amount of goods. Those foreign remittances are sending out money without displacing any goods. Inflation, at it's core, is too many dollars chasing too few goods. Look at what homes cost in California, because of all those dollars chasing a limited amount of homes. In the midwest, fewer dollars are chasing more homes.

Now the no money argument is a clear logical fallacy, appeal to extremes.

Dollars leaving, no goods lost--fewer dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Yes, a good thing for the economy. The dollars enter Mexico, are converted to peso's. Drives up demand and therefore value of peso's verses the dollar. Increases competitiveness of American exporters. Now more peso's are in Mexico, same amount of goods. Inflation. Some Mexicans have relatives sending money, some don't. Increases social divide and rocks the community.

Wrong. What you're talking about is people having to pay more money for goods due to shortages which would not be the case by mass deportation. Furthermore it would have to be national for it to have any effect on inflation.

25 billion dollars is not going to have any effect on inflation because we are an economy of trillions of dollars. If you keep 25 billion dollars a year here at home, you are dividing that money by millions and millions of Americans. Even if it were to have an effect, it would be so little that it would hardly be noticeable.

Inflation is caused by widespread factors such as interest rate increases, labor costs, taxation, supply and demand. The only inflation factor would be labor costs, but again, so little it wouldn't do much of anything because it would only affect specific industries and not all.

I don't know why you are attempting to claim that up is down. Inflation--too many dollars chasing too few goods. Less dollars, same goods--lower inflation. That is basic fundamental economics. And yep, receiving countries are getting hurt by those remittances. Mexico, not so bad. But in Nicaragua those remittances account for 30% of GDP, Haiti 25%, El Salvador 15%. Those economies are not doing so well.

FRB: Speech, Bernanke--Financial Access for Immigrants: The Case of Remittances--April 16, 2004

 

[danielpalos]

The filth illegals will be booted the hell out of our country, taking their crime wave, drugs, and tax refund scams with them. We'll save $7 billion a year alone just on tax refund scams says the IRS inspector general.

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Illegals have killed more American citizens than died on 911. Then there's illegals raping, assaulting, torturing, robbing American citizens. Pick a side.

Here is gun death version: 32. Daily average gun deaths. Gun Violence by the Numbers

10USC311 is also federal law. When are gun lovers going to stop being illegal to the law?

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Thank you president Trump. I saw the tear fest on TV, "he's ripping families apart". Cry me a river. How odd to leftists that the laws are for everyone and should be enforced. For me they are more than welcome to join their illegal immigrant.

If the Left is so concerned about ripping families apart, whey aren't they focusing on communicating to Immigrants seeking to come to the US the importance and benefits to them to do so "legally". On a parallel path, Liberals should work with Conservatives on streamlining Immigration and Citizenship paths.

The only reason I can see Liberals focusing on non enforcement of current immigration laws is because they don't want immigration laws. They want open borders but do not know how to build they case for it.

 

[Flash]

The filth illegals will be booted the hell out of our country, taking their crime wave, drugs, and tax refund scams with them. We'll save $7 billion a year alone just on tax refund scams says the IRS inspector general.

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Illegals have killed more American citizens than died on 911. Then there's illegals raping, assaulting, torturing, robbing American citizens. Pick a side.

Here is gun death version: 32. Daily average gun deaths. Gun Violence by the Numbers

10USC311 is also federal law. When are gun lovers going to stop being illegal to the law?

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Most of those gun deaths are in the crime ridden Democrat controlled big city shitholes with strict gun control laws. Libtard failure.

 

[danielpalos]

The filth illegals will be booted the hell out of our country, taking their crime wave, drugs, and tax refund scams with them. We'll save $7 billion a year alone just on tax refund scams says the IRS inspector general.

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Illegals have killed more American citizens than died on 911. Then there's illegals raping, assaulting, torturing, robbing American citizens. Pick a side.

Here is gun death version: 32. Daily average gun deaths. Gun Violence by the Numbers

10USC311 is also federal law. When are gun lovers going to stop being illegal to the law?

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Most of those gun deaths are in the crime ridden Democrat controlled big city shitholes with strict gun control laws. Libtard failure.

So what; gun deaths count. 10USC311 is also, federal law. Why be illegal to the law, while blaming less fortunate illegals.

 

[rat pack]

The filth illegals will be booted the hell out of our country, taking their crime wave, drugs, and tax refund scams with them. We'll save $7 billion a year alone just on tax refund scams says the IRS inspector general.

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Illegals have killed more American citizens than died on 911. Then there's illegals raping, assaulting, torturing, robbing American citizens. Pick a side.

Here is gun death version: 32. Daily average gun deaths. Gun Violence by the Numbers

10USC311 is also federal law. When are gun lovers going to stop being illegal to the law?

How much is our war on illegals costing? Audit the War on Illegals, not the Fed.

Most of those gun deaths are in the crime ridden Democrat controlled big city shitholes with strict gun control laws. Libtard failure.

New York City reports for January are the lowest in decades. Seems some liberal sewers are safer than middle America.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Steve Miller just admitted that this "raid" was already planned before Trump was even elected. Apparently it is an annual function of our immigration system.

So BOTH sides need to stop blaming/crediting Trump.

 

[rat pack]

Steve Miller just admitted that this "raid" was already planned before Trump was even elected. Apparently it is an annual function of our immigration system.

So BOTH sides need to stop blaming/crediting Trump.

The GOP has already taken credit for the raids. I just heard on the news how it's been in the works since Obama.

Just like they credit Trump for the rise in the stock market (or at least the last 1,000 points on the DOW) while ignoring the other 11,000 points it went up before election day.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Steve Miller just admitted that this "raid" was already planned before Trump was even elected. Apparently it is an annual function of our immigration system.

So BOTH sides need to stop blaming/crediting Trump.

The GOP has already taken credit for the raids. I just heard on the news how it's been in the works since Obama.

Just like they credit Trump for the rise in the stock market (or at least the last 1,000 points on the DOW) while ignoring the other 11,000 points it went up before election day.

I am the GOP and I said from the beginning this wasn't Trump's doing.

The flip side of that coin is all the bleeding heart leftists who are trying to blame this on Trump.

The train has left the tracks & no one seems to care.