Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do not care. The medicine is expensive. Democrats should have thought about this before having mass open borders and allowing anyone to walk in if all they said was 'asylum'. Yes, it will cost a lot of money to fix the cesspool left by the Democrats.

It will be offset though by the tax savings we will get since our schools and hospitals will no longer be overrun. They will finally stop increasing our property taxes to keep paying for more and more schools and teachers who can teach ESL.

You also cannot place a price on our safety and national security. It was so disturbing when they reported how many ISIS affiliates had infiltrated in through our porous borders allowed by Biden, Harris, and the Dems.

Look, being hard-line about this is going to produce heartbreaking stories and photos. It will be a bitter pill. But you wouldn't have to go put people and families in detention centers if they never came here illegally or by gaming the asylum system in the first place. We are an autonomous country that is allowed to exist and have borders. Once we show spine and back bone about being tough on immigration, guess what? People will get the message to not even come and they won't take stupid risks to even try. Moral hazard. In the end, we will save many more lives and suffering by removing all incentives to coming here illegally in the first place. By allowing people in who are caught and released or who can stay for years by gaming the asylum system, you just keep encouraging more and more to take stupid risks and ruin our entire control over immigration. That's a far worse option that inadvertently causes much more suffering.

The US is a country of immigrants. Your ancestors came here illegally too. This land did not belong to them. It belonged to the millions of native Americans who were already living here.

The govt was not providing housing and medical expenses to them.

The government wasn’t using taxpayer dollars to provide housing, food, healthcare, and for illegal immigrants.

And the government isn't using taxpayer dollars to provide food and shelter for undocumented immigrants now. Stop being ridiculous.

Who is paying for their hotels? Food? Medical care?

Not US taxpayer dollars. Stop spreading lies. It does no one any good.

Emergency Medicaid
Illegal immigrants and their U.S. children are eligible for emergency Medicaid services.

School nutrition
All children, regardless of immigration status, are eligible for free or reduced school lunch.

WIC
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is available to all who qualify, regardless of immigration status.

Emergency shelter
Illegal immigrants may have short-term access to shelters and soup kitchens in emergency situations.

Public health
Illegal immigrants are not restricted from accessing public health programs that provide immunizations and treatment of communicable disease symptoms.

In-kind services
Illegal immigrants may have access to other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety, such as medical, public health, and mental health services

The total cost of providing benefits to illegal immigrants is unknown because: Illegal aliens are not required to reveal their eligibility to receive certain benefits.

Officials are often prohibited from inquiring about the status of illegal alien

All Undocumented Immigrants Now Qualify For Medi-Cal In California. The new year rung in a host of new laws in California, including the expanded Medicaid coverage, nursing home disclosures, mental health measures, LGBTQ+ protections, and more.

Over half of the states have used state funds to provide TANF, Medicaid, and/or CHIP to immigrants who are subject to the five-year bar on federally funded services, or to a broader group of immigrants. A growing number of states and counties provide health coverage to children, young adults, or pregnant persons regardless of their immigration status. Several states offer or will offer health coverage to older adults regardless of their immigration status. And five states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington) and the District of Columbia offer or will offer public or private health coverage with state subsidies to all otherwise eligible immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

Where federal matching funds are available, forty-four states have chosen to cover immigrant children and/or pregnant people, or to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status. In 2009, when Congress first reauthorized the CHIP program, states were granted an option to provide federally funded Medicaid and CHIP to “lawfully residing” children and/or pregnant persons regardless of their date of entry into the U.S. As of May 2024, thirty-eight states plus the District of Columbia have opted to take advantage of this federal funding for immigrant health care coverage, which became available on April 1, 2009.

Twenty-two states use or will use federal funds to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status, under an option enabling states to provide prenatal services through CHIP. Under this option, the pregnant person’s fetus is technically the recipient of CHIP-funded services. This approach potentially limits the scope of services available to the pregnant person to those directly related to the fetus’s health. However, several states have used another CHIP option or state funds to provide 12 months of post-partum care, regardless of status.

The District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont use state or local funds to provide prenatal care regardless of the pregnant person’s immigration status.

https://www.nilc.org/resources/overview-immeligfedprograms/

Tax payers fund every program listed.

So this is bad, but spending hundred of millions to build detention facilities where US taxpayers will feed, clothes and houses millions of undocumented workers while there claims are adjudicated is good? Including those who are otherwise providing a societal benefit? And then there is the cost of hiring people to find them and transport them. There is the cost to re-renting their residences with no notice. The cost to re-hiring with no notice. All of this will be farmed out to contractors at an enormous cost, and they will have no incentive to do it quickly if it longer contracts mean more money in their pockets.

This post isn’t about whether undocumented workers should stay in the US. The post is about how to remove them if we are going that route.

Yes, it’s good. We are removing people who are not legally in the US. We are not responsible for them. We should know who is in our country for the safety of our country and our citizens. We are responsible for the safety of our citizens.

We should use our taxpayers dollars to remove illegal immigrants, secure the border, and protect and provide help for American citizens.

If dcum posters have to employ more expensive nannies, landscapers, housekeepers, and general contractors, so be it.

Again, the point of the post isn’t whether to remove them, it’s how. We are using our taxpayer dollars to do it either way.

So why is spending years to build facilities and likely hundreds of millions of dollars to round up and fully care for undocumented immigrants the better alternative? Especially when the cost will go to contractors that charge enormous overhead and have no incentive to expedite the process?

Stopping the inward flow completely is more important and less complicated than rounding up those that are already here. Detain and deport any criminals but otherwise, prioritize securing the border.

So why didn't Democrats do that?

Every Democrat politician wanted open borders.

Democrats have been making it harder and harder to cross the border since 2000. Along with Republicans. It's been a bipartisan effort. But, by all means, lie about something you know nothing about.

Now tell us about the stretch of time from Jan. 2021 - June 2024 when illegal immigration was at historic, unprecedented highs because Biden reversed all of Trump's border EOs. He assured Americans "the border was secure" and there was "no border crisis. Until he realized it was an election year and he'd really better get on it and stop lying.
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the way Trump is, they can seize the assets of illegals to pay for this cost.

"Illegals" pay a TON of taxes, so those coffers will take a hit. Those who actually pay attention to history know that screwing with agriculture never leads to good outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:It’s more expensive to have illegal immigrants living illegally in our country. It’s worth the investment to deport them and secure the border. We can’t take care of American citizens, why are we letting people from other countries come to our country against our laws, and taking care of them?

We have the money to deport illegal immigrants and secure our border.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what also will be expensive? The price of food and labor if illegal immigrants are deported. Good luck with getting cheap produce or paying your housekeeper and nanny on the cheap. And you better start saving if you want anything done on your house.

Hope.

Half of the illegals are not working many hours a week.

And sorry, no one anywhere is paying an illiterate, uneducated unskilled illegal in migrant to care for a baby, toddler or child or drive them around or housekeep their homes.
They don’t even know how to operate an oven properly. And forget the thermostats even in the car. Or any instructions. The lost in translations of having someone with limited English proficiency is NOT worth it. What do you think they’d get paid for that anyhow?

Incompetent is incompetent. They grew up in dirt floor shack not even knowing what road rules were, how insurance or preventative care works, how any developed country appliance works.

And you think families are going to turn over their vehicles, lawn gear, kitchens and children to them?!!?

lol

Wake up

Actually, they do.

Also, a good number of the illegal border crossers are Chinese. But, I guess those are the “good” immigrants and you don’t mind them.

DP. It is true that a LOT of liberal families employ nannies who hardly speak a word of English and can't drive. I can't imagine turning my children over to someone like that, regardless of what country they're from. The PP's description was spot on.

As for Chinese border crossers - they're illegal immigrants too. Not sure where you're getting the "good immigrants" description from. Illegal is illegal.

Ah yes it’s the liberals hiring all the illegals. Not the small business owners and farmers who voted for Trump. Nope, def. not!

It's certainly not ALL small business owners and farmers, as people like you love to claim. You simply can't deny how many liberals employ illegal immigrants to care for their children, clean their homes, landscape their yards, etc. No doubt, that's why you're so upset at the idea of deportation. Who will raise your kids and clean your toilets??

So you don’t want people making generalizations about employing illegals but you are making generalizations about liberals? And why are you equating rich with liberal? You think all those people living in McMansions are liberal? The truth is most restaurants do employ undocumented workers. As do many farmers. And construction companies. Keep telling yourself it’s just the libs who will be impacted. You are delulu.

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the way Trump is, they can seize the assets of illegals to pay for this cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what also will be expensive? The price of food and labor if illegal immigrants are deported. Good luck with getting cheap produce or paying your housekeeper and nanny on the cheap. And you better start saving if you want anything done on your house.

Hope.

Half of the illegals are not working many hours a week.

And sorry, no one anywhere is paying an illiterate, uneducated unskilled illegal in migrant to care for a baby, toddler or child or drive them around or housekeep their homes.
They don’t even know how to operate an oven properly. And forget the thermostats even in the car. Or any instructions. The lost in translations of having someone with limited English proficiency is NOT worth it. What do you think they’d get paid for that anyhow?

Incompetent is incompetent. They grew up in dirt floor shack not even knowing what road rules were, how insurance or preventative care works, how any developed country appliance works.

And you think families are going to turn over their vehicles, lawn gear, kitchens and children to them?!!?

lol

Wake up

Actually, they do.

Also, a good number of the illegal border crossers are Chinese. But, I guess those are the “good” immigrants and you don’t mind them.

DP. It is true that a LOT of liberal families employ nannies who hardly speak a word of English and can't drive. I can't imagine turning my children over to someone like that, regardless of what country they're from. The PP's description was spot on.

As for Chinese border crossers - they're illegal immigrants too. Not sure where you're getting the "good immigrants" description from. Illegal is illegal.

Ah yes it’s the liberals hiring all the illegals. Not the small business owners and farmers who voted for Trump. Nope, def. not!

It's certainly not ALL small business owners and farmers, as people like you love to claim. You simply can't deny how many liberals employ illegal immigrants to care for their children, clean their homes, landscape their yards, etc. No doubt, that's why you're so upset at the idea of deportation. Who will raise your kids and clean your toilets??

Anonymous wrote:This article outlines the Trump Administration plans for mass deportation. While in part relying on a “remain in Mexico” policy, it also requires the construction of an untold number of new detention facilities.

https://apple.news/Azc_QxwuoTymMEiX8wszEtA

First, this is going to take years to construct, and will line government contractors pockets with the overhead. Second, US citizens will be responsible for housing, food and transportation costs during the time period for adjudication. It seems like this set up is aimed to further privatize the deportation process at an enormous expense to American taxpayers.

Why is this more viable than having immigrants work while awaiting adjudication? Increase tracking capabilities and require employers of immigrants to maintain information on them. It will cost a fraction of the money used to construct and maintain these facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread confirms my beliefs that Trump voters are angry and miserable people.

Says the democrat posting repeatedly that Americans are greedy and bad with money because they wear NFL jerseys, have (possibly) a pool, wear $100 shoes, and like to attend local sporting events.

Meanwhile you have Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce urging people to vote democrat.

I bet they both have pools.

+100
It's interesting that even after bragging about Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce "helping" the Harris campaign, it turned out no one really cared. Democrats are the most shallow, vapid people. They actually think the quality of celebrities will determine how people vote.
DP

Shallow, like the guy who can’t get his toupee wet and wears makeup? And reportedly a girdle?

No. Shallow, like the people who actually think having Megan Thee Stallion twerk at a rally somehow makes them the better party to vote for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do not care. The medicine is expensive. Democrats should have thought about this before having mass open borders and allowing anyone to walk in if all they said was 'asylum'. Yes, it will cost a lot of money to fix the cesspool left by the Democrats.

It will be offset though by the tax savings we will get since our schools and hospitals will no longer be overrun. They will finally stop increasing our property taxes to keep paying for more and more schools and teachers who can teach ESL.

You also cannot place a price on our safety and national security. It was so disturbing when they reported how many ISIS affiliates had infiltrated in through our porous borders allowed by Biden, Harris, and the Dems.

Look, being hard-line about this is going to produce heartbreaking stories and photos. It will be a bitter pill. But you wouldn't have to go put people and families in detention centers if they never came here illegally or by gaming the asylum system in the first place. We are an autonomous country that is allowed to exist and have borders. Once we show spine and back bone about being tough on immigration, guess what? People will get the message to not even come and they won't take stupid risks to even try. Moral hazard. In the end, we will save many more lives and suffering by removing all incentives to coming here illegally in the first place. By allowing people in who are caught and released or who can stay for years by gaming the asylum system, you just keep encouraging more and more to take stupid risks and ruin our entire control over immigration. That's a far worse option that inadvertently causes much more suffering.

The US is a country of immigrants. Your ancestors came here illegally too. This land did not belong to them. It belonged to the millions of native Americans who were already living here.

The govt was not providing housing and medical expenses to them.

The government wasn’t using taxpayer dollars to provide housing, food, healthcare, and for illegal immigrants.

And the government isn't using taxpayer dollars to provide food and shelter for undocumented immigrants now. Stop being ridiculous.

Who is paying for their hotels? Food? Medical care?

Not US taxpayer dollars. Stop spreading lies. It does no one any good.

Emergency Medicaid
Illegal immigrants and their U.S. children are eligible for emergency Medicaid services.

School nutrition
All children, regardless of immigration status, are eligible for free or reduced school lunch.

WIC
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is available to all who qualify, regardless of immigration status.

Emergency shelter
Illegal immigrants may have short-term access to shelters and soup kitchens in emergency situations.

Public health
Illegal immigrants are not restricted from accessing public health programs that provide immunizations and treatment of communicable disease symptoms.

In-kind services
Illegal immigrants may have access to other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety, such as medical, public health, and mental health services

The total cost of providing benefits to illegal immigrants is unknown because: Illegal aliens are not required to reveal their eligibility to receive certain benefits.

Officials are often prohibited from inquiring about the status of illegal alien

All Undocumented Immigrants Now Qualify For Medi-Cal In California. The new year rung in a host of new laws in California, including the expanded Medicaid coverage, nursing home disclosures, mental health measures, LGBTQ+ protections, and more.

Over half of the states have used state funds to provide TANF, Medicaid, and/or CHIP to immigrants who are subject to the five-year bar on federally funded services, or to a broader group of immigrants. A growing number of states and counties provide health coverage to children, young adults, or pregnant persons regardless of their immigration status. Several states offer or will offer health coverage to older adults regardless of their immigration status. And five states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington) and the District of Columbia offer or will offer public or private health coverage with state subsidies to all otherwise eligible immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

Where federal matching funds are available, forty-four states have chosen to cover immigrant children and/or pregnant people, or to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status. In 2009, when Congress first reauthorized the CHIP program, states were granted an option to provide federally funded Medicaid and CHIP to “lawfully residing” children and/or pregnant persons regardless of their date of entry into the U.S. As of May 2024, thirty-eight states plus the District of Columbia have opted to take advantage of this federal funding for immigrant health care coverage, which became available on April 1, 2009.

Twenty-two states use or will use federal funds to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status, under an option enabling states to provide prenatal services through CHIP. Under this option, the pregnant person’s fetus is technically the recipient of CHIP-funded services. This approach potentially limits the scope of services available to the pregnant person to those directly related to the fetus’s health. However, several states have used another CHIP option or state funds to provide 12 months of post-partum care, regardless of status.

The District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont use state or local funds to provide prenatal care regardless of the pregnant person’s immigration status.

https://www.nilc.org/resources/overview-immeligfedprograms/

Tax payers fund every program listed.

So this is bad, but spending hundred of millions to build detention facilities where US taxpayers will feed, clothes and houses millions of undocumented workers while there claims are adjudicated is good? Including those who are otherwise providing a societal benefit? And then there is the cost of hiring people to find them and transport them. There is the cost to re-renting their residences with no notice. The cost to re-hiring with no notice. All of this will be farmed out to contractors at an enormous cost, and they will have no incentive to do it quickly if it longer contracts mean more money in their pockets.

This post isn’t about whether undocumented workers should stay in the US. The post is about how to remove them if we are going that route.

Yes, it’s good. We are removing people who are not legally in the US. We are not responsible for them. We should know who is in our country for the safety of our country and our citizens. We are responsible for the safety of our citizens.

We should use our taxpayers dollars to remove illegal immigrants, secure the border, and protect and provide help for American citizens.

If dcum posters have to employ more expensive nannies, landscapers, housekeepers, and general contractors, so be it.

Again, the point of the post isn’t whether to remove them, it’s how. We are using our taxpayer dollars to do it either way.

So why is spending years to build facilities and likely hundreds of millions of dollars to round up and fully care for undocumented immigrants the better alternative? Especially when the cost will go to contractors that charge enormous overhead and have no incentive to expedite the process?

Stopping the inward flow completely is more important and less complicated than rounding up those that are already here. Detain and deport any criminals but otherwise, prioritize securing the border.

So why didn't Democrats do that?

Every Democrat politician wanted open borders.

Democrats have been making it harder and harder to cross the border since 2000. Along with Republicans. It's been a bipartisan effort. But, by all means, lie about something you know nothing about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread confirms my beliefs that Trump voters are angry and miserable people.

Says the democrat posting repeatedly that Americans are greedy and bad with money because they wear NFL jerseys, have (possibly) a pool, wear $100 shoes, and like to attend local sporting events.

Meanwhile you have Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce urging people to vote democrat.

I bet they both have pools.

+100
It's interesting that even after bragging about Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce "helping" the Harris campaign, it turned out no one really cared. Democrats are the most shallow, vapid people. They actually think the quality of celebrities will determine how people vote.
DP

Shallow, like the guy who can’t get his toupee wet and wears makeup? And reportedly a girdle?