RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://lidblog.com/illega
Illegal immigrants cost the U.S. billions a year in health care costs that the illegals never pay for, a Forbes Mag. report says. And that is even though federal law supposedly prohibits this spending.

Federal law claims that no federal dollars can go to pay for health care for illegals. Unfortunately, this is a smoke screen because literally BILLIONS of our tax dollars go to fund medical care for illegals anyway.

Forbes magazine’s Chris Conover recent ran the numbers and came up with at least $18.5 billion of our tax dollars wasted on health care for illegal immigrants.

Connor noted:

“rough estimates suggest that the nation’s 3.9 million uninsured immigrants who are unauthorized likely receive about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers, another $3.0 bankrolled through “cost-shifting” i.e., higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care. In addition to these amounts, unauthorized immigrants likely benefit from at least $0.9 billion in implicit federal subsidies due to the tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals and another $5.7 billion in tax expenditures from the employer tax exclusion.”

“All told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year,” Connor said adding, “federal taxpayers provided $11.2 billion in subsidized care to unauthorized immigrants in 2016.”

Connor went on to describe how federal law is meant to prohibit the use of U.S. tax dollars to fund medical care for illegals. But all those laws are bent into pretzels as our taxes go to support precisely what it is supposed to leave unpaid.

“Specifically, in 2013 (the latest available such figures), America’s uninsured generated $84.9 billion in uncompensated care costs,” Connor wrote.

Of those costs:

39% was covered by various federal programs (e.g., disproportionate share payments to hospitals);
23% by state and local governments (e.g., via taxpayer support of state and locally owned hospitals);
12% came in the form of physician charity care covered;
25%–was covered by hospitals (arguably by “cost-shifting,” i.e., higher charges to privately insured patients that effectively cross-subsidize care for patients who do not pay full freight, etc.). An unknown fraction of this stems from EMTALA–the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act–a federal law that requires hospitals to treat emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. EMTALA is an example of “taxation by regulation” insofar as the same outcome might have been achieved by using tax dollars to pay hospitals to treat such patients voluntarily.

WATCH: Stunning Footage Reveals the ‘Truth Behind the Caravan’
saraacarter.com ^

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3706672/posts

Stunning new footage from deep inside the ‘migrant caravan’ slowly making its way towards the United States’ southern border reveals the shocking truth behind the impending crisis, according to filmmaker Ami Horowitz.

Horowitz took to the streets alongside the Central American migrants to speak with those hoping to enter the United States as asylum seekers, hearing first-hand accounts of their journey north.

“We’ve been hearing a lot about the ‘migrant caravan’ in the news… A lot has been said about this caravan, so I’ve decided to go down and find out for myself,” says Horowitz.

“Despite the framing of the caravan being full of women and children, the reality on the ground is quite different. Approximately 90% to 95% are male,” he adds.

Watch ‘The Truth Behind the Caravan’ above.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/that_one_little_thing_the_caravan_organizers_got_caught_flatfooted_on.html
Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the open-borders group that organized the migrant caravan, has had an easy time of it, racking up propaganda victory after propaganda victory as its group snaked through Mexico.

They put the tiny number of women and children in the group up front for the news cameras with the media obliging them to create the perception that the entire group was just women and children fleeing gangs instead of largely military-aged unemployed young men.

They brazenly waved the Honduran, Guatemalan, Mexican and Salvadoran flags in a bid to signal they aren’t looking for ‘mercy’ from the U.S., they consider entering the U.S. a matter of right as nationals of those countries.

They busted down the gates of Mexico’s southern border to signal to the world that Mexico’s efforts to enforce its own border are utterly useless.

They kept the group together when there were signs it was splitting apart, the better to retain their power of numbers in order to make demands.

They got the Mexican authorities to feed, house, bed, medicate, and escort them throughout their journey to the U.S. border, signalling their clout over that sovereign nation. And it helped that like revolutionaries swimming among fishes, as Mao used to say, they got the Mexican locals to offer aid as well in the hopes that the group would continue on their way away from them.

The list goes on. Arriving in Tijuana, they hopped the border fence and danced around in plain view of U.S. lawmen, daring them to stop them, presumably through opening fire, and then when they didn’t, they racked up another propaganda victory by exposing U.S. powerlessness to stop them. After that, they hopped back into Mexico with no consequences.

There’s just one thing they didn’t calculate for: The rage of Tijuana’s locals, whose anger is growing at the prospect of migrants camping out all over their city streets and neighborhoods, bringing crime, garbage, homeless encampments and disorder. Here’s a screengrab from KGTV and you can see the whole confrontation at this link here:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/illegal-alien-released-in-nj-charged-with-triple-murder-in-missouri/

Advocates of sanctuary policies really don’t care if you live or die.

An exaggeration? I don’t think so. Not when they justify their policies after incidents like this.

An illegal alien, arrested in New Jersey in December 2017 on domestic battery charges, was released by local authorities even after ICE requested a detainer on him. Luis Rodrigo Perez then made his way to Missouri, where earlier this month he went on a murder spree — killing three people in two days.

Washington Times:

“Had ICE’s detainer request in December 2017 been honored by Middlesex County Jail, Luis Rodrigo Perez would have been placed in deportation proceedings and likely sent home to his country — and three innocent people might be alive today,” said Corey Price, acting ICE executive associate director.

John Tsoukaris, ICE’s deportation operations field director in Newark, New Jersey, called Middlesex County’s policy “reckless.”

He said Perez had a history of violence and would have been a clear candidate for cooperation.

Middlesex officials reject the notion that they are to blame, pointing the finger at ICE instead.

In a statement the county government rejected blame and said it was ICE that dropped the ball.

Officials said they have repeatedly told ICE they will only cooperate in some instances, such as someone convicted of a “first or second degree offense.” They said Perez’s case didn’t reach that level.

Still, they said, ICE had 51 days while Perez sat in jail during which the agency could have tried to get a deportation order for Perez. The county said it would have honored that order.

“Instead ICE officials chose to do nothing, which places all responsibility of Mr. Perez’s actions squarely upon ICE,” the county government said in a statement.

Police in Missouri say Perez attacked a home which he had been kicked out of. The victims could be heard “begging for their lives,” The Associated Press reported, citing charging documents.

So if Perez had been charged with a first-degree felony, they would have held him indefinitely? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge over the Chicago River I can sell you.

The fact that he was illegal and proven violent should have been enough to assure his indefinite detention. But under sanctuary laws, drunk driving, slapping around your girlfriend, and other “lesser” offenses aren’t enough to protect the people from violent criminals.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271864/establishment-media-nixes-trump-ad-about-dangerous-michael-cutler

On Monday November 5, 2018, NBC news posted a report, NBC, Fox News pull Trump immigration ad, Facebook blocks paid promotion. The online article included a tweet from Donald Trump, Jr which included a supposedly racist ad.

The article began with these two paragraphs:

NBC and Fox News said on Monday morning that they would no longer air an immigration ad from President Donald Trump that has been widely derided as racially divisive.

“After further review, we recognize the insensitive nature of the ad and have decided to cease airing it across our properties as soon as possible,” said Joe Benarroch, a spokesperson for NBC’s advertising sales department.

The article included this statement:

Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted that NBC, CNN and Facebook “have chosen to stand” with undocumented immigrants.

By standing with illegal aliens, these “news” organizations that refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have turned their backs on lawful immigrants and have harmed their reputation in the eyes of the American public.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/05/citizenship-

As caravans of would-be illegal migrants heads for our southern border, each bigger and better organized than the last; as Chinese travel agencies schedule trips to America for mothers-soon-to-be; as the number of births to foreigners and illegals added to the results of chain migration (a.k.a “family reunification”) make up an ever-growing part of the voting public; and as the Democratic Party stakes its future power on importing a new set of Americans it can control, more and more of today’s Americans are realizing that our immigration system since the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 is a political scam.

It is past time we address the question of whom we shall call to join this political enterprise called the United States of America as full members—and why we should be calling them—with the seriousness it deserves. The short answer has to be: that we choose to admit them because they understand, love, and are eager to support what this country is about.

With few exceptions (Indians, descendants of slaves and of the fewer than 3 million who set the country’s character in 1776-89) today’s Americans are people or descendants of people who chose to join this country and its character. Uniquely in history, America has been able to assimilate people of all colors and creeds because these people very much wanted to be assimilated. Many were Americans at heart before they got here. That’s why they came.

My friend, Peter Schramm, recalled his father—realizing that the 1956 revolution against the Soviets was going to fail—telling the family that they would flee to America. Now Peter, who was 10 years old at the time, would have gone anywhere his father asked him to go, but he was confused about why his dad had chosen America, so he asked, “Why America?” His father’s answer is instructive: ““Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

S hortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children.

Status questions about the children of aliens have moved to the fore in recent months. Central Americans, enticed by laws that perversely incentivize illegal immigration, have sought entry en masse at our southern border. This week, with an oncoming “caravan” of migrants galvanizing President Trump’s base on the eve of the midterm elections, these questions have stoked a heated debate — with all the shopworn smears of racism and bad faith that are now staples of American public discourse.

In campaign mode, the president floated the idea of issuing an executive order that would purport to deny “birthright citizenship,” i.e., to end the policy of granting American citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents who are not legally present here. I highlight “purport” and “policy” because the president’s opponents counter that these newborn children of illegal aliens are granted citizenship by the Constitution, specifically, by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the argument goes, this grant of citizenship is not a mere policy but a command of the highest law of the land; it may not be reversed by an executive order, or even by a law of Congress, the branch empowered to set the terms of citizenship.

That is a lot of weight to put on an amendment that had nothing to do with regulating aliens — an amendment ratified in 1868, a time when there was no federal-law concept of illegal aliens.