Illegals will be voting in the 2016 election

Loading

illegals flip bird

Illegals will be voting in the 2016 election. You can bet on it, and it all began in 1993.

In 1993 Bill Clinton and democrats passed what is known as the Motor Voter law.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), popularly known as The Motor Voter Act, is a legislation that required state governments to allow registration when a qualifying voter applied for or renewed their drivers license or applied for social services. This legislation forced state governments to make the voter registration process easier by providing uniform registration services through drivers’ license registration centers, disability centers, schools, libraries, and mail-in registration.

And pay attention to this:

The NVRA allows the Department of Justice to bring civil actions in federal court to enforce its requirements. The Act also gives the responsibility to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to provide States with guidance on the Act, to develop a national mail voter registration form, and to compile reports on the effectiveness of the Act.

That’s going to be important later.

Yesterday the Washington Times reports an alleged “loophole” in Obama’s amnesty program will allow illegals to vote:

President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.

While stressing that it remains illegal for noncitizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives.

Anyone registering to vote attests that he or she is a citizen, but Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives often aren’t able to give due attention to that part, and so illegal immigrants will still get through.

The Obama sycophants weighed in:

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress, accused Republicans of an effort at voter suppression.

“The president’s executive order gives immigrants the right to stay — immigrants who have been here for years, immigrants who have been working hard and whose labor we have needed,” Ms. Norton said. “The Republicans may want to go down in history as the party who tried once again 100 years later to nullify the right to vote. Well, I am here to say they shall not succeed.”

And from a Massachusetts democrat:

Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, said he doubted illegal immigrants would risk running afoul of the law — which could get them deported — just to be an insignificant part of an election.

5-6 million illegals voting is not insignificant. Only four states require proof of citizenship before someone registers to vote:

And even in those states, the federal government offers voter registration cards that don’t require proof of citizenship, giving determined illegal immigrants a way to circumvent checks.

Lynch’s argument that illegals would not risk running afoul of the law because it might get them deported is as asinine as it is hollow.

Obama not only is not deporting anyone any more, he is releasing illegal alien criminals to the streets of America. Voting fraud is a federal offense but any action on such fraud would require action by the Attorney General. We all know where that will go- absolutely nowhere. There is no deterrent to illegals committing any voter fraud.

This administration has granted illegal aliens more rights and privileges than American citizens have, including being able to collect back tax credits without having to have paid any taxes. Biden says illegals are “already Americans.”

And Americans have a right to vote, don’t they?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[I]llegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms ….

Stiff penalties?
We don’t pay no stinking stiff penalties!
Why would anyone think illegals will observe ANY laws at all?
They are already criminals.
Having been given rewards for breaking laws only makes them more likely to break even more laws.

Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, said he doubted illegal immigrants would risk running afoul of the law — which could get them deported — just to be an insignificant part of an election.

Maybe this dumbass should be notified that entering the country illegally is “running afoul of the law” and enough to get someone deported. I am aware they rely heavily on their constituents (Gruber’s Goobers) be be reliably stupid, but do these dolts have any inkling that other people are not so willfully ignorant?

Oh…stop with the bullshit you dumbfuck.

Annex Mexico.

@SouthernRoots: yeah right. why would we want all of the diseases still running rampant, people who will break the law at the drop of the hat, won’t learn English, believe stealing is their right and are a blight on our country. I used to feel differently, but illegals get more than any average American citizen could dream of getting. Case in point. illegals are going to get FREE social security where I had to work over 46 years and PAID into the system only to be threatened time and time again that there may be NO social security benefits when I can get it, ENOUGH. I am sick and tired of illegals. They bring NOTHING to this country.

@Jessica:

Jessica’s right. Bacteria like her have already won.

No they won’t, and no they didn’t.

The number of voter fraud cases has never been demonstrated to be high enough even to be statistically significant. “Fixing the problem,” however, has almost certainly deprived enormous numbers of people who have a legitimate right to vote of an opportunity to do so.

This article appeared last August in the Washington Post:

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

I’m sure people will enjoy the following excerpt:

Second, the court said that ID laws can help stop fraud. It then cited an example of recent fraud … that ID laws aren’t designed to stop. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including “registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn’t live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials,” according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin’s ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.

@Greg:

LOL…because Talking Points Memo is SOOOOOOO reliable and credible…..

@Greg:

The number of voter fraud cases [prosecuted] has never been demonstrated to be high enough even to be statistically significant.

It is not the number of vote fraud cases that the left argues is statistically insignificant, it is the number of actual prosecutions they argue. Vote fraud cases are generally turned over to local district attorneys who have limited resources to go after the frauds.

“Fixing the problem,” Demanding photo I.D. in order to pay by check at grocers, however, has almost certainly deprived enormous numbers of people who have a legitimate right to vote purchase groceries of an opportunity to do so.

We could apply your logic to almost anything; car theft, rape, etc., when applied to the number of people in the United States.

@retire05, #9:

Voter fraud is not prosecuted because there’s been no money to do it? They seem to find enough money to prosecute regularly for all manner of far more trivial offences.

Republicans have been beating the bushes for examples of voter fraud. They’re sure not turning up much, given the epidemic of voter fraud that they claim to exist. What they have are anecdotal reports that get endless play in the right wing media.

@Greg:

So your [liberal] contention is that because it is not rampant (like in the millions) those voters who have been disenfranchised due to voter fraud are just not all that important to you? Why should the number matter? Do we now have to use a benchmark of frequency before we try to discourage criminal activity?

I thought you lefties were big on equal rights. Well, we all have an equal right to have our vote count, and not have it voided out by an illegal voter. Do you deny that?

Why should the number matter?

The numbers do matter.

Republicans are making it difficult or impossible for a very large number of legitimate voters to cast their ballot, in order to prevent a number of cases of voter fraud that’s so tiny it’s statistically irrelevant.

Their ulterior motive is apparent to anyone who isn’t a complete idiot. It’s probably apparent to you, but there’s no way you would ever admit it.

@Greg: Well, yes they did and yes they will.

Illegal immigrants voting sways elections
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/24/study-non-citizens-are-voting-in-federal-elections-and-probably-tipped-at-least-one-senate-race-to-democrats/

Illegal immigrants encouraged to vote by Democrats
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6966

And what difference does the numbers that vote matter? Every vote by an illegal immigrant negates a vote by a conservative citizen. You cry-baby liberals pretended to be worried about “disenfranchised voters” as you opposed positive voter ID yet you don’t mind illegal immigrants disenfranchising citizens, as long as they are conservative citizens.

Republicans are making it difficult or impossible for a very large number of legitimate voters to cast their ballot, in order to prevent a number of cases of voter fraud that’s so tiny it’s statistically irrelevant.

In many areas (right here in Texas, for instance) the photo ID was put to a test in 2014. You know how many people have claimed to have been denied their opportunity to vote due to voter ID? Well, yeah, you probably do.

Zero. Nada. None. We see here in this story WHY you liberals fought voter ID so fiercely.

@enchanted: Why worry about ‘diseases run rampant’ when loony anti-vaxxers are doing that for us?

@Greg: The GOP are masters of voter fraud, disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.

@Bill, #13:

Hot Air, indeed.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

It might be that 32,800 and 55,400 are reasonably large samples, but they’re samples of the non-immigrant population. Non-citizen respondents for the same years are a mere 339 and 489. The sample of non-citizen respondents is only around 1 percent of the total sample for each year.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.

So we’re talking about 14 percent of 1 percent who may have filed voters registration applications at some point, or 0.014 of the total sample.

Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted.

Some? Now we’re getting ridiculous. They aren’t even specifying a number they claim reported having voted. Anybody can complete a registration. There’s absolutely no evidence that the vast majority of improper registrations ever translate into subsequent votes. But let’s just forget that critical point. What they do is jump directly to a complete bullshit statement:

Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

How the hell does that sort of extrapolation work? They’ve never specified a number of aliens from the ridiculously meager sample who state that they voted to begin with. This argument is like a sleigh of hand maneuver being attempted by someone with uncontrollable hand tremors. It’s embarrassing. A guess is exactly what it is, and there’s no reason whatsoever to believe it’s even a remotely accurate one.

@Jessica:
If they were Obama would have never won re-election.
Looks like we have another lemming here.

@Greg:

No they won’t, and no they didn’t.

Perhaps. The bigger picture is that it shouldn’t even be a factor. There should be no amnesty without a bill that is signed into law.
You and the rest of those on the left seem to think it’s a good idea for a president to circumvent the legislative process and the Constitution to move your agenda forward. I just wonder if you will be as happy to see this continue as a precedent when a republican is in the White House. Something tells me you won’t.

@Jessica:

Why worry about ‘diseases run rampant’ when loony anti-vaxxers are doing that for us?

Like Obama and Hillary? And much of Hollywood (well, until something happens, like an outbreak, then they “evolve” and blame the right)?

@Greg: So, as long as it isn’t tens of thousands (which cannot be proved either way, but these reports indicate there IS a problem), you are OK with illegal immigrants illegally voting? That’s really nice. Laws don’t matter much as long as the left gets the benefit, do they?

You can only identify the illegal immigrants that voted by the voting illegal immigrants that confess; just like the total number of illegal immigrants, the extent of the problem is unknown because they are UNDOCUMENTED.

Now, you give illegal immigrants DL’s and SS#’s and the door is swung wide open which, of course, is the entire reason for unlimited, uncontrolled, encouraged and subsidized illegal immigration, isn’t it, Greg?

@Aqua, #18:

Has anyone actually been granted amnesty?

The actual situation is that the logic of Obama’s enforcement priorities parallels the intentions of proposed legislation that has never made it through Congress. While the people who opposed the legislation undoubtedly find this very annoying, the logic of prioritizing enforcement isn’t faulty simply because that parallel exists. Prioritizing enforcement doesn’t actually change anyone’s status.

If a person happens to be an undocumented alien in a category that isn’t being afforded some measure of temporary immunity from sudden deportation—if, for example, you’re an unattached undocumented male with no visible means of support and an arrest record, who again lands in jail—your likelihood of deportation just got higher.

@Bill, #19:

So, as long as it isn’t tens of thousands (which cannot be proved either way, but these reports indicate there IS a problem), you are OK with illegal immigrants illegally voting?

I’m not OK with it. One wrong is still a wrong. However, a “cure” that does more damage than the illness itself can’t really be viewed as a cure at all. If several million legitimate voters are for all practical purposed disenfranchised in response to a statistically insignificant number of cases of voter fraud, what’s actually going on?

@Greg:
Not yet. As soon as an illegal is given a work permit and a social security card, then amnesty will have been granted. And that is the plan, which is the basis of the article above. A social security card and a driver’s license can subvert the voting process. I don’t know that that will be the case, but the Obama’s program is providing the possibilities.
You can equivocate the president’s actions anyway you want. If a republican were doing this you and the left would have apoplexy. You came undone with signing statements, a practice that dates back to Monroe.

@Greg:

So you are arguing that the numbers of prosecuted voter fraud cases are insignificant, yet you have no numbers of those allegedly deprived of a legitimate right to vote? Are you really arguing that verifiable, confirmed convictions of what is essentially vote stealing are insignificant, but that unverified, made up and unconfirmable allegations of voter suppression override all concerns about the integrity of voting?

Is it more important to have a valid photo ID to cash a check, use a credit card, get on a plane, or purchase alcohol than it is to participate in the election of people who make the rules that control our lives?

Are you arguing that Nelson Mandela was racist for imposing a valid photo ID requirement to vote in South Africa?

@Greg:

The actual situation is that the logic of Obama’s enforcement priorities parallels the intentions of proposed legislation that has never made it through Congress.

So your excuse that that while the President takes an oath to uphold the law, because the law that never was parallels what he wanted, it is OK for him to uphold the law that never existed?
Does cognitive dissonance run rampant in your gene pool?

While the people who opposed the legislation undoubtedly find this very annoying, the logic of prioritizing enforcement isn’t faulty simply because that parallel exists. Prioritizing enforcement doesn’t actually change anyone’s status.

So now we are operating on not only penumbras, but parallels? Ummm, can you direct me to the part of the U.S. Constitution that addresses the President’s authority to act on parallels if the law doesn’t support his actions?

@retire05, #24:

So your excuse that that while the President takes an oath to uphold the law, because the law that never was parallels what he wanted, it is OK for him to uphold the law that never existed?

You seem to have trouble grasping the difference between an excuse and an explanation. You also don’t seem to know what the term cognitive dissonance means. I won’t bother to explain, because it doesn’t seem relevant.

Ummm, can you direct me to the part of the U.S. Constitution that addresses the President’s authority to act on parallels if the law doesn’t support his actions?

A president has the Constitutional authority to administer the laws that Congress passes. In doing so, a president has to work within the limitations of available money and resources—limitations that are also set by Congress. When you’ve got in excess of 11 million undocumented aliens that the law says should be removed, but nowhere near the money and resources that would be necessary to achieve that, you obviously have to prioritize enforcement. The only reasonable approach is to devote your limited money and resources to removing the people whose continuing presence represents the least benefit and the greatest potential threat. Taking any other approach would be stupid.

Obama has defined those parameters in a stated enforcement policy. Of course the parameters parallel legislation that had part of that same objective in mind. The enforcement policy and the legislation express the same underlying logic.

Republicans want some different logic? Fine. Pass legislation that expresses that intention and budget however much money is required to see it done. They have majorities in both Houses of Congress. Nobody is stopping them from doing their jobs.

@Greg:

Has anyone actually been granted amnesty?

Absolutely. Direction has gone out not to deport or arrest illegal immigrants. A complaint line has been set up for
illegal immigrants to complain if they are not granted their amnesty or treated “fairly”. Let that soak in for a moment.

Illegal immigrants can complain about immigration workers that do not grant them illegal residency.

The actual situation is that the logic of Obama’s enforcement priorities parallels the intentions of proposed legislation that has never made it through Congress. While the people who opposed the legislation undoubtedly find this very annoying, the logic of prioritizing enforcement isn’t faulty simply because that parallel exists. Prioritizing enforcement doesn’t actually change anyone’s status.

Well, they you have it. Congress makes the laws. If Congress has not made the law, it is NOT law and Obama is not allowed, by the Constitution, to enact it. If Congress has not passed it into a law, this tells Obama one thing: the representatives of the PEOPLE have not deemed it a law. Obama, the representative of lawlessness, may find this annoying, but he, being the brilliant Constitutional scholar he supposedly is, should understand why the Constitution is in place and how it is supposed to work.

If several million legitimate voters are for all practical purposed disenfranchised in response to a statistically insignificant number of cases of voter fraud, what’s actually going on?

You are aware that there has been a national election in which many states have instituted photo ID and there have been none of the millions of disenfranchised voters, aren’t you? By all observation, the scare mongering the Democrats have promoted has been about as accurate as their predictions of lower health care costs or the disappearance of polar ice. Voter ID harms no one but those wishing to vote illegitimately. That would be the left.

@Jessica: Any real proof of your claim there? Thought so, just crapping our your mouth!! Greg has the same issue!!

“Amnesty” might be another good word to look up. The word has a definition. Prioritizing the enforcement of laws when the money and resources are not available to allow for universal enforcement isn’t it.

How one prioritizes when prioritization is necessary is part of the Executive Branch’s administrative function. Administration is what the Constitution charges the Executive Branch with. If Congress wishes to micro-manage that process, they need to pass legislation specifying how it should be done.

@Greg:

A president has the Constitutional authority to administer the laws that Congress passes.

A president has the Constitutional responsibility, and DUTY, to administer the laws that Congress passes. But as it has come very apparent, Obama only does what he wants. He lobbied for, and got passed, Obamacare. Once he signed that bill he was duty bound, by the Constitution, to administer the law as written. How many times has he arbitrarily change the dictates of the ACA to benefit him and his political party? And please, don’t insult our intelligence by trying to spin how Obama has administered the ACA according to the letter of the law itself.

The only reasonable approach is to devote your limited money and resources to removing the people whose continuing presence represents the least benefit and the greatest potential threat.

Well, then, here’s a thought for you, Gullible Greggie; every city and state in the nation receives federal funding for a myriad of purposes. The President, and the Congress, could withhold federal funding for any city or state that refuses to cooperate with our immigration laws? No social benefits, no driver’s license, no benefits of any kind. Then sit back and watch how quickly the mayor of Austin orders his PD to start handing illegals over to DHS. Watch how quickly Jerry Brown changes his tune about how illegals are oh, so very welcome in his state.

Take those savings and dump them into Border Patrol and the DHS, specifically, for the purpose of deportations.

The draw is not jobs, Gullible Greggie. The draw is the social welfare programs that illegals are advised, while still in their native countries and by their Consulates, that they are going to get once they enter our nation illegally. Running food stamp ads, in Spanish, in Mexico, advising them to sign up once they get here only contributes to the lawlessness. It was your beloved Obama administration that did that.

The draw is not jobs, Gullible Greggie. The draw is the social welfare programs that illegals are advised, while still in their native countries and by their Consulates, that they are going to get once they enter our nation illegally. Running food stamp ads, in Spanish, in Mexico, advising them to sign up once they get here only contributes to the lawlessness. It was your beloved Obama administration that did that.

Where do you get this stuff?

@Greg:

Where do you get this stuff?

Answer these questions:

When an illegal sneaks across the border into our nation, and doesn’t have a dime in their pocket because they has given all their money to the coyotes, and winds up at the ER with the measles, whooping cough, or any of the other diseases that we once had defeated, who do you think pays for that? Do you really believe they has insurance that covers ?

All the illegal children that entered our nation last year (I did a report on that situation for a sitting U.S. Congressman), who is picking up the tab for their education, health and welfare? Education is a form of social welfare, at least when you liberals think it is. There have been all kinds of news articles on how much it is costing the taxpayers that are in school districts burdened with those illegals.

In California, they don’t even ask if an immigrant is here illegally when the illegal applies for social welfare.

@Greg:

“Amnesty” might be another good word to look up.

noun, plural amnesties.
1.
a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2.
Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
3.
a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

I don’t see anything about “prioritizing” in the definition. Perhaps you need to look THAT word up. You seem to think it’s definition is “prohibiting the enforcement of laws for political gain”.

How one prioritizes when prioritization is necessary is part of the Executive Branch’s administrative function. Administration is what the Constitution charges the Executive Branch with.

This is what Obama swore to do when taking the office of the Presidency.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Now, I looked and I don’t see “prioritizing” (unilaterally choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore) in the oath. It says he is to “defend” the Constitution but obviously, Obama thought it said “upend”. I think his loophole is the “to the best of my Ability” phrase, since he obviously has no executive ability.

@Jessica: perhaps that is true, but measles was eradicated a decade ago and now there is an epidemic because of illegals. They are bringing in diseases that we haven’t seen for a very long time.

@Bill, #32:

I don’t see anything about “prioritizing” in the definition.

Why should you? You’re confusing issues. The point of the definition of “amnesty” is that it doesn’t describe anything that Obama has done. Yet you keep asserting he has somehow granted it. There has been no general pardon. There has been no act of forgiveness for past offenses. Nothing has been forgotten or overlooked. In fact, the legal status of affected persons is precisely whatever it was before. The only thing the Chief Executive has done is exercised discretion in the matter of who to prosecute. He has prioritized that in a manner that will eject first those that we should most want to get out of the country.

Since we obviously can’t deport 11 million people—a fact that republicans know full well, even if they won’t openly acknowledge it in front of voters who prefer to believe otherwise—why shouldn’t we prioritize, and make sure the people we do remove are the people that it’s most to the nation’s benefit to be rid of? To me, it would seem totally crazy not to do so.

@Greg:

Why should you? You’re confusing issues. The point of the definition of “amnesty” is that it doesn’t describe anything that Obama has done. Yet you keep asserting he’s somehow granted it. There has been no general pardon. There has been no act of forgiveness for past offenses. Nothing has been forgotten or overlooked. In fact, the legal status of affected persons is precisely whatever it was before. The only thing the Chief Executive has done is exercised discretion in the matter of who to prosecute.

So basically what you are saying is that Obama has “deferred” deportation. How does that sit with all you bleating heart liberals? There is nothing then preventing a future president from deporting them after they think they have been promised amnesty of a sort.

He has prioritized that in a manner that will eject first those that we should most want to get out of the country.

Yeah, the daily photos in the news of the MS-13 gangbangers being deported warms the cockles of everyone’s heart.

@retire05, #34:

So basically what you are saying is that Obama has “deferred” deportation. How does that sit with all you bleating heart liberals? There is nothing then preventing a future president from deporting them after they think they have been promised amnesty of a sort.

That is correct. It’s an administrative enforcement policy. A subsequent administration could alter it. The legal status of those affected has not changed.

@Greg:

So, in a situation of limited money and resources, you are arguing that we can’t spend money to deport illegals…but we have the money to pay illegals food stamps, welfare, education expenses and health care costs?

Thank you for another glaring example of leftist economic insanity.

@Pete, #37:

I didn’t say that. I said, given the resources and money that we do have, we should spend it deporting the people that it’s to the nation’s greatest benefit to remove.

I can’t understand why some people seem to think that’s a bad idea. Would you prefer to remove a given number of random undocumented aliens, or the same number of undocumented aliens who have been determined to be highly undesirable if not outright dangerous? Would you rather deport a gang member or an honor student? An undocumented mother supporting two kids, or an undocumented vagrant with no attachments to the community and no visible means of support?

@Greg: No, I’m not confusing anything. Obama is charged with enforcing the laws, not choosing which ones he likes and ignoring the rest. It’s pretty simple.

Is the penalty for illegal immigration deportation? Has Obama decided he has the power to waive deportation?

Yes and yes. Amnesty, pure and simple.

Why do we have 11 million illegal immigrants? Democrats, that’s why. Again, if we stopped subsidizing them (proof of legal residency required for taxpayer-funded entitlements) they would be forced to leave. But liberals want to give them MORE, including tax refunds for not having paid any taxes.

Why do we have 11 million illegal immigrants? Democrats, that’s why.

The peak years of illegal immigration weren’t confined to Democratic administrations, or Democratic Congressional majorities. Nor have the highest rates of deportation been on the Republicans’ watch.

Gullible Greggie,

What about this?

“Jeh Johnson, President Obama’s new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, this week admitted that “a very large fraction” of deportations aren’t really that but instead “turn-backs” at the border.

During questioning on Capitol Hill, Johnson confirmed that his agency’s use of border security metrics inflate the reported number of deportations of illegal immigrants – statistics for which Obama takes heat from the left even though true deportations actually are down sharply.

“We managed to remove 368,000 people last year and my understanding is that 98 percent of those fit within our removal priorities,” Johnson noted Tuesday at a DHS budget hearing before the House Appropriations Committee (beginning at 1:50 in this video).
Seconds earlier, however, Johnson had conceded that “a very large fraction of that 368,000, and I don’t know the number offhand … are basically border removals, where they’re apprehended in or around the border” and are “in the country for a very short period of time.”

This prompted Rep John Culberson (R–Texas) to say that fraction tops 50 percent as he questioned DHS’s methods of calculating removals.

“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] were actually the result of Border Patrol arrests,” Culberson said. “They wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations.”

“Right,” Johnson conceded, later also noting that “apprehension levels at the border have been going down recently.”

@Jessica: ever see little louie gutierrez’ district in Chicago dipshit?now that’s gerrymandering and it ain’t repubs dipshit

@retire05, #41:

Do you have some sort of a problem with the fact that a large percentage of deportees aren’t making it much farther into the United States than the point at which they’ve made illegal border crossings? Where do you think they’d be now, if they weren’t being apprehended there?

This is typical right wing bullshit. They take something that anyone with a brain would normally view as a positive, and reframe it as some sort of abysmal failure.

@Greg: Looks like you can not even do simple math. 14% of 1% is .14. Any illegal voting is too many. So you support illegal activities Greg?

@Randy, #44:

Actually, 14 percent is 0.14, which expresses fourteen one-hundredths. 1 percent is 0.01, or one one-hundredth. The simple math is to multiply 0.14 times 0.01, which equals 0.0014 or fourteen ten-thousandths. (Check it on a calculator. I did. I know I can make simple math errors.)

This is a tiny fraction. The real problem, however, is that they never bother to tell us what fraction of that tiny fraction actually voted. The value in question is “some,” and the leap of the imagination involved is what they’re calling “extrapolation.” I don’t believe extrapolation is a process whereby you just make stuff up.

@Greg: The peak happened after Reagan comprised with dishonest Democrats to secure the border in exchange for amnesty. Is the border secure?

Whenever migration reform is brought up, the Democrats always include amnesty, which is a killer. In 2007, when a compromise was near, Obama and Schumer killed it with poison pills they knew Republicans would never agree to. Whenever it is discussed, anyone not agreeing with liberals is deemed “racist” and “anti-immigrant”.

Yeah, Democrats.

You don’t get it about the “deportations” either. The point is, this administration is NOT deporting illegal immigrants and is lying about it. Why the lies, Greg?

Actually Greg, 14% of 1% is .14% You need to go back to school. I think this was 3 grade math! Think oh wise one. 10% of 1% is .1%. 14% of 1% is .14%. See, you liberals are so far off of the mark because you follow the liberal propaganda and never use reason or thought to solve problems. (Maybe you are liberals because thinking and reasoning is too hard or you lack the capacity!) Many elections in recent years have been decided by less than 1%. Voter fraud is an issue and is a federal offence. You support it, so what does that say about your integrity?

@Greg:

The only reasonable approach is to devote your limited money and resources to removing the people whose continuing presence represents the least benefit and the greatest potential threat. Taking any other approach would be stupid.
Obama has defined those parameters in a stated enforcement policy.

Not exactly. I’ll agree that every president has had the prioritization policy as far back as I can remember. Otherwise the number of illegals would not be growing. Obama is the first that is willing to grant legal status (albeit temporary) to some of the illegals that are here.
The thing is, I actually support immigration reform and granting some of those here illegally a legal status. But I want it done right, not through imperial decree. The reform should do something to curb illegal immigration, find and deport those that overstay their visas, and most importantly, not benefit the aliens at the expense of taxpayers. If you want to be part of the US, you need to pay your way. We should not be giving earned income tax credits to people that are not US citizens. Giving them to US citizens is bad enough.

@Greg:

Do you have some sort of a problem with the fact that a large percentage of deportees aren’t making it much farther into the United States than the point at which they’ve made illegal border crossings?

No thanks to the Obama administration. Those illegals, that Jeh Johnson admitted were turned back by our hardworking and unappreciated Border Patrol, are being counted as “returned”. No administration has EVER counted those turned back at the border before. But Obama does, oh, yes he does. So his numbers look great. It’s like all the other lies that come from this current administration. What you see is not really what you see, according to him.

Where do you think they’d be now, if they weren’t being apprehended there?

In our schools, where we are paying for them. In temporary housing, where we are paying for them. I suggest you do a little research on the groups that are raking in MILLIONS of dollars being paid to care for them.

This is typical right wing bullshit. They take something that anyone with a brain would normally view as a positive, and reframe it as some sort of abysmal failure.

OK, so fudging the numbers, as Jeh Johnson admitted he is doing, is a positive? Only a brain dead liberal would believe that.

@Greg:

I would put a bullet in the illegals who have been convicted in the US of capital crimes.

I would enforce e-Verify and heavily fine/imprison US employers convicted of hiring illegals.

I would enforce the laws and deport every single illegal alien in the country. Someone who breaks the law to get here has not demonstrated the requisite respect for the rule of law that citizenship requires, and is a slap in the face to those immigrants who HAVE obeyed the law to earn US citizenship.

I would immediately cease all welfare payments to non-US citizens, and cease all federal payments to the “sanctuary cities” until they comply with border enforcement.

I would build a border wall, and man that wall with sufficient border agents, weapons, and surveillance equipment to ensure border security. I would post warnings that attempts to breech the wall (invade) risks imminent death.

If illegals cannot get jobs or welfare handouts in the US, they will self-deport. They should not be rewarded for breaking our laws.

Immigrants who wish to come LEGALLY and apply for citizenship should be encouraged. Illegals should not only be discouraged but PUNISHED for violating our laws.

1 2 3