Retired Border Patrol Agents: "Granting Amnesty Is Rewarding Drug Cartels".

[FaninAma]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/07/Ex-Border-Patrol-agents-American-politicians-helping-cartels-invest-millions-to-build-criminal-network-inside-U-S-Ex-Border-Patrol-agents-American-politicians-helping-cartels-invest-millions-to-build-criminal-network-inside-U-S

Gives a whole new meaning to the "Gang of Eight".

[FaninAma]

Didn't know Tulsa was a sanctuary city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Perhaps that fact has something to do with Tulsa's high rate of violent crime(especially murder and rape) compared to OKC.

http://www.areavibes.com/tulsa-ok/crime/

[okie52]

But, but....we owe it to them....

[Turd_Ferguson]

But, but...we owe it them.

You can say that again...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yes, if immigration reform passes, I'm sure I'll buy lots more illegal drugs.:stupid:

[cleller]

Didn't know Tulsa was a sanctuary city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Perhaps that fact has something to do with Tulsa's high rate of violent crime(especially murder and rape) compared to OKC.

http://www.areavibes.com/tulsa-ok/crime/

One big difference in OKC and Tulsa on the murder and rape categories is the vast areas OKC has incorporated over the years that cover suburban area, and semi-rural places way out in the boon-docks with little crime.
Tulsa is much more dense and contained. All those rural/suburban areas where people have flocked are outside its city limits, in places like Broken Arrow, Jenks, Owasso, etc. Tulsa covers 196 square miles, OKC 606.

Plus (in my observations) Tulsa has been much more focused on crime reporting than OKC over the years.

Interesting list of cities by area. I used to hear that OKC was the largest, its really only #9. Some of those Alaska towns are kinda bogus, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I wish Tulsa was a guy. A big, golden driller guy. I would send him to Amarillo or whatever *** party Fan lives in and give him cash to demonstrate "high crime rates".

Wheeeee!

[KantoSooner]

Wow, 11 million+ drug dealers! Who knew?

Cunning bastidges, too, hiding in plain sight pretending to be gardeners and maids. Damn! If only our deep cover CIA people had that discipline! Just think, all those Mexicans, each one with a mountaintop villa outside Cuernevaca waiting for them, but they are so dedicated to selling drugs to gringo's that they stay in character just to move a coupla more grams.

Damn. We're doomed.

[FaninAma]

Wow, 11 million+ drug dealers! Who knew?

Cunning bastidges, too, hiding in plain sight pretending to be gardeners and maids. Damn! If only our deep cover CIA people had that discipline! Just think, all those Mexicans, each one with a mountaintop villa outside Cuernevaca waiting for them, but they are so dedicated to selling drugs to gringo's that they stay in character just to move a coupla more grams.

Damn. We're doomed.

Of course the drug cartels would never take advantage of porous borders and sanctuary cities to move their product. Never.

What a supercilious reply.

[FaninAma]

I wish Tulsa was a guy. A big, golden driller guy. I would send him to Amarillo or whatever *** party Fan lives in and give him cash to demonstrate "high crime rates".

Wheeeee!


“Sanctuary cities established throughout the United States discourage even the most basic law enforcement initiatives within their boundaries against these predatory criminals,” they wrote. “Encouraged by Congress and a disinterested mainstream news media, these havens deny the American public their constitutional right to national security and public safety while providing relative safety for dangerous foreign criminals.”The retired Border Patrol agents called on Congress to abandon efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens because passing an amnesty would be akin to abetting the drug cartels.

I guess you should also send somebody to kick these retired Border Patrol Agent's asses, too. But hey, if all you have is junior high level bravado to add to the discussion then knock yourself out.

[okie52]

They are cunning bastards...

They actually have convinced some Americans that they are innocent victims and the US owes them citizenship for forcing them to come to the US against their will.

That the US owes their children an education and tuition rates lower than other US citizens.

That cities should ignore/defy US federal law to assist them in their occupation of American soil.

That these 11,000,000 tortured souls are all valedictorians and that citizenship will free them to create millions of jobs...which must be true given all of the jobs they created in their homeland.

That republicans will have their vote by supporting their "pathway to citizenship"....history be dammed!!!

That the US granting citizenship to over 3/4 million people a year is not enough ( by far the most of any country in the world)...that millions more need to be granted citizenship each year so they aren't separated from their families.

That it is inhumane to break up a family by deporting someone here illegally.

That "illegal" shouldn't be used in any connection with those "illegally here".

That "anti illegal immigrant" is the same thing as "anti Immigrant".

That states should give them driver licenses.

That cities should allow them to vote in municipal elections.

That the border is "secure".

Cunning bastards, indeed...

[cleller]

After reading these Border Agents credentials, I think that they are more apt to have insight into the topic than most anyone else in the USA, certainly more than all of us combined. (with a multiplier) They are the experts, and people with experience. Isn't that who smart people have always consulted in making policy decisions? Isn't knowledge and experience the gold standard in the US?

It shouldn't take a genius to understand that the Mexico is a dangerous, violent place that has been falling under the control of organized crime. Likewise, it shouldn't take a genius to understand allowing more unfettered access to this country will import some of that organization here, since this is where they seek to do business.

I don't get the inability to admit that, for the sake of acting open-minded. Sure, most of the people involved are going to be hard working, ambitious people, looking for better things for their families. Along with that, you'll have to accept that some are also hard working, ambitious gang members, drug runners/ organized crime members.

[KantoSooner]

What a supercilious reply.

No, a supercilious reply would have been something along the lines of "But what about the price of manganese in the Congo?" THAT would have been supercilious. My response tended towards using some degree of humor to point out that you could not have 11 million people and have them all be ultra successful criminal kingpins...and yet living lives of desperation and poverty.

Sorry you didn't 'get' it. I'll try for a broader note next time.

No, wait...

[FaninAma]

Kanto, I think supercilious applies to the post in question on a lot of different levels.
http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/supercilious/

It was snide. It really wasn't a serious response to the original post in so much as nobody has insinuated all of the underestimated 11 million illegals in this country are engaged in drug trafficking.

And worst of all, it wasn't funny.

Now this is funny:
"As you know, Arizona recently passed the toughest anti-immigration bill in American history. The idea behind this bill is to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and back to their homeland of Los Angeles." –Jay Leno

[TheHumanAlphabet]

...and yet living lives of desperation and poverty...

Those lives of poverty is in part because they are illegal, under the table and not upgrading the country. They are not likely to be productive, but will be a drain on our country resources. These are not Ph.D. and Masters people who overstayed their student Visa and found work, these are mostly illiterate manual workers trying to eek out something that is more than they could get in their home country. They came here for work, not to be a citizen of the U.S. Big Difference.

The U.S. does not owe everyone citizenship and nor should we open our borders willy nilly for anyone who says they want to be citizens...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Well, maybe the Border Patrol agents are missing some important considerations.

If e-verify becomes mandatory under immigration reform, then it might be easy to add a mandatory e-verify drug test for employment, gov't benefits, school, etc.

But I doubt the public really wants to get serious about enforcing drug laws. Otherwise, we could test everybody and administer Jose Rodriguez-like consequences.


But seriously, the border patrol agents are describing a network that has been built in spite of a repeated failure to reform immigration and non-immigration visa policies.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

After reading these Border Agents credentials, I think that they are more apt to have insight into the topic than most anyone else in the USA, certainly more than all of us combined. (with a multiplier) They are the experts, and people with experience. Isn't that who smart people have always consulted in making policy decisions? Isn't knowledge and experience the gold standard in the US?

It shouldn't take a genius to understand that the Mexico is a dangerous, violent place that has been falling under the control of organized crime. Likewise, it shouldn't take a genius to understand allowing more unfettered access to this country will import some of that organization here, since this is where they seek to do business.

I don't get the inability to admit that, for the sake of acting open-minded. Sure, most of the people involved are going to be hard working, ambitious people, looking for better things for their families. Along with that, you'll have to accept that some are also hard working, ambitious gang members, drug runners/ organized crime members.



They are government workers. That doesn't make them experts. I doubt most of them have any experience hiring workers for a business. They get a government check each month. They don't have to worry making payroll or turning a profit or making sure orders are filled or contractual agreements completed on time.

People who create wealth should be making these policy decisions, not gov't bureaucrats. Communism is dead. Long live free markets.

[KantoSooner]

SJS, How dare you go inserting plain logic into this ideological rant? For shame, Sir, for shame.

Fanin, You are assuming I meant my previous to be 'funny' funny. Personally, I find this whole debate to be the antithesis of funny. We have a problem, for which there are any number of fixes that are available now; many of which are cheap to boot. And yet we sit, high centered, as we have been for a generation as the problem gets worse.
The 'sides' of this debate insist on mutually exclusive, untenable positions in the full knowledge that their intransigence will simply result in the matter remaining unresolved.
When nominally intelligent people do this, one is slowly driven to understand that it is not a failure of understanding that informs the 'sides' but a mutual interest in continuing precisely the current situation.
And that realization makes the continued kabuki drama of this debate rather tedious.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, nothing posted in this thread disagrees with your last post. I
agree there are some simple, effective solutions to the illegal
immigrant problem. This thread's main premise was that granting
amnesty is not one of them. Unless border security is insured
then the drug cartels will continue taking advantage of illegal
immigrants pouring over the border.

And I would disagree that border security is an ideological issue
despite the left's attempts to turn it into one. And you are
correct that both parties have political and economic reasons
for allowing the current broken system to continue.

[KantoSooner]

I'll back out after this one. Here's my deal: we have 11 million of these illegals. Many are married to or parents of minor child citizens. Many of them have been so for decades and are functioinal members of our communities. Should we have a blanket amnestry? No. Should an amnesty (for want of a better term) be one part of the solution? Undoubtedly yes. The sheer logistics of moving 11 million people anywhere would indicate that it is not a first option. Should we have better border security? Of course. Should we mine the border or demand hermetic security before anything else is done? No. For no better reason than that border security will take time and we have other stuff we can do in the meantime that will make things better.

And so forth and so on; you've heard all the arguments before. As has everyone else.

And yet we sit in a logjam with insistence on an infeasible roundup and somehow surpassing the Berlin Wall on the one hand and equally obdurate demands for some blanket amnesty on the other.

My response to all this is to quote the great John McEnroe: "You can NOT be serious."

And don't take that as directed at you personally, it's intended at Cruz, at Shumer, at McCain, at that ****ing pimp Rubio and all the rest. **** it. We are not serious as a country. We should just ignore it if we're not going to take obvious measures that any high school debaters worthy of moving on to 'State' would have figured out long ago.

[FaninAma]

My position is close to yours. Turn off
the flow through effective border security
measures then move to help the assimilation of those already here.

[cleller]

They are government workers. That doesn't make them experts. I doubt most of them have any experience hiring workers for a business. They get a government check each month. They don't have to worry making payroll or turning a profit or making sure orders are filled or contractual agreements completed on time.

People who create wealth should be making these policy decisions, not gov't bureaucrats. Communism is dead. Long live free markets.


What are you talking about? The article which was the basis for this thread was about drug smuggling, human trafficking, and drug cartel's networks, not hiring workers. Did you read it? The subject they were addressing is the effect this policy would have in regard to existing criminal enterprises; not hiring workers, payrolls, profits, or future wealth building exercises.

So, again, I think the Border Agents are the only real experts we've heard from in the conversation at hand. You think they don't know what they're talking about? That they bothered to present this argument for purely political reasons, just for grins, racism?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

After reading these Border Agents credentials, I think that they are more apt to have insight into the topic than most anyone else in the USA, certainly more than all of us combined. (with a multiplier) They are the experts, and people with experience. Isn't that who smart people have always consulted in making policy decisions? Isn't knowledge and experience the gold standard in the US?

It shouldn't take a genius to understand that the Mexico is a dangerous, violent place that has been falling under the control of organized crime. Likewise, it shouldn't take a genius to understand allowing more unfettered access to this country will import some of that organization here, since this is where they seek to do business.

I don't get the inability to admit that, for the sake of acting open-minded. Sure, most of the people involved are going to be hard working, ambitious people, looking for better things for their families. Along with that, you'll have to accept that some are also hard working, ambitious gang members, drug runners/ organized crime members.


What are you talking about? The article which was the basis for this thread was about drug smuggling, human trafficking, and drug cartel's networks, not hiring workers. Did you read it? The subject they were addressing is the effect this policy would have in regard to existing criminal enterprises; not payrolls, profits, or future wealth building exercises.

So, again, I think the Border Agents are the only real experts we've heard from in the conversation at hand. You think they don't know what they're talking about? That they bothered to present this argument for purely political reasons, or just for grins?

reread what you wrote that I bold-faced. YOU are talking about access to the country. That is who gets a work visa or an immigration visa or a tourist visa and who doesn't. That has everything to do with hiring workers.

[cleller]

reread what you wrote that I bold-faced. YOU are talking about access to the country. That is who gets a work visa or an immigration visa or a tourist visa and who doesn't. That has everything to do with hiring workers.

And my point was that if that is the type of policy you support, you should be willing to accept, and admit that some degree of organized criminal element will come with it. As the Border Agents illustrated, the cartels already have in place a network to conduct their business within the country. Specifically those persons in place that would be impacted with amnesty. A broad policy such as this will only simplify their task.

I am not addressing the economics of the situation, just the tendency for supporters to blithely poo-poo the concerns of anyone who disagrees with them. In this instance the poo-poo'ed are the most experienced, and knowledgeable people around on the subject of borderland criminal behavior.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

My position is close to yours. Turn off
the flow through effective border security
measures then move to help the assimilation of those already here.

Not to mention the concept of "sanctuary city" is often (especially in the case of my Tulsa) a combination of lack of ICE manpower, a lack of 2nd level ICE support for AHJs that have passed certain ICE qualifications to act as ICE agents to fill the backlog of ICE cases requiring deportation (yet another example from my beloved Tulsa as TCSO is authorized to perform this very function), a lack of power relegated to the municipal AHJ to actually address residential legality from the officers that make the majority of arrests and/or law enforcement interaction (yet ANOTHER Tulsa concern), as well as actual interference from federal autorities based from anything such as manpower limitations to actual denial of pursuance of the law.

Point being, until you pound the streets of my beautiful, beloved city and learn WHY clowns like you have hung the retarded tag of "sanctuary city" on it, you're talking out your butt. Like now, every time anything Tulsa leaves your lips. Quit spewing your personal dogma and using a city and county that has tried and is trying to do the right thing by the law as a negative example to prop up your personal beliefs. It makes you look like an absolute, uninformed fool.

And that may very well be the case. Don't want to deny you that and classify your town as a "sanctuary city" for finger pointing and idiocy.

[FaninAma]

Not to mention the concept of "sanctuary city" is often (especially in the case of my Tulsa) a combination of lack of ICE manpower, a lack of 2nd level ICE support for AHJs that have passed certain ICE qualifications to act as ICE agents to fill the backlog of ICE cases requiring deportation (yet another example from my beloved Tulsa as TCSO is authorized to perform this very function), a lack of power relegated to the municipal AHJ to actually address residential legality from the officers that make the majority of arrests and/or law enforcement interaction (yet ANOTHER Tulsa concern), as well as actual interference from federal autorities based from anything such as manpower limitations to actual denial of pursuance of the law.

Point being, until you pound the streets of my beautiful, beloved city and learn WHY clowns like you have hung the retarded tag of "sanctuary city" on it, you're talking out your butt. Like now, every time anything Tulsa leaves your lips. Quit spewing your personal dogma and using a city and county that has tried and is trying to do the right thing by the law as a negative example to prop up your personal beliefs. It makes you look like an absolute, uninformed fool.

And that may very well be the case. Don't want to deny you that and classify your town as a "sanctuary city" for finger pointing and idiocy.

You know, ordinarily I would probably consider your opinion with an open mind but your lack of civility and anything approaching an intelligent expression of said opinion makes me not give **** about anything you have to say. If your intent was to change anybody's mind you probably didn't quite achieve that goal. If your goal was to act like a smartass then mission accomplished. Hopefully others in your department have better PR skills than you.

[cleller]

Not to mention the concept of "sanctuary city" is often (especially in the case of my Tulsa) a combination of lack of ICE manpower, a lack of 2nd level ICE support for AHJs that have passed certain ICE qualifications to act as ICE agents to fill the backlog of ICE cases requiring deportation (yet another example from my beloved Tulsa as TCSO is authorized to perform this very function), a lack of power relegated to the municipal AHJ to actually address residential legality from the officers that make the majority of arrests and/or law enforcement interaction (yet ANOTHER Tulsa concern), as well as actual interference from federal autorities based from anything such as manpower limitations to actual denial of pursuance of the law.

Point being, until you pound the streets of my beautiful, beloved city and learn WHY clowns like you have hung the retarded tag of "sanctuary city" on it, you're talking out your butt. Like now, every time anything Tulsa leaves your lips. Quit spewing your personal dogma and using a city and county that has tried and is trying to do the right thing by the law as a negative example to prop up your personal beliefs. It makes you look like an absolute, uninformed fool.

And that may very well be the case. Don't want to deny you that and classify your town as a "sanctuary city" for finger pointing and idiocy.

Where do you get all this info about Tulsa's "sanctuary" policy, or lack of it?

When I joined the Tulsa Police Dept in 1984 if we arrested an illegal alien for a serious crime, we would regularly place a hold on them for the Border Patrol, which had an office in Miami. No one ever arrested illegals for immigration violations only. The hold for Border Patrol was very useful in getting the criminally inclined illegals out of town. If you picked up an illegal for drunk, or minor stuff, no one even thought of holding for Border Patrol.

Around 1986 or so, we were ordered to cease placing holds for deportation. It was purely for political type reasons, not due to any manpower shortages. This was long before ICE, etc. (I don't know what AHJ's are) At any rate, the reasons for not charging arrested illegals with immigration charges was to portray a nice, positive image. The idea being that illegals would not trust the police, not report crimes, not assist with investigations, not come to court, etc if they were worried about being deported.

Anything that was gained by this policy was not worth the lost benefit of being able to send bad apple illegals out of town.

Sometime later the prohibition against even asking about immigration status/green cards came down, for all the same reasons. I certainly never saw any positive benefit from these policies. They actually seemed to have the opposite effect of what was intended. Prior to these prohibitions, cooperation from the Hispanic community seemed pretty good. They knew that as long as they didn't get into serious trouble, the police would not act to deport anyone. After it became known that deportation was off the table, cooperation began to erode, as no one feared getting set home.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I made it all up.

AHJ = Authority Having Jurisdiction.

[KantoSooner]

My position is close to yours. Turn off
the flow through effective border security
measures then move to help the assimilation of those already here.

I'm not opposed to improved border security, but am opposed to the 'first this, THEN AND ONLY THEN THAT...' approach. In insisting that some benchmark or other is met before anything else can even be considered, both 'sides' of this argument show that they are uninterested in a solution.

Improving border security can be started immediately. It already has been 'improved' by assignment of extra agents. Further improvements will take more time, however. Arriving at metrics to determine how we measure 'effective' and who will judge that, will take more time still.

Is there any reason at all that we can't start with other things in the meantime? Like kicking ICE in the butt to start processing citizenship applications in a timely manner? Everify?

And, alternatively, is there any reason why we have to throw up our hands and do nothing if congressional agreement on blanket amnesty is not forthcoming? Couldn't we work out a guest worker program in the meantime? How about funding border security at the same time we stand still on deportations as we figure out the rest.

My point is that I have come to the reluctant conclusion that we have not a passionate impasse between people who honestely disagree on solutions, but a corrupt game between people who have no interest in any solution whatsoever and are bent on doing whatever they can to throw wrenches into any partial solution to ensure that the present broken situation persists for their own personal benefit.

A pox on their houses.

[okie52]

Obama suspends deportation for thousands of illegals, tells GOP to pass DREAM Act
Published June 15, 2012
FoxNews.com

President Obama said Friday the United States will stop deporting hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants and give them work permits, a move praised fellow Democrats but criticized by Republicans on Capitol Hill who said the administration has side-stepped the country’s legislative process.


The change is expected to impact roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/15/obama-administration-to-offer-immunity-to-younger-immigrants/#ixzz2brXNuTD9


Obama Administration Curtails Deportations of Non-Criminal Immigrants

By Devin Dwyer
@devindwyer
Follow on Twitter
Aug 18, 2011 5:18pm

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer (@devindwyer) reports:
The Obama administration today announced it will no longer actively seek to deport illegal immigrants who don’t have criminal records and that it will review all existing deportation cases involving non-criminal immigrants on a case-by-case basis.

The news follows months of intense pressure from immigrant advocates who had urged the president to use his administrative authority to refocus the government's limited law enforcement resources while congressional gridlock over a comprehensive immigration system overhaul persists.



Border Agents Overwhelmed by Mexicans Using 'Fear' Scam to Gain Entry
Monday, 12 Aug 2013 10:25 AM
By Audrey Hudson

A flood of new immigrants crossing the Mexican border are using what some officials believe is a coordinated scam which has forced the closure of at least one overwhelmed federal processing center.

The local ABC News affiliate in San Diego reports that nearly 200 immigrants inundated the Otay crossing on Monday, and that all are using the phrase "credible fear" of drug cartels in Mexico as their reason for fleeing Mexico.

"They are being told if they come across, when they come up to the border and they say certain words, they will be allowed into the country," said a border agent who wanted to remain anonymous.

"We are being overwhelmed," the agent said.

Unnamed sources told the News Team 10 reporters that for $300, immigrants can buy a video in Mexico that instructs them on how to beat the system by learning key phrases to gain immediate entry into the U.S.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/mexico-border-credible-fear/2013/08/11/id/519807#ixzz2brekYPZw


Given how well the 1986 amnesty worked in securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration, hard to imagine why some people insist on border security first and don't trust Obama to enforce immigration laws.

[okie52]

Jus soli is observed by a minority of the world's countries. Of advanced economies (as defined by the International Monetary Fund), Canada and the United States are the only countries that observe birthright citizenship.[6][7][8][9] Since 2004, no European country grants unconditional birthright citizenship.

Heartless bastards!!!

[KantoSooner]

Given how well the 1986 amnesty worked in securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration, hard to imagine why some people insist on border security first and don't trust Obama to enforce immigration laws.

As we establish Superman's Wall Of Impenetrabilty across the southern border, can we, pretty please, try Everify to turn off the job magnet as well?
If no, then I think we can all pretty well figure out how serious the effort is intended to be.

[okie52]

Hispanic Poverty Rate Highest In New Supplemental Census Measure
by Mark Hugo Lopez and D’Vera Cohn

For more than a decade, the Census Bureau has been developing an alternative measure of poverty that is intended to better reflect the costs of basic living expenses as well as the resources people have to pay them. The bureau has just released results for 2010 from the alternative metric—called the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)—that uses a wider range of factors than the official federal measure to determine poverty status.

The additional data used in the alternative measure include medical expenses, tax credits, non-cash government benefits (such as food stamps, housing subsidies and school lunch programs) and cost-of-living adjustments for different geographic areas. The alternative measure is not intended to replace the official poverty measure, at least for now. For the foreseeable future, the Census Bureau will report two sets of numbers.

Compared with the official measure, SPM figures released by the Census Bureau show a higher national poverty rate for 2010, 16.0%, compared with the official poverty rate of 15.2% (Short, 2011).1 The number of poor people in 2010 was 49.1 million using the alternative measure, compared with 46.6 million using the official measure. Using the SPM also resulted in higher poverty rates for some groups and lower poverty rates for others, when compared with the official measure.

Among the nation’s largest racial and ethnic groups, poverty rates using the alternative measure are higher than official poverty rates for Hispanics, whites2 and Asians, but are lower for blacks. For Hispanics, the SPM poverty rate (28.2%) was 1.5 percentage points higher than the official poverty rate of 26.7%. For whites, the SPM poverty rate was 11.1% while the official poverty rate was 10.0%. For Asians, the SPM poverty rate was 16.7% versus the official poverty rate of 12.1%. By contrast, the SPM poverty rate for blacks, 25.4% in 2010, was 2.1 percentage points lower than the official poverty rate of 27.5%.

The Census Bureau report on the alternative poverty measure did not explain why poverty rates for race groups and Hispanics change under the alternative measure.3

When the alternative measure is used, a greater share of Hispanics in 2010 lived in poverty than any other group. By contrast, when using the official poverty rate, a greater share of blacks in 2010 lived in poverty than Hispanics or any other group. Even so, no matter which measure is used, Hispanics make up nearly three-in-ten of the nation’s poor—28.6% under the official poverty measure and 28.7% under the SPM.

Of course, the illegals once they are legalized would never use federal, state or municipal benefits...after all, they just want a better life and don't need handouts...

[okie52]

As we establish Superman's Wall Of Impenetrabilty across the southern border, can we, pretty please, try Everify to turn off the job magnet as well?
If no, then I think we can all pretty well figure out how serious the effort is intended to be.

Nothing stopping everify right now or border security (or in years past) but congress and Obama. But the dems aren't going to do everify or strengthen the border unless pathway to citizenship is guaranteed.

And since Obama would have a great lattitude in enforcement and waivers (as shown above), it is at a total impasse.

[KantoSooner]

Nothing stopping everify right now or border security (or in years past) but congress and Obama. But the dems aren't going to do everify or strengthen the border unless pathway to citizenship is guaranteed.

And since Obama would have a great lattitude in enforcement and waivers (as shown above), it is at a total impasse.

And that's my point: both 'sides' to this argument have erected 'if not this, then nothing' positions. I used to think that was simply ideological immaturity. Now I'm seeing it as calculated efforts to prevent any changes in policy at all. It's a bunch of pols who've figured out that they can, through 'principled' stands, keep precisely what we have today. Since it's so obvious that their positions result in this, one can only assume that 'status quo' is the intent.

[okie52]

And that's my point: both 'sides' to this argument have erected 'if not this, then nothing' positions. I used to think that was simply ideological immaturity. Now I'm seeing it as calculated efforts to prevent any changes in policy at all. It's a bunch of pols who've figured out that they can, through 'principled' stands, keep precisely what we have today. Since it's so obvious that their positions result in this, one can only assume that 'status quo' is the intent.

Could be...as I prefer the "status quo" to the abomination that was put forth by the senate.

I don't want compromise that will grant any legal status to illegals other than a temporary legal status that is for 1 year and is totally dependent upon the illegal being employed...any cessation of employment and the illegal is forced to leave.

But if I had to compromise beyond a temporary status then I would insist upon all avenues of enforcement being employed which would mandate everify, absolute border security, cooperation between all federal, state, and municipal agencies, defunding any sanctuary city, and severe punishment (jail time, stiff fines) for employers that knowingly hire illegals and almost no discretion by the executive branch on enforcement of immigration laws.