Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Tony Sedgwick steers his red Nissan pickup to the edge of his vast Arizona ranch in the Sonoran Desert, unlocks a cattle gate, and continues rattling south along a dirt road until he reaches the U.S.-Mexico border. He climbs out of his truck and follows the undulating line of towering vertical steel beams as the ground slopes down into a dry riverbed. Here, the beams give way to crisscrossing shoulder-height iron bars. The white-haired cowboy removes his hat, hikes up his Wranglers, scissors over one iron bar, and ducks under the next. "I mean, I'm a 66-year-old man, and I have no trouble going through this fence," he gripes. "You can see the senselessness of this."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


It's a long article that gives a very good overview of where things are now regarding the border with Mexico.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-04-10 08:38 AM | Reply

No matter what you build the Gulf of Mexico will still exist, ladders will still work and 40% of immigrants come through our airports and then overstay visas.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-10 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Start jailing business owners who hire undocumented immigrants. When the jobs dry up, so will the immigrants.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-10 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It's not important to trump voters that the wall function as a physical barrier. It's more important to them that it serves as a big middle finger to brown people that says "No more -------! America is meant to be white!"

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-10 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Start jailing business owners who hire undocumented immigrants. When the jobs dry up, so will the immigrants.

#3 | POSTED BY 726

No. Better plan: Give them more tax cuts!
-GOP

#5 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-10 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Start jailing business owners who hire undocumented immigrants. When the jobs dry up, so will the immigrants.

#3 | Posted by 726

We can't do that. Business owners are usually white. We can't expect them to resist the temptation to illegally hire illegally cheap labor, and white people aren't supposed to go to jail. We must punish the dark skinned people for seducing our wonderful white businessmen with their sexy low wages.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-10 01:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

Start jailing business owners who hire undocumented immigrants...

#3 | POSTED BY 726 AT 2018-04-10 09:51 AM

I'd be all for that ONLY if ALL government services were cut off for illegal immigrants as well.

Cutting off the jobs means the only reason anyone would try to come here illegally would be to mooch off the welfare state.

It has to be a two-pronged approach.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-10 02:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Or...come here LEGALLY

#8 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-04-10 02:56 PM | Reply

"I'd be all for that ONLY if ALL government services were cut off for illegal immigrants as well."

So when an illegal immigrant gets arrrsted... wait we would have to use goverment services to arrest them and hold them.

So when an illegal immigrant gets a trial... scratch that a trial is a government service too.

So your plan is to just make illegals untouchable by the government?

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd be all for that ONLY if ALL government services were cut off for illegal immigrants as well.

#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What are you talking about?

As of the 1996 welfare reform bill, the following applies to eligibility for federal and state funded welfare programs:

1) Legal immigrants are barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years after entering the country and barred from SSI and food stamps until citizenship. They are also barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years.
2) Benefits available to immigrants include school lunch and breakfast programs, immunizations, emergency medical services, disaster relief, and others programs that are necessary to protect life and safety as identified by the attorney general, regardless of immigration status.
3) Illegal immigrants are barred from the following federal public benefits: grants, contracts, loans, licenses, retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post secondary education, food assistance, and unemployment benefits. States are barred from providing state or locally funded benefits to illegal immigrants unless a state law is enacted granting such authority.

They aren't exactly swelling the welfare rolls.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-10 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ I am with Jeff on this one. In California illegal immigrants work under the table for cash and have lots of kids. Since they are born here each kid is a US citizen, and as such qualifies for food stamps, medical coverage, and cash benefits. Since the parents are not on the case they are able to add every new child to the claim and increase their payout.

I honestly believe that we need a new amendment to update the constitution regarding citizenship. Something to change it from absolutely anyone born here being a "natural born citizen" to requiring at least one parent be a US citizen when the child is born. That would certainly cut down on the number of people that come from all over the world to deliver their baby here.

#11 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-10 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They aren't exactly swelling the welfare rolls.

#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Wrong, in California I know first hand that they are. I cannot divulge specific information, however I can assure you that their children legally born in the US do certainly qualify and are massively swelling the welfare roles in the San Joaquin valley.

#12 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-10 03:10 PM | Reply

There is a wall on the 38th parallel in Korea. It is much more sophisticated than we would need on our southern border. It can detect a tunnel being built very deep. It can pin point an individual moving anywhere in the DMZ and it can tell if they are carrying a weapon. It has a barrier higher than Trump's wall. Maybe we should get the Koreans to build ours.

#13 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-04-10 03:24 PM | Reply

#12 | Posted by justagirl_idaho, Let's not forget the cost of illegal aliens beyond welfare. Health care, go to any ER and see who is waiting on treatment. Schools, insurance rates, crime and incarceration of felons, driving the wadges of the working poor down, and much more.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-04-10 03:29 PM | Reply

There is a wall on the 38th parallel in Korea. It is much more sophisticated than we would need on our southern border. It can detect a tunnel being built very deep. It can pin point an individual moving anywhere in the DMZ and it can tell if they are carrying a weapon. It has a barrier higher than Trump's wall. Maybe we should get the Koreans to build ours.

#13 | Posted by docnjo

And it's about 2% as long as the one we need.

And people can't just fly over it or drive through the gate like you can here.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-10 03:31 PM | Reply

lyricstranslate.com

The Dreamer

As the child, when she crossed the border
To reunite with her father
Who had traveled north to support her
So many years before

She left half her family behind her
And with a crucifix to remind her
She pledged her future to this land
And does the best that she can do

Where do the dreams go?
Born of faith and illusion
Where there is no road or footprints
Only desires that whisper to your heart

Eagles fly on columns of the wind
Fish swim the currents of the sea
People cross oceans and deserts, and rivers
Carrying nothing more than the dream of what life could be

Today she got the order
They're taking steps to deport her
To send her back over the border
And tear her away from the life she has made

We don't see half the people around us
Well we imagine enemies that surround us
And the walls that we've built between us
Keep us prisoners of our fears

Where do the dreams go
Born of faith and illusion
Where there is no road or footprints
Only desires that whisper to your heart
Only desires that whisper to your heart

www.youtube.com

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-10 03:33 PM | Reply

Besides which.....

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages in the U.S.

time.com

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-10 03:35 PM | Reply

I think the wall is a terrible idea. The INS estimates that 35 - 40% come by air and overstay visas. There are 23 countries (one is China) that do not cooperate with deportations. Just over half of the illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico. The wall will not do nearly what Trump has led his base to believe.

#18 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-10 03:39 PM | Reply

They aren't exactly swelling the welfare rolls.
#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Wrong, in California I know first hand that they are. I cannot divulge specific information, however I can assure you that their children legally born in the US do certainly qualify and are massively swelling the welfare roles in the San Joaquin valley.

#12 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

...You literally just proved the point. Their CHILDREN born here are CITIZENS.

And more importantly by far, that's because the San Joaquin Valley has a HUGE immigrant population that is very poor compared to the remainder of California and the rest of the country. Seven of the ten cities with the highest percentage of immigrants living in concentrated poverty in California are in California's San Joaquin Valley. And yet San Joaquin Valley has a agriculture output bigger than any of the other 49 states just on its own.

So those immigrants seem to be paying for themselves quite well.

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-10 03:46 PM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You are being intentionally obtuse in order to call your apple and orange. Illegal immigrants giving birth to multiple children in order to milk the government for money should be stopped, the same as legal citizens were stopped from doing so. The fact that there happens to be a loophole in the law does not make it right.

#20 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-10 04:08 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by Sycophant, go ahead and add the cost of incarceration of about 25% of California's prison population, just like Texas Arizona and New Mexico, that sort of washed out ant benefits these illegals bring. Your ignorance in what constitutes an agricultural product is screwed up. The San Joaquin valley is a center for fresh vegetables. Not fruit, not cotton, not beef, not nuts, not pork, not grain or any thing else. Besides, most of my fresh vegetables come from South America or Mexico, otherwise I grow them.

#21 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-04-10 04:08 PM | Reply

"Prepared by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the report looked at immigration trends over the past 20 years to assess the economic impact of the now more than 40 million people living in the United States who were born in other countries. It found that immigration has an overall positive long-term impact on the economy.

It's true that first generation immigrants can take more money from state, local and federal governments than native-born citizens, and that especially on a state and local level, it can be costly to educate the children of immigrants.

But the report found that as adults, children of immigrants in the next generation are huge boosters of the economy, contributing more to the government in taxes than either their first-generation parents or native-born citizens."

from the article in 17

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-10 04:13 PM | Reply

"Illegal immigrants giving birth to multiple children in order to milk the government for money should be stopped, the same as legal citizens were stopped from doing so. The fact that there happens to be a loophole in the law does not make it right."

Serious question: how were legal citizens stopped, and why doesn't whatever law/ruling that stopped legal citizens apply to illegal immigrants?

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 04:14 PM | Reply

"The fact that there happens to be a loophole in the law does not make it right."

I guess what I'm asking is: what is the loophole, and why hasn't it been closed?

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 04:16 PM | Reply

Serious question: how were legal citizens stopped, and why doesn't whatever law/ruling that stopped legal citizens apply to illegal immigrants?

#23 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

In California if you are on Welfare any point within 10 months of the birth of your child the new child is not eligible for cash aid until you have been completely off aid for at least a full year. Since undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive aid they are not on the case, therefore the 10 month rule has no effect on them. Every consecutive child is added to the claim, increasing the amount they receive.

#25 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-10 04:30 PM | Reply

"I honestly believe that we need a new amendment to update the constitution regarding citizenship. Something to change it from absolutely anyone born here being a "natural born citizen" to requiring at least one parent be a US citizen when the child is born."

What problem do you think this would address?

I see you trying to save money, nickel and dime style, by denying services to non-citizens. But what about the opportunity cost when a Chinese doctor marries an Indian engineer and their children born here aren't American?

Also, do we tax these immigrants like citizens, just deny them services based on citizenship? That is basically a caste system.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 06:27 PM | Reply

"go ahead and add the cost of incarceration of about 25% of California's prison population"

Oh, so 25% of your Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group stick holdings valuation?

You profit from illegal immigration, yet you also want to stop it.

Care to explain why you think profitizing illegal immigration will help stop illegal immigration?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 06:34 PM | Reply

I love it how pieces like this are being written; dead serious rebuttals to what I can't imagine is that serious of a policy decision and is little more than red meat for the base.

Behind closed doors, the reaction to not getting funding is likely "meh" by the majority of people in the WH.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-10 07:26 PM | Reply

"In California if you are on Welfare any point within 10 months of the birth of your child the new child is not eligible for cash aid until you have been completely off aid for at least a full year. Since undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive aid they are not on the case, therefore the 10 month rule has no effect on them. Every consecutive child is added to the claim, increasing the amount they receive."

TY That is indeed some loophole. Has anyone tried to fix it?

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 07:43 PM | Reply

I'm not really seeing a loophole there since the Immigrant parent wouldn't be eligible for welfare unlike the citizen parent

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 07:46 PM | Reply

"dead serious rebuttals to what I can't imagine is that serious of a policy decision"

Well most everybody tried taking Trump lightly how'd that work out?

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 07:50 PM | Reply

The loophole is that the child of a US citizen isn't eligible for welfare unless his parent meets certain criteria unlike the child of an illegal immigrant whose parent doesn't have to meet any criteria in order for that child to qualify for the benefit. At least that's how I'm reading JustaGirl's post.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 07:52 PM | Reply

Child of US citizen:

"In California if you are on Welfare any point within 10 months of the birth of your child the new child is not eligible for cash aid until you have been completely off aid for at least a full year."

Child of illegal immigrant:

"Since undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive aid they are not on the case, therefore the 10 month rule has no effect on them. Every consecutive child is added to the claim, increasing the amount they receive."

If JustaGirl is right, the system basically incentivizes illegal immigrants to keep having children in order to increase the welfare benefit the family will receive while at the same time disincentivizing US citizens from doing the same thing.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 07:55 PM | Reply

"The loophole is that the child of a US citizen isn't eligible for welfare unless his parent meets certain criteria unlike the child of an illegal immigrant whose parent doesn't have to meet any criteria in order for that child to qualify for the benefit."

In one case, the parent gets the benefit, which makes the child ineligible.
In the other case, the child gets the benefit because the parent is never eligible.
It's not really a loophole.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 08:18 PM | Reply

"If JustaGirl is right, the system basically incentivizes illegal immigrants to keep having children in order to increase the welfare benefit the family will receive while at the same time disincentivizing US citizens from doing the same thing."

Yeah, well seeing as study after study shows that children of immigrants tend to outperform children of Americans, I'd say California has their priorities aligned with what's best for California and America.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 08:19 PM | Reply

"In one case, the parent gets the benefit, which makes the child ineligible.
In the other case, the child gets the benefit because the parent is never eligible.
It's not really a loophole."

It is a loophole for the child of the US citizen who can't get the benefit if his/her parent makes him/her ineligible, but the child of the illegal immigrant gets the benefit despite of his/her parent's ineligibility.

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 08:24 PM | Reply

But in both cases, there's only one eligible beneficiary.
It's a double standard, but it's not a loophole.
You might as well be saying the citizen uses the citizenship loophole to be eligible for benefits in the first place.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 08:54 PM | Reply

Double standard, loophole. I think the children of both types of parents should be eligible, regardless of their parents in/eligibility, since the children in both cases are themselves US citizens. Right?

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 09:02 PM | Reply

"I think the children of both types of parents should be eligible, regardless of their parents in/eligibility, since the children in both cases are themselves US citizens. Right?"

The backdrop of this discussion is Justagirl saying the children of non-citizens should not automatically be citizens, and you agreeing with her. So, when that happens, what you wrote above won't go down that way any more.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-10 09:06 PM | Reply

"The backdrop of this discussion is Justagirl saying the children of non-citizens should not automatically be citizens, and you agreeing with her. So, when that happens, what you wrote above won't go down that way any more."

I didn't read the whole thread. Or even most of it. My interest was piqued when I read this comment on the recent comments page:

"Illegal immigrants giving birth to multiple children in order to milk the government for money should be stopped, the same as legal citizens were stopped from doing so. The fact that there happens to be a loophole in the law does not make it right."

and I asked about it. I agreed with her that there is a loophole that gives the children of illegal immigrants an advantage over the children of US citizens. Nowhere did I agree with her that children of born in the US shouldn't be considered US citizens, regardless of who their parents are. My point is not the same as hers: I think that children of both types of parents should get the same benefit as they are all US citizens.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 09:56 PM | Reply

"My point is not the same as hers: I think that children of both types of parents should get the same benefit as they are all US citizens."

I don't think my point is the same as yours either as you seem to think it is good to give children of illegal immigrants benefits even if children of US citizens can't get them:

"Yeah, well seeing as study after study shows that children of immigrants tend to outperform children of Americans, I'd say California has their priorities aligned with what's best for California and America."

Why pit the needs of the children, who are all US citizens, against each other?

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-10 10:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Care to explain why you think profitizing illegal immigration will help stop illegal immigration?

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

He doesn't care; it's only the profits that matter.

#42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-04-10 11:25 PM | Reply

"I don't think my point is the same as yours either as you seem to think it is good to give children of illegal immigrants benefits even if children of US citizens can't get them"

I wouldn't say good, but the loophole is not really a thing I'm concerned about. I don't know enough about the policy being discussed to have an informed opinion of its intent or effect. But regardless of impact it seems like it would be pretty hard to actually close this loophole because of all the immigration implications, which is a whole other department's job.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 01:32 AM | Reply

"Why pit the needs of the children, who are all US citizens, against each other?"

Their needs aren't being pitted against each other.
We treat immigrants and citizens differently on a few issues, this is one where arguably immigrants come out ahead.
Sort of like prisoners get a right to health care, you and I don't get that.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 01:34 AM | Reply

Without reading the article or the thread I'm going to predict that it's a unanimous and we're all against this wasteful, ineffective and humiliating performance.

aaaaaaand go...

Representative Will Hurd, a Republican whose district encompasses 800 miles of the Texas border, says sensor technology has come so far and gotten so cheap that the border should be blanketed with cameras, radar, and fiber-optic cable. "That is not a Star Trek scenario," he says. "That's something we should be able to do today."

Yet for all its promise, surveillance technology has become a Bermuda Triangle for border security. The government has devoted a half-century and billions of dollars to creating a virtual wall, but political leaders, America's biggest companies, and laboratories filled with rocket scientists have failed to deliver one that works.
..
"We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws," President Clinton said to a standing ovation in his 1995 State of the Union address. "We must do more to stop them." Agents got night scopes to see in the dark, seismic sensors, and an electronic fingerprinting system.
..
"The Tucson morgue recorded an average of 18 migration-related deaths per year in the 1990s, while in the 2000s it saw almost 200 per year." Next, Congress plowed almost a half-billion dollars into a series of ever more ambitious surveillance programs, such as the America's Shield Initiative and the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, known by the unfortunate acronym ISIS. These efforts were plagued by technical problems. Some cameras couldn't pan and hold steady, while insects chewed through components. About 90 percent of ground sensor alerts were false alarms.
..
The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the DHS, which had been formed shortly after the attacks, to erect 700 miles of double-layered fencing with room for patrol cars to drive between. (Congress later scaled back the plan.) And Bush introduced the Secure Border Initiative, a multibillion-dollar program to create a bespoke virtual fence of 1,800 towers equipped with cameras and sensors lining the entire 6,000 miles of borders with Mexico and Canada, which would relay data to a central location in Washington, D.C. "We're launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history," Bush said in an Oval Office address.

Boeing Co. won the contract, promising to detect 95 percent of illegal border crossings. Almost immediately, the project fell behind schedule and went over budget. Worse, it barely worked -- sensors confused raindrops or leaves blown in the wind for people, an official from the U.S. Government Accountability Office told 60 Minutes.
..
More than $1 billion later, in 2011, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano canceled the program. The technology ended up covering only 53 miles along the Arizona border. The government is decommissioning the towers and in the meantime has paid roughly an additional $200 million to maintain the program. Boeing has received almost 40 percent of that.
..

Wow. Decades of incompetence points out that the biggest threat to national security appears to be the national security apparatus itself. It's inconceivable, but maybe the administration were in on 9/11 too? And the Oklahoma City Bombing! And JFK! MLK! Aliens?! ---- PROBE?!

It's obviously a border that must serve national security interests as do these "foiled attempts" delineated above.

The thread winds it's way to child welfare and I'm lost.

#45 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-04-11 02:34 AM | Reply

Illegal immigrants giving birth to multiple children in order to milk the government for money should be stopped, the same as legal citizens were stopped from doing so. The fact that there happens to be a loophole in the law does not make it right.

#20 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-04-10 04:08 PM | FLAG:

That "loophole" you are referring to is called the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

en.m.wikipedia.org

#46 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-04-11 04:13 AM | Reply

But in both cases, there's only one eligible beneficiary.
#37 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Wrong again Snoofy. That is only true if the immigrant only has 1 child, once they have 2 or more they are receiving more than the US citizen parent/child is being denied.

#47 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-11 09:04 AM | Reply

#46 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

My opinion regarding the loophole is not based on wanting children born in the US to only be granted automatic citizenship when at least one parent is a citizen. The loophole has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. It is a byproduct of how the rules were written for aid. Instead of basing the ability to add a new child to a claim on whether the parent is themselves on aid, they should have said you just cant add any new child to an existing claim, and enforced it by linking it to a parent name and address whether the parent is on the claim or not. I am fully in support of legal immigration. I dont care where you come from, I would just appreciate that you use the front door and dont cut others in line.

#48 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-11 09:16 AM | Reply

I'd be all for that ONLY if ALL government services were cut off for illegal immigrants as well.

#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Another right wing myth.

What government benefits do they get?

Social security? No.
Medicare? No.
Food stamps? No.
Section 8 housing? No.
Medicaid? No.
CHiP? No.
ACA? No.
TANF? No.

#49 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-11 10:32 AM | Reply

I'd be all for that ONLY if ALL government services were cut off for illegal immigrants as well.

#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

So you are OK with business owners breaking the law because of some right wing meme that illegal immigrants are enjoying the good life here?

#50 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-11 10:33 AM | Reply

"Wrong again Snoofy. That is only true if the immigrant only has 1 child, once they have 2 or more they are receiving more than the US citizen parent/child is being denied."

Okay, so let's get back to the part where you want to make it so when the immigrant has a child, the child isn't a citizen.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 01:25 PM | Reply

As in, "That would certainly cut down on the number of people that come from all over the world to deliver their baby here."

Why do you want to cut down the number of non-citizens that have their baby here? You want to do this to save a few bucks on the welfare benefits? But it's been shown that babies born here from foreigners tend to out-perform babies born to citizens. So the economics you seem to be arguing for, are contradicted by the economic trajectory those kids of immigrants are likely to follow in life.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 01:34 PM | Reply

"I can assure you that their children legally born in the US do certainly qualify and are massively swelling the welfare roles in the San Joaquin valley.
#12 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO"

Great.
Then assure me this is a real and significant drain on the welfare rolls by putting a dollar figure on the cost.
Also convince me taking the money away wouldn't simply shift the burden to other programs.
Otherwise, this just sounds like racist garbage you heard from your AM radio.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 01:43 PM | Reply

Okay, so let's get back to the part where you want to make it so when the immigrant has a child, the child isn't a citizen.

#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I would like to take a page from Germany on this. They are granted birth citizenship if the mother or father is a citizen or has a permanent resident status (must have been a resident for like 8 or 9 yrs prior to birth of the child in this circumstance - you can look that up if you want I am going by memory). They also make it easier to become a German citizen. As I said I am a huge supporter of legal immigration. The way we are currently allowing things to be done has actually encouraged foreigners to travel just to give birth. It has been a few years ago now, but I had read about maternity trips for expectant mothers from China. These included flight and accommodations in a resort complete with birthing facility.

Would you rather we had completely open borders and it was a free for all? That doesn't seem safe at all.

#54 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-11 01:56 PM | Reply

"The way we are currently allowing things to be done has actually encouraged foreigners to travel just to give birth"

You haven't demonstrated how this is harmful.
Are you even going to try?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 01:58 PM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No, I am not going to continue with you Snoofy. I have seen the detriment to California. My household moved to be closer to my husband's family, but I still visit my side of the family back there and it is only getting worse. This is not a race war, it is not specifically a Hispanic problem. The wall wont fix it. Only creating an environment where it is not worth the risk will correct our problem. That means making citizenship a little stricter, not hiring undocumented workers, etc.

#56 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-11 02:09 PM | Reply

If JustaGirl is right, the system basically incentivizes illegal immigrants to keep having children in order to increase the welfare benefit the family will receive while at the same time disincentivizing US citizens from doing the same thing.

#33 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-04-10 07:55 PM | REPLY |

The welfare rolls do not show that to be enough of an incentive to make it happen.

Only 7% of welfare recipients have more than 3 children at home. More than 50% of families had just one child.

Only 1.3% of TANF families had their cases closed and benefits stopped because they reached the federal time limits in place.

31% of Americans who qualify as a high income earner, or a salary above $100k per year, have received the benefits of a poverty program at least once.

At 62.9 percent, the largest share of people participating in TANF participated between one and 12 months.

Source: US Census Bureau
www.census.gov

#57 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-04-11 02:29 PM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 Thanks for that information Hatter. Is that for just California, or the full US? I tend to believe that is for the full US, because here in Idaho it is nearly non existent, welfare gives you next to nothing, but in Cali you get alot. If I averaged them together it would look a lot better than what I have seen first hand of the san joaquin valley in California.

#58 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-11 02:50 PM | Reply

It's a money pit, but hey, it makes the alt-right racists and bigots feel better about themselves.....

#59 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-04-11 05:02 PM | Reply

but in Cali you get alot.

Cali actually is nowhere near the best state to be on welfare.

they cut people off sooner than most

knowledgecenter.csg.org

#60 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-04-11 08:30 PM | Reply

"The wall wont fix it. Only creating an environment where it is not worth the risk will correct our problem. That means making citizenship a little stricter, not hiring undocumented workers, etc."

What if, instead, we brought back good paying manufacturing jobs for the loved ones of Donald Trump, you know, the poorly educated. Those are the people who suffered the most from outsourcing manufacturing, we need to bring back their jobs. And please, don't say we can't, we can, the rest of us might have to pay a little more for consumer goods but then we wouldn't be giving those same people welfare.

#61 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 09:11 AM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY DANNI

I would be all for that. We need to make it harder/less profitable to send our jobs overseas.

#62 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-04-12 09:45 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort