Government has brought 290,000 Illegal Immigrants to USA since April

[Mr. Friscus]

The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States.

The 290,000 illegals — so far — are exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to get temporary permits to stay in the United States.

Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

 

[Boltlady]

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

While I'm no longer a democrat (used to be some years back), I have a theory. It's all part of the rush to turn us into the NAU (North American Union). We're supposed to be relinquishing our sovereignty soon. Completely crashing our economy is part of it and this will certainly help with that.

 

[middleview]

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

Did you read the law Bush signed in 2008? It provided the loopholes that allow minors to apply for delayed action and gives them up to two years before they are deported.

 

[Arkady]

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

What's going on here is similar to what happened in the Clinton years. Plunging unemployment is attracting workers to America, and since we do little to punish employers who fail to insist on the required documentation, that is going to include plenty of undocumented workers. If we ever get serious about imposing harsh penalties on these employers who look to beat their competitors by paying less than legal workers require, the illegal jobs will dry up and people will gradually become less and less likely to come here illegally (or to overstay their visas). But we don't get serious about it, because the very wealthy like the status quo. For them, it's the best of both worlds -- the presence of a lot of undocumented workers drives down labor costs and helps to keep their legal employees insecure and compliant, while the fact those undocumented workers are here illegally cuts down on the social spending, saving the employers tax money relative to what they'd pay to support the same number of immigrants with legal status.

 

[justoffal]

What's going on here is similar to what happened in the Clinton years. Plunging unemployment is attracting workers to America, and since we do little to punish employers who fail to insist on the required documentation, that is going to include plenty of undocumented workers. If we ever get serious about imposing harsh penalties on these employers who look to beat their competitors by paying less than legal workers require, the illegal jobs will dry up and people will gradually become less and less likely to come here illegally (or to overstay their visas). But we don't get serious about it, because the very wealthy like the status quo. For them, it's the best of both worlds -- the presence of a lot of undocumented workers drives down labor costs and helps to keep their legal employees insecure and compliant, while the fact those undocumented workers are here illegally cuts down on the social spending, saving the employers tax money relative to what they'd pay to support the same number of immigrants with legal status.

Yes indeed.....the corporate bottom line ...... more often than not it is lurking there in the background behind many an unexplained and peculiar event.

The truth is often far more simple than we realize.

JO

 

[justoffal]

What's going on here is similar to what happened in the Clinton years. Plunging unemployment is attracting workers to America, and since we do little to punish employers who fail to insist on the required documentation, that is going to include plenty of undocumented workers. If we ever get serious about imposing harsh penalties on these employers who look to beat their competitors by paying less than legal workers require, the illegal jobs will dry up and people will gradually become less and less likely to come here illegally (or to overstay their visas). But we don't get serious about it, because the very wealthy like the status quo. For them, it's the best of both worlds -- the presence of a lot of undocumented workers drives down labor costs and helps to keep their legal employees insecure and compliant, while the fact those undocumented workers are here illegally cuts down on the social spending, saving the employers tax money relative to what they'd pay to support the same number of immigrants with legal status.

One quibble.... Unemployment is not actually plunging. Now this is an important disticntion....what you are witnessing is the redisctribution of pay check resources from higher paying jobs to sub-par, non living wage incomes. In effect creating a third world economy. That is why it is a total joke ot refer to employment/unemployment numbers. They simply do not apply in that sense.

It could work if the cost of living also followed suit but we all know that it is not.
We are producing throw away citizens at the behest of the corporate megaplex and that megaplex is owned, operated and nurtured by both of the Major policial parties albeit from slightly different angles....both are complicit nonetheless.

JO

 

[as seen on tv]

in a web article yesterday, someone pointed out that we could have sent each one back on an airplane flight for 1% of the cost we're spending to feed, clothe, house and "process" them pending a future decision.

 

[Always Right]

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

I am not a democrat. But under international law immigrants, aliens whatever you want to call them, cannot be forced to go back to their nation if they have legitimate asylum or refugee status. The events recently in central america fit this bill.

 

[IndependentinWis]

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

It is simple, when Bush was president a law was passed that made it more difficult to just deport unaccompanied children back to where they came. The idea was that they had to have a hearing to make sure that they weren't being sent back to a country where they might be killed or exploited. So each of these children now have to have a lawyer and a hearing. That is why so many are still in this country rather than being deported. So, the question arises, where do we keep the children before they have their hearing? Also what do we do with those who have had a hearing and we can't send them back or they are likely to be killed or exploited? I think the answer is simple, send them to live with their relatives living in this country prior to their hearing and if need be, after they have been granted the right to stay. Or do you want us to build places for all of them to stay during this time?

 

[Always Right]

It is simple, when Bush was president a law was passed that made it more difficult to just deport unaccompanied children back to where they came. The idea was that they had to have a hearing to make sure that they weren't being sent back to a country where they might be killed or exploited. So each of these children now have to have a lawyer and a hearing. That is why so many are still in this country rather than being deported. So, the question arises, where do we keep the children before they have their hearing? Also what do we do with those who have had a hearing and we can't send them back or they are likely to be killed or exploited? I think the answer is simple, send them to live with their relatives living in this country prior to their hearing and if need be, after they have been granted the right to stay. Or do you want us to build places for all of them to stay during this time?

Fabulous post.

I do think you are painting America as a little to nice in this picture. But great post.

Let us not forget that the United States has and still is supporting dictators in that region that rob it and murder its citizens there. Said dictators are a massive reason for the political and economic situation there that make people say [Unwelcome language removed] it I am crossing the border.

CHickens are coming home to roost.

 

[ITALIA]

in a web article yesterday, someone pointed out that we could have sent each one back on an airplane flight for 1% of the cost we're spending to feed, clothe, house and "process" them pending a future decision.

Which would be a breaking of a law.

 

[Always Right]

Which would be a breaking of a law.

which is also like sending children to a death squad.

Well, wouldn't be our first time doing that in central AMerica.

 

[Arkady]

One quibble.... Unemployment is not actually plunging. Now this is an important disticntion....what you are witnessing is the redisctribution of pay check resources from higher paying jobs to sub-par, non living wage incomes. In effect creating a third world economy. That is why it is a total joke ot refer to employment/unemployment numbers. They simply do not apply in that sense.

It could work if the cost of living also followed suit but we all know that it is not.
We are producing throw away citizens at the behest of the corporate megaplex and that megaplex is owned, operated and nurtured by both of the Major policial parties albeit from slightly different angles....both are complicit nonetheless.

JO

Unemployment is, demonstrably, declining.

As for the idea that high-end jobs are being replaced with low-end jobs, I don't think that's true, in light of the data. The BLS keeps a quarterly data series of "Median usual weekly earnings in constant (1982-84) dollars". It bounces up and down a lot from quarter to quarter, but the big trend has been for it to be fairly steady since 2000. Weekly wages rose pretty unmistakably in the late Clinton era (from 313 in 1996 to 334 in 2000, but since then they've been up and down within a pretty narrow range (generally between 330 and 340). Right now the figure is 339. So, I think the job expansion has been fairly proportional -- some new low-end jobs, some new high-end ones, with the median changed very little.

We'll have a better feel when the next Census household and family income numbers come out, but there's a long delay in those coming out, so the BLS wage data is better for figuring out what's going on at the moment.

 

[justoffal]

Unemployment is, demonstrably, declining.

As for the idea that high-end jobs are being replaced with low-end jobs, I don't think that's true, in light of the data. The BLS keeps a quarterly data series of "Median usual weekly earnings in constant (1982-84) dollars". It bounces up and down a lot from quarter to quarter, but the big trend has been for it to be fairly steady since 2000. Weekly wages rose pretty unmistakably in the late Clinton era (from 313 in 1996 to 334 in 2000, but since then they've been up and down within a pretty narrow range (generally between 330 and 340). Right now the figure is 339. So, I think the job expansion has been fairly proportional -- some new low-end jobs, some new high-end ones, with the median changed very little.

We'll have a better feel when the next Census household and family income numbers come out, but there's a long delay in those coming out, so the BLS wage data is better for figuring out what's going on at the moment.

Ark....that chart is just another piece of useless propaganda that measures nothing real.

What do you mean " I don' think that's true ".... OF COURSE IT"S TRUE. ! How can you be so precise with everything else and then just take a guess, hail mary, shot in the dark .....at something that is so basic? This is not joke here buddy. You take one job that pays 100k plus bennies and then create five jobs thaat pay 20K with no bennies and somehow you see that as increasing employment????? Come on Ark......even you know that's total Bullshit. And you also know that's how that chart was constructed......please don't tell me you feel otherwise.

Ill give you one caveat..... the creation of five low wage jobs at the expense of one high wage job certainly does make it appear to those in South America living on ten dollars a day that there is prosperity here in the US....little do they realize that all they are seeing id the proliferation of economic rot disguised as prosperity. The shift in the wealth of this nation is an historical catastrope that is now fully underway.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/b...low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0

 

[Arkady]

Ark....that chart is just another piece of useless propaganda that measures nothing real.

What do you mean " I don' think that's true ".... OF COURSE IT"S TRUE. ! How can you be so precise with everything else and then just take a guess, hail mary, shot in the dark .....at something that is so basic? This is not joke here buddy. You take one job that pays 100k plus bennies and then create five jobs thaat pay 20K with no bennies and somehow you see that as increasing employment????? Come on Ark......even you know that's total Bullshit. And you also know that's how that chart was constructed......please don't tell me you feel otherwise.

Ill give you one caveat..... the creation of five low wage jobs at the expense of one high wage job certainly does make it appear to those in South America living on ten dollars a day that there is prosperity here in the US....little do they realize that all they are seeing id the proliferation of economic rot disguised as prosperity. The shift in the wealth of this nation is an historical catastrope that is now fully underway.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/b...low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0

The median weekly wage stats and employment stats are as I presented them. The NYT story deals with hourly wages, which might explain the difference. It's possible that hourly wages have declined but full-time work has replaced part-time work, resulting in a rise in weekly wages.

 

[ITALIA]

Ark....that chart is just another piece of useless propaganda that measures nothing real.

What do you mean " I don' think that's true ".... OF COURSE IT"S TRUE. ! How can you be so precise with everything else and then just take a guess, hail mary, shot in the dark .....at something that is so basic? This is not joke here buddy. You take one job that pays 100k plus bennies and then create five jobs thaat pay 20K with no bennies and somehow you see that as increasing employment????? Come on Ark......even you know that's total Bullshit. And you also know that's how that chart was constructed......please don't tell me you feel otherwise.

Ill give you one caveat..... the creation of five low wage jobs at the expense of one high wage job certainly does make it appear to those in South America living on ten dollars a day that there is prosperity here in the US....little do they realize that all they are seeing id the proliferation of economic rot disguised as prosperity. The shift in the wealth of this nation is an historical catastrope that is now fully underway.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/b...low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0

You're exaggerating with the one $100,000 replaced with five $20,000 jobs. If that were true then it would show in the average weekly incomes which as was shown it doesn't. The problem is wages aren't increasing as they should in the lower and middle class jobs. You don't want to admit it but jobs are being created both good paying jobs and lesser paying jobs but jobs non the less. Stop being glass half empty and face the truth. Are you against raising the minimum wage? My guess is you are.

 

[BitterPill]

Can anyone explain what is going on here?

It looks like you accuse our government of conspiring to transport undocumented workers without any proof.

We have the government transporting illegal immigrants throughout the country.. why? Why are we not enforcing our own laws? We have a process for getting into the United States, and the people who follow this process are waiting, looking like fools as the Administration seems to be stockpiling America full of illegals.

The media is playing along here too:

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

I've said it many times, I'm all for humanitarian relief.. but we are DEAD BROKE.

Any Democrats have any theories here?

Some sort of advanced ODS.

 

[Alinvegas]

Did you read the law Bush signed in 2008? It provided the loopholes that allow minors to apply for delayed action and gives them up to two years before they are deported.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[middleview]

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

So that is all you got? You cannot refute that it is the law. You cannot disagree that it was a law signed by Bush....so you got nuthin....