US paying more for illegal immigrant births than Trump’s wall

Americans are paying more to cover the costs of illegal immigrants having children in the United States than Congress plans to give President Trump in border wall funding this year, according to an explosive new analysis of Census Bureau data.

The new report reveals that women in the United States illegally had 297,000 children in 2014 at a cost of $2.4 billion.

That is $800 million more than the Senate has approved for Trump’s border wall this year and enough to pay for the wall over 10 years.

This entry was posted in Illegals. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to US paying more for illegal immigrant births than Trump’s wall

  1. crazyeighter says:

    If this shit keeps up, there won’t be any need for the wall; all the illegals will be on this side of it.

  2. nwoldude says:

    Methinks the ‘wall’ will have cost ten times their estimate in ten years.

  3. Larry says:

    75% of babies born at Parkland Hospital in Dallas are to illegals. Guess how many pay their bills?

    • Anonymous says:

      We can’t talk about that. Inconvenient facts are racist. I’m glad I don’t live in Dallas County.

  4. H says:

    $2.4 Billion divided by 297,000 kids = $8,081 per kid per year.

    Totally worth it for the children. Watch out you don’t get run over by the first 300,000 caring and inclusive Donkey-crats who will step up to give back and pay their fair share of $8100 per kid. They’ll be along any minute now……

  5. truthzzzz says:

    There is hope that the realization that the 14th Amendment never meant everyone born here is a US citizen may be realized with an appointment of a 5th US Constitution following Justice now sitting on the US Supreme Court.

    Make Mexico Great Again
    Send Mexico their Mexicans. (as a start)

    A recent article looking at some of the situation.

    The comments on the article which are good.

    I will sum up the situation.
    We all would agree that the children born to an invading army on our soil would not be US citizens here, nor would that occur in any invaded nation.
    That was easy.
    The US Supreme Court said that in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    located here:

    Now place the Wong decision at one end and the invading army at the other.
    Somewhere in between is where we see enough allegiance, part of the USA, legal issues, or other matters that enable one to become a citizen when born here because they are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the USA. That is a citizenship matter and issue only.
    It does not consider any consideration as to whether the parents are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they are in. That applies no matter who you are, except diplomats by treaty.

    So figure out what I just said, then revoke citizenship that had been incorrectly granted to Chinese invaders who come here for a birth vacation to get their children citizenship’s. By the 14th Amendment those children do not fall under the exception to being their parent’s nation of China citizens that is the international default. They do not fall under even the loosest interpretation used so far. Even Justice Brennan’s footnote hiccup saying there is no difference does not cover that.
    Ann Coulter’s comment on Brennan’s intentional Open Society Globalist footnote.

    And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

    Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

    I say:
    The 1898 Supreme Court specifically discussed the Wong’s had no legal issues. That difference was made. Plus all of the other matters of allegiance and contact with loyalty to our nation apply. Brennan’s footnote is totally unsupported and cut from whol cloth to make something up that he politically supported. In effect Brennan did the Progressive tw step and danced the meaning of Blue to Green so to speak (I did not use black, white, red, or yellow as they currently are on the PC banned words list for people of my cis persuasion. This already should make snowflakes and Proglydites cry)

    Now read the cases, think about it, ponder, and be ready to discuss this completely next class. :-)

  6. Mr deplorable says:

    bay’s born to illegal alien invaders should not be automatic US citizens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *