Barack Obama

Always Worse Than Trump on Immigration, Obama Plans Big Deportation Raids Over Next Weeks

Donald Trump and other conservatives' deportation fantasies are awful. President Obama's actual record is even worse.

|

Our story thus far: Billionaire developer Donald Trump announces for president last summer and immediately starts yapping about how he's going to deport all the illegals (12 million by his count, 11 million by most other people's) and he's going to make Mexicans—whom he characterizes as rapists, drug dealers, and bringers of crime and disease—pay for a big beautiful wall on our Southern border.

The response of "real" conservatives, such as presidential rival Ted Cruz and the editors of National Review? Trump is soft on immigration, and his plan to round up and kick out a record number of people is, says National Review, just "a poorly disguised amnesty." What's Spanglish for WTF, amigo?

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders know an opportunity when they see one, so they've stopped talking about deporting illegals or reducing immigration, even though such positions have a long lineage in Democratic Party politics. Unions don't like competition from cheaper laborers any more than they like competition from cheaper goods. Unlike the Republicans, Sanders has never talked about deporting millions, but he's also no fan of more-open borders, either, for people or goods. In 2003, then Sen. Clinton went on the record as being "adamantly opposed" to illegal immigration and talked about the need to sanction businesses that hire them, stop the flow across our southern border, and more. Nowadays, though, she has pledged not to deport a single person and has even apologized for using the term illegal immigrant

This is all kind of interesting, but here's the deal: It distracts us from actual, current immigration actions. Because Barack Obama used a constitutionally dubious executive order to stay certain types of deportation proceedings for a subset of immigrants, people have been acting if he's not in fact the "Deporter in Chief," who has bounced record numbers of foreigners from our shores.

But Obama is in fact the most insatiable agent of deportation America has yet to see.

Here's how Fusion's Tim Rogers' does the math:

Obama's government has deported more than 2.5 million people—up 23% from the George W. Bush years. More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data.

And now, Reuters reports

U.S. immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.

The operation would likely be the largest deportation sweep targeting immigrant families by the administration of President Barack Obama this year after a similar drive over two days in January that focused on Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina.

Let me be clear. Donald Trump's nativist rhetoric—and that of Ted Cruz, Sen. Jeff Sessions, many folks at National Review and other conservative outfits—sickens me.

It's based on unexamined, reactionary forms of tribalism, ethnic solidarity, and economic ignorance that appalls me especially as the grandchild of immigrants who weren't quite white when they showed up in the United States in the 1910s. Somehow, within a generation or two, my spaghetti-bending wop ancestors and my mackerel-snapping mick forebearers became American enough to fight in World War II and Korea, (mostly) learn English, (mostly) hold down regular jobs, and even (mostly) move into decent neighborhoods. The same thing is happening with today's immigrants, legal and illegal, Mexican and Muslim. When you brush past the emotionalism, you see again and again that immigrants expand opportunities, commit fewer crimes, yadda yadda yadda.

But I don't want to digress: Yes, Trump and the GOP overall is terrible on immigration. But it's Barack Obama's administration that is actively rounding up people and deporting them at record levels. That sickens me even more than Trump's bluster, because it is cold, hard reality, not a nightmare that hasn't yet happened.

NEXT: Flying Dog Brewery Wins First Amendment Battle, Uses Proceeds to Promote Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s worse, the Obama economy has turned away even more foreigners before they even bothered trying to come across the border!

  2. Uh oh, Gillespie’s citing facts again. The commentariat’s not going to like this.

    1. Methinks he gets these numbers the same way the Clintons had a budget surplus.

      1. ….because of a republican congress?

    2. Is he? The administration decided to count things differently and idiots like you and Nick think that means deportations are up?

      k

      1. Yep, the counting changed. Government lies.

        lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics
        Note that the article includes a correction at the end:

        CORRECTION: The original post claimed that Obama had de-emphasized removals and concentrated on returns and that the ratio of his removals to returns was skewed toward returns compared to his predecessors. That claim is not correct because based on DHS’s data, (Table 39: Aliens Removed and Returned, FY 1892-2012) his cumulative numbers since taking office show Obama has removed a total of 1,974,688 people and returned 1,609,055 others. There have been more returns than removals only in FY 2009 and 2010. Moreover, comparing across administrations is not wise given the changes in law and counting procedures.

        1. There is also a large category of “expedited removals” of persons that do not appear before an immigration judge but the procedure carries all the sanctions as a judge ordered removal.

          These would-be immigrants accept this sanction that forgoes a court appearance before an immigration judge because formal removal ? in which the U.S. government runs them through legal proceedings and pays for their return to their home country ? would result in a multi-year bar (five to 20 years) on their eligibility to legally reenter the United States. Critics deride this policy “as catch and release.”

          I not entirely sure if the “expedited removals” are counted as removals or returns, as the language wasn’t used consistently in the post. I’m guessing removals.

          1. Deportation Numbers Unwrapped
            By Jessica Vaughan October 2013

            This report examines data from a collection of mostly unpublished internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE statistics, to provide an alternative evaluation of the administration’s record on immigration enforcement that is based on raw statistics rather than pre-packaged press kits. These statistics show that, contrary to what is commonly believed, in fact immigration enforcement in the interior has slowed significantly in the last few years. ICE is arresting and removing noticeably fewer illegal aliens from the interior now than was the case five years ago, and even two years ago. Its focus has shifted away from interior enforcement in favor of processing aliens who are apprehended by the Border Patrol.

  3. Because Legal and Illegal Immigration is the same thing.

    Open Borderz, muthafukkas! CAN YOU DIG IT??

    1. Carrying a gun without a permit isn’t the same thing as carrying one with a permit. Driving without a license in your pocket isn’t the same thing as driving with a license in your pocket. Washing someone’s hair without a license isn’t the same thing as washing hair with a license.

      Amazing the magic that can happen though onerous and unnecessary paperwork.

      1. That is true Zeb. If you don’t believe in borders or the government’s right to stop anyone from entering the country, then there is no difference between legal and illegal immigration.

        1. Or even if you do believe in borders, but think that the current restrictions on legal immigration are stupid and pointless. For the many who come here just to work and improve their lots, there is no real difference except on paper. Most that come illegally would come legally given the opportunity.

          1. Which is why I favor an overhaul of the immigration laws that would allow 10s of thousands more to enter the country every year over the trickle that is allowed in now.

            The current law sucks but to have millions ignore it does not serve anyone well.

            1. I agree that having so many people ignore a law is not a good thing.

              Usually in such cases, that indicates a problem with the law.

              1. Usually in such cases, that indicates a problem with the law.

                ^ This.

                It’s not good to have millions of people ignoring drug laws. That doesn’t mean the solution is to double down on the Drug War.

              2. Usually in such cases, that indicates a problem with the law.

                That’s right. So, instead of letting millions ignore the law, maybe change it? That may be a very difficult thing to do but it’s not like its magic, right?

              3. Or a problem with enforcement. Shooting a few at the border would probably reverse that trend quick.

                1. Well, at least the name matches the rhetoric. Well played sir.

                2. Sorry to tell you, but that’s been tried. Doesn’t work.

                  1. Keep shooting. Even If it doesn’t act as a deterrent, at some point you exhaust your supply of aspiring immigrants. Problem solved!

                    1. I suppose as long they keep acting like zombies in a first-person shooter game.

                      Your grasp of reality – it is not strong.

                    2. I suppose as long they keep acting like zombies in a first-person shooter game. Your grasp of reality – it is not strong.

                      We’re talking about the poster child of a “movement” that even other neo-Nazis find risible.

                      Be kind. It is quite expected that someone with autism wouldn’t possess the prerequisite level of social cognition to grasp that other people have inner mental states that differ from his, and thus, can act in non-repetitive ways that he could not predict.

                    3. We’re talking about the poster child of a “movement” that even other neo-Nazis find risible.

                      True – perhaps I am fighting a bit under my weight. I usually just ignore him, but I occasionally amuse myself with his linked video of the smug Scandinavian women dancing with flags.

                    4. his linked video of the smug Scandinavian women dancing with flags.

                      Slappy is an ABBA fan?

                    5. Slappy is an ABBA fan?

                      Don’t see how he could not be. Is there a whiter band in the history of music?

                    6. Yes, The Kingston Trio.

                      Touche.

                    7. Frida Lyngstad father was a Nazi soldier, so ABBA is the perfect band for Slappy.

                    8. Frida Lyngstad father was a Nazi soldier, so ABBA is the perfect band for Slappy.

                      Except that problematic pro-Anglo/Latin miscegnation “Fernando” song.

                    9. In the sequel to the song they hunt him down.

                    10. Couldn’t Fernando be Italian? A little shout-out to Mussolini perhaps?

                    11. Now we’re old and grey Fernando
                      And since many years I haven’t seen a rifle in your hand
                      Can you hear the drums Fernando?
                      Do you still recall the frightful night we crossed the Rio Grande?
                      I can see it in your eyes
                      How proud you were to fight for freedom in this land

                      It’s about the Mexican Revolution. it’s really quite a strange song for a Swedish band. They changed the lyrics for the English language version.

                    12. My ABBA lore has failed me.

                      *hangs head*

                    13. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

                    14. Now we’re old and grey Fernando
                      And since many years I haven’t seen a rifle in your hand
                      Can you hear the drums Fernando
                      Do you still recall the frightful night we crossed the Rio Grande
                      I can see it in your eyes
                      How proud you were to fight for freedom in this land

                      Fernando was an illegal!!!!

                    15. By the way, have you been looking for a Swedish horror novel set to an ABBA soundtrack? Does the idea of Carrie meets Fight Club meets MySpace excite you? Try out:

                      Little Star by John Ajvide Lindqvist

              4. It’s also obscenely unfair to those immigrants who dutifully followed the law and waited their turn.

                1. Is it obscenely unfair to people who don’t do drugs to not lock up people who do?

                  1. “I’ve sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.”

                    1. Only if it’s the peach flavored variety.

                2. Which again is a problem with the law, not with illegal immigrants.

                  Time for another analogy. It’s unfair to traditional Taxi drivers that Uber doesn’t have to deal with the onerous licensing and high cost of even operating a taxi in most cities. That doesn’t mean Uber should be subjected to all of the stupid regulations taxis have had to deal with.

              5. Apply that logic to other crimes and see how stupid it sounds.

                “We have too many people committing murder, that indicates there’s a problem with the law!”

          2. The real difference is they broke the law. Either the law is legitimate or it isn’t.

            1. It isn’t. Rule of law is dead. Why respect any laws when the police/politicians ignore the plain text of the constitution?

              1. Fear. There is no meaningful probability of deportation so there is nothing to fear, and therefore no reason to obey the law.

                1. Do we need a new battle-station?

                  1. We always need a new battle station.

                    1. And this time the Rebel Alliance will be destroyed once. and. for. all.

        2. I still don’t understand the fascination with borders. Why you are or are not allowed to go certain places on the Earth merely because of where you came out of your mother…it seems quite arbitrary and ridiculous.

          1. I’m reading Jim Webb’s book about the scots-Irish and the debate about letting people leave came up. It talks about how they wanted to restrict immigration because they were losing tax revenue. The argument was basically who gives a shit if the Irish want a better life, they owe me a comfortable living, restrict their right to free movement.

          2. At what point does immigration become an invasion? If you don’t believe in borders, how do you stop an invasion?

            1. At what point does immigration become an invasion?

              When there’s an invading army involved.

              If you don’t believe in borders, how do you stop an invasion?

              You keep an eye out for things like invading armies. They’re not that sneaky, actually, if you’re paying attention.

              1. if you aren’t willing to stop them, why would they bother arming themselves?

                1. if you aren’t willing to stop them, why would they bother arming themselves?

                  If they don’t arm themselves, can you really call them an “army?” What are they going to do when they get here? Hold their breaths until we make them kings?

                  1. Start raping women, shooting up theaters, executing writers and cartoonists they find offensive, generally terrorizing anyone who dares criticize them or the crazy cult they came from.

                    1. generally terrorizing anyone who dares criticize them or the crazy cult they came from.

                      Yes, most Mexicans are Catholic, but I assume some of them might be good people.

                    2. Start raping women, shooting up theaters, executing writers and cartoonists they find offensive, generally terrorizing anyone who dares criticize them or the crazy cult they came from.

                      Well, we haven’t really had those problems here in this country, have we? I guess our border control regimen is working just fine.

                      But in all seriousness, do you really not see the difference between what you are describing and an invading army? Are you just playing dumb?

            2. It becomes an invasion when they start using violence instead of voluntary exchange to get what they want.
              Now, you can argue that when they use welfare or something like that, they are in some sense using violence. But it is our own fellow citizens who are committing that violence on their behalf. So again, it’s a problem with our laws, not the immigrants. And that isn’t only a problem with illegal immigrants.

            3. I didn’t say I don’t believe in borders. Borders make a lot of sense. When you have two “governments” who both claim the absolute right to make laws and rule and stuff, it makes sense just to delineate off geographic territories so it’s clear just which group of “government’ gets to boss people around and where. In that way, borders make a lot of sense. But when you start making up rules that say “because your parents grew up under the jurisdiction of government A you aren’t allowed to cross over into the geographic area ruled by government B”, or “because you came out of your mother in an area controlled by government C, you are restricted from physically entering the jurisdiction ruled by government D”, well, none of that makes sense.

      2. ooch! ouch! Stop beating up on me so hard!

        1. Do you even know what a strawman is?

          If you disagree with my point, made by analogy, explain how there is any real difference between illegal and legal immigration, except on paper.

          1. Well, one of them is respecting the law of the land they want to be a part of whereas the other one doesn’t.

            Fair, unfair? Why, why not?

            1. I don’t respect the law of the land where I live. Why would I expect immigrants to?

              1. Ah, so you admit there is a difference; you just don’t care about it.

                Thanks.

                1. Of course there’s a difference. One complied with immigration laws and one didn’t . My point is that the distinction is purely on paper.
                  And complying with certain laws does not imply any general respect for the law. There is no reason to assume that legal immigrants have a general respect for US laws just because they chose to comply with the immigration laws (I’m sure many do, at least in principle, but as we all know, there probably isn’t anyone who is completely in compliance with all laws at all times).
                  I obey the law when I think it is the right thing to do, or when the risk of punishment is unacceptable to me. But there is no reason to respect a law just because it is a law.

                  1. Actually, in my experience illegal immigrants are rather meticulously law-abiding. The whole “fundamental disrespect for the law” angle is bullshit.

                    The ones I’ve known come here for jobs, and do it as a sacrifice for their families back home. They tend to be stand-up guys, at least the ones I’ve known, and very, very concerned not to call attention to themselves, especially of the negative variety.

                    1. very, very concerned not to call attention to themselves, especially of the negative variety

                      Makes sense, because they are here illegally and drawing attention to themselves would jeopardize the whole being here part.

                    2. Makes sense, because they are here illegally and drawing attention to themselves would jeopardize the whole being here part.

                      Precisely.

                  2. That’s my exact approach to anti-masturbation laws!

                    1. Masturbating so discretely that even your hand says “Is it in yet?”

                  3. “But there is no reason to respect a law just because it is a law.”

                    While this is true of some laws, it isn’t true of all laws. It’s only an issue because the government has decided there are lots of ‘free’ benefits available on the public dime. While I take no issue with someone using their own dollars to render aid to foreign nationals, I’d prefer it not to be used to subsidize a foreign population who’s more than capable of working.

                    Essentially, incentives matter. Reform the law to something reasonable, and enforce it.

                    Securing almost 2,000 miles of arbitrary lines in the sand is a fools errand; it remains to be seen if reforming immigration is any more realistic.

                2. What’s the difference between the legality of alcohol versus pot?
                  Someone said I cant?

              2. One issue with the US in general is that many don’t respect the law of the land. In regards to a later post of yours, ‘onerous and unnecessary paperwork.’ So, living in a home/condo that was built by anyone who was not qualified to perform plumbing/electrical/masonry work is fine with you because they are in need of work? These particular tasks are performed by licensed contractors, or should be, in order to keep a safe/healthy standard of living environment to the consumer. Faulty masonry can cause mold issues, improper plumbing can cause sewage/gas issues among many other unhealthy circumstances and electrical can cause a number of problems as well. These ‘codes’ that we are supposed to live by were put in place for a reason as well as the training/apprenticeship programs that are involved to facilitate meeting these codes properly. I don’t know what city you live in but my town has been plagued with sub par building since 1999 due to the fact that the unskilled worker, hired by the ‘fly by night’ contractor, built a place that wasn’t inspected because of a kick back that the alderman up to the mayor line pockets with, one way or another. So, you tell me how to start attacking a socio-economic issue like this from the ground up? People have become liars, thieves and shysters for the almighty dollar… and those are the ones running the show let alone the immigrant.

    2. There really is no debate about open borders. The ongoing debate has always been “which ineffective means of closing the borders should we double down on?”

      1. Borders are impossible to secure. Why don’t you test that theory out by moving the Mexico without a VISA. Let us know how that works out. I mean if borders can’t be secured, you shouldn’t have any problem right?

        1. It has, indeed, gotten slightly harder with all the xenophobia in recent years.

          I once had a carpenter actually take two weeks to get back after visiting his family. He had to go around the border stations.

          It was tragic, really.

          1. And where my dad works, in uber-tolerant Arizona, they had a machinist name Paolo who was hauled away and deported in a sweep.

            A couple weeks later they had a guy who looked and talked just the same, but whose name was Jose.

          2. Yes, so because we are not securing it now, it must be impossible to do. I have to admit you logic and reasoning skills are quite remarkable. is there a fallacy you haven’t mastered?

            1. As I said, ” The ongoing debate has always been “which ineffective means of closing the borders should we double down on?””

              Show me an example of a successful border control strategy and how it benefitted the country that implemented it.

              1. Or, to put it another way –

                You are trying to solve something that hasn’t ever been a problem.

              2. Be prepared for someone to trot our Israel as proof Square.

                1. Be prepared for someone to trot our Israel as proof Square.

                  Yes – that’s a wonderful situation they have going on over there. More of that here, please.

                  1. Yes – that’s a wonderful situation they have going on over there. More of that here, please.

                    So Mexicans that want to work in the US will kill us indiscriminately if we require them to obey the law? An interesting hypothesis. Do you have any proof?

                    1. So Mexicans that want to work in the US will kill us indiscriminately if we require them to obey the law? An interesting hypothesis. Do you have any proof?

                      Huh?

                      Where in the actual fuck did you get that out of what I said?

                    2. Where in the actual fuck did you get that out of what I said?

                      Yes – that’s a wonderful situation they have going on over there. More of that here, please.

                      Given the trouble that Israel has with its border walls and Palis trying hard to kill them indiscriminately, this doesn’t seem an unreasonable comparison. If that’s not what you meant – what did you mean?

                    3. If that’s not what you meant – what did you mean?

                      Well –

                      My basic request was to show me a state where closed borders have been successful and have led to identifiable benefits for the country involved.

                      Israel is a bit of a special case because if Israel were to have open borders and open democracy, it wouldn’t stay Israel for very long.

                      Israel is a country that’s about the size of the SF Bay Area that was created by UN fiat. It cannot exist without government violence maintaining its separation from everything surrounding it.

                      Now I know this is a touchy area so I want to clarify that I’m not saying “ISRAEL IS EVIL. PALIS PERSECUTED!!1!” I’m saying this is not what you would call a natural situation, and the degree of force and violence necessary to maintain it are not things I want in the society that I live in.

                      And the fact that Mexicans, as a general rule, don’t want to come here and kill us indiscriminately is a good reason not to treat them as if they do.

                    4. Well clarified.

                    5. I merely warned that someone would use Israel as an example of a wall-building success story. I myself do not agree with that assessment, but I will at least acknowledge it’s as close as it gets.

                      Also, yes, tunnels are a thing both in Israel and here in the U.S. since that ‘technology’ has been around pretty much since people thought of walls in the first place.

                2. I don’t think that a country whose neighbors have been trying to destroy for its entire history is a very useful comparison.

                  1. So, not all borderz are created equal?

              3. Israel. One of the benefits is that terrorists have a few more problems killing them.

        2. It would,be possible to secure the borders to an effective,degree if A) the politicians in this country were prepared to debate policy based on facts rather than fondly held theory, B) the war on drungs didn’t make smuggling so lucrative, and C) Mexico wasn’t a failed State.

          A is a fantasy, B is wildly unlikely, and C has been true any time during my lifespan

          1. So – it would be like Canada. A border we feel no need to secure.

            1. But Canadians hate us and have no desire to be here, except to watch playoff hockey, so all we have to do is get Mexicans to hate us? Hmmm….

            2. Canada- not so much…

              They wouldn’t let me even enter the country without a “waiver” because I had a DUI 15 yrs earlier- and if anybody tried to hire me, the Canadian gov’t would fuck them in the ass.

      2. The ongoing debate has always been “which ineffective means of closing the borders should we double down on?”

        No need. Just eliminate welfare subsidies that incentivize migration and prohibit charities/etc. from dumping gaggles of refugees onto the system.

        Beyond that, anyone should be able to come and go across the border freely, no questions asked.

        1. Just eliminate welfare subsidies that incentivize migration and prohibit charities/etc. from dumping gaggles of refugees onto the system.

          Beyond that, anyone should be able to come and go across the border freely, no questions asked.

          Couldn’t agree more.

          Don’t set up a big magnet and then complain that a bunch of metal is drawn to and start thinking you can just pass a law against magnetic attraction.

          1. Awkward analogy there, but yeah.

            1. YOURE AND AWKWARD ANALOGY!

    3. Rebranding! Let’s start calling open borders “free-market governments”. The lulz alone make a compelling argument.

    4. no other nation on the planet has open borders. What makes US so “special”? Special enough we are near to having to ride on the Short Bus for the Special Kidz.

      Ever look into emigrating to Canada? Australia? New Zealand? China? Philippines? Taiwan? How about Italy or Switzerland? Scotland?

      Name ONE NATION that accepts anyone and everyone from anywhere with open arms.

      No borders means no nation, no culture. We ARE a nation, and with laws all our own.

      Legal immigration is one thing, illegal is not immigration, for immigration includes the concept of staying… as in, making a new home in the new nation. Illegally entering does not qualify as “immigration” defined. It is invading, squatting, camping, touring, mooching. freeloading. Illegal.

      1. I tend to agree with what your getting at. Also, borders matter because they delineate cultures and societies. It would be nice if everyone just got along, but for the entitirity of the human condition different groups of people’s living inside the same borders has led to friction. This friction tends to cause huge problems like genocide and war.

  4. Let me be clear.

    Awesome.

  5. 2.5mil deported? Damn, he finally managed to do something right.

    1. Thanks, Obama!

    2. Only 318 million more to go and America will finally be safe.

      1. Everyone is an illegal Hugh. Got it.

        1. Well, given that we’ve probably all broken some federal law today without knowing it…

  6. But Obama is still cleaning up Bush’s messes, and obstructionist House Republicans won’t let him do what he really wants.

    1. His hands are tied, the poor bastard.

      1. If Obama didn’t do this, Trump would be a big meanie and say he doesn’t care. What is the poor guy supposed to do?

    2. Does he use a broom or a Johnny Vac to clean up the mess?

  7. So border control is a loser issue that is going to doom Trump in the fall. Yet, Obama is willing to alienate a whole bunch of Democratic supporters and launch deportation raids all over the country. Not only that, he is doing it in a very public way and getting his court media to cover it.

    If I didn’t know any better, I would think that the Democrats realize how potent of a political issue securing the border is and are doing this to try and neutralize the issue in the fall. No way. Obama must be a secret closed border guy. It couldn’t be that.

    1. I’ve never heard any Democrat promote anything that could be called an “open border policy”.

      1. They don’t openly object to a secure border but they most certainly do object to deporting people who are already here.

        Democrats believe in a more permanent solution that keeps families together and our country safe, which is why President Obama wants to work with the new Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill similar to the one that Senate Democrats passed in the last Congress.

        That is from the Democratic policy position at Democrats.org. I would give you the link but Reason won’t take it.

        That is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing here. And isn’t it received wisdom that pushing to deport people already here is a political loser? If that is true, why is Obama doing it?

        1. Because he isn’t.

        2. Democrats object to limiting any portion of a potential electorate that could vote for them. The democrats would argue allowing ISIS to set up in Texas would be worthwhile if enough came to make the state blue.

    2. I think that is the issue John make a short burst of enforcement while flying in kids from other countries so that they can claim enforcement. I also think that their deportation numbers are much like their deficit reduction numbers. Raise the deficit so high that any reduction becomes the larges reduction in history while still having the largest deficit. If you have the largest number of illegals entering you can still deport the largest number but still have a net increase above all others. its all in how you play the numbers game. BTW these numbers do not agree with what the border patrol is claiming. the Border patrol claims that ICE is only sending them out the door and claiming them to be deported when they have never left the country.
      Lie Lies and more dam Lies and I’m surprised Nick would use such false numbers just because they agree with a false sense of what is or is not good. Just because Nick does not like something does not make it an abhorent position to belive in.

  8. Yes, Obama is the deporter in chief. And Trump will simply streamline the process with a network of railways and boxcars. And a wall to make sure they don’t try to escape. What’s wrong with that?

  9. And obama’s deportation numbers are bogus. Obama changed the definition of deportation to include people turned away at the border.

    Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

    On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up ? primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

    This fact has been well known and reported by many mainstream news sources for years. Yet Reason continues to peddle these statistics like they mean anything. It is just a God damned lie and an insulting one that can be disproved with a single internet search at that.

    Reason has to know it is a lie. Do they think lying helps their cause? Or that their readers are too stupid to see such an obvious and long disproved lie?

    1. Yuuuup. I was wondering why the author would cite that, and then I noticed that it was Nick who seems to be continually unaware of this fact. That, or he knows about it and doesn’t mention it for some reason.

      1. Whatever your opinion of borders and immigration, lying is a bad idea. I think Nick is just lazy. He marinates in a pool of conventional wisdom and likely has no idea how obviously untrue that claim is.

        1. Occasionally we agree; this is one of those times. I’m tired of people trying to paint Obama as some great border security guy. Frankly, I disagree with securing the border but acting like Obama gives a shit about it just irritates me.

        2. Nick is living on Planet Gillespie where there are three Suns and two moons, and the Soviet flag flys over the White House.

          Seriously, when I read his articles, I think of an old movie I once saw, where this little girl keeps trying to have a conversation with her senile grandma, who keeps asking her who she is. Oblivious and unresponsive, no matter how many times you repeat the same information.

    2. Thanks for the correction John. I knew that Obama guy was alright on immigration. Nick should stop besmirching his good name.

      1. He is mendacious as hell. The facts are what they are, however.

        1. You and Cytotoxic do agree on one thing: Nick is mendacious.

          1. I meant Obama. But I suppose Nick as well.

    3. This fact has been well known and reported by many mainstream news sources for years. Yet Reason continues to peddle these statistics like they mean anything. It is just a God damned lie and an insulting one that can be disproved with a single internet search at that.

      Yeah, it’s a fucking disgrace to this website that they can’t be a little honest about that

      1. Reason can’t write honest articles on immigration, because the facts won’t cooperate to make Open Borders Uber Alles look like a sane policy.

  10. Quick, everyone migrate to the economics thread! Boycott immigration threads!

  11. Curious if those deportation #s reflect significant changes in the nature of actual ‘illegal immigration’

    According to this, the average # of immigrants actually dropped steadily between 2000-2015

    the only thing in that data that i think flags a problem is the ‘exclusion of temporary migration’.

    To exclude it, you’d think they’d have a measure of it to begin with. Is increased deportation of ‘temporary migrants’ – e.g. Farm Labor – what’s being shown in the growth of Obama-era enforcement?

    I think for the people who piss themselves purple about migrants… its notable that it will be 2050 before we’re expected to reach the same levels of Immigration as we had in 2000.

    Basically = the “problem” everyone thinks is such a crisis peaked before BushII got elected, and has been in remission ever since.

    Also interesting = According to these projections, the real engine of mass-immigration over the next 30+ years? isn’t going to be Mexico (or over the southern border). Its going to be Asians

    Of course, i think those projections are simply extending some trends they’ve seen in the last 5 years into perpetuity, which isn’t exactly best-in-class demographic modeling. But still, there’s no denying that there will be more from Asia. And any “wall” will simply exacerbate that shift.

    1. oh, source, “Pew, Sept 2015”

    2. See my link above. Obama changed the definition of deportations to doctor the numbers.

      1. Even if that were the case it wouldn’t change any of my above point at all. The numbers would change from being “a lot higher” than under Bush, to “moderately higher”

        The numbers seem to be on the order of “150,000” non-criminal deportations annually, and “200,000” criminal deportations annually

        Tthe non-criminal #s have dropped under Obama. The overall cumulative trend isn’t necessarily much changed. There’s about 2X as many deportations now than there was in 2000.

        1. I know;. I was agreeing with you. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.

      2. Did the same thing with formula used to calculate unemployment as well, if I recall correctly. Albeit one that he claimed wasn’t his decision.

    3. From what i can tell there’s very little real connection between immigration trends and the boom in deportation/enforcement.

      It seems to just be a shift in policing the people who are ‘already here’.

      which maybe has something to do with the flood of money that’s been thrown at law enforcement agencies since 9/11.

      They don’t have as much “real crime” to deal with, so… justifying one’s own existence means enforcing other kinds of laws.

      But the deportation process is expensive and complex. why so much emphasis? I’d speculate there was probably a lot of investment into that area under Bush, and like everything to do with Govt, there is a huge lag between spending/policy shifts, and actual effects.

      Blaming this on Obama seems a little silly, really. Or making such a fuss about any president’s rhetoric, regardless of how draconian it sounds. We’ve probably passed the high-water mark of actual pants-shitting, and regardless of who gets elected i doubt the systems will be radically transformed.

      I think rather than throw shit at candidates, Reason would probably do better by articulating its own vision of “What US Immigration Policy Should Look Like” – and i don’t mean in any pie-in-the-sky bullshit open-borders sense, but a detailed-policy proposal that could actually take steps in the desired direction. Currently the only options are “Wall”! and “More of Same”

      1. I have an ideal solution. Simply declare anyone in the country illegally ineligible for protection under US law, and let the citizenry sort this themselves.

        I guarantee, this issue will be in the rear view mirror in record time, and no government intervention at all. Libertarians should love it!

        1. Did your parents have any children that lived?

          1. What’s the problem? It ticks every box on the libertarian checklist. It limits the scope of government intervention, it puts a whole lot of federal employees out of a job, saves the taxpayers shitloads of money and it leaves the citizenry free to manage their business however they see fit. What’s not to like?

            1. So the answer is no.

              1. There is a classic psychological experiment known as the Sally?Anne test. In one version of it, 3 groups of children (normal group, Down’s syndrome group, and autistic group) are shown a box of candy. The researcher asked the children “What’s in the box”, just about all the children in all three groups answered “candy”. The researcher then opened the box to reveal that it was filled with pencils. The researcher then asked the children “If I asked someone else what was in the box, what would they say?” The study found that all of the normal and Down’s kids answered “candy” and all of the autistic children answered “pencils”.

            2. Indeed, since the rights of spics don’t matter, and all.

              I’m starting to get behind this thing. We haven’t had a good spell of generalized violence in a while.

              How shall we mark the illegals so the rest of us know who is fair game to enslave/rape/torture and kill at our whim, fellow Libertarian?

              1. Oh, oh – I know! Only white people have ever been legitimate immigrants anyway!

                The solution was just sitting there the whole time!

                *pickes up rape dungeon catalog and starts browing*

              2. How shall we mark the illegals so the rest of us know who is fair game to enslave/rape/torture and kill at our whim, fellow Libertarian?

                Easy! Their skin have already been marked with the Mark of Cain.

                Wait…shit. Is that what this is all about? Is Slappy just a radical Mormon?

                1. His magic stones let him see the Mexican lurking under even the whitest of faces.

        2. Jesus. If you want to kill a Spic so badly, just go ahead and do it. Enough with this pussy-ass aspirational Timothy McVeigh cosplay.

          1. He worries about going to jail. There’s darkies in there and the other Nazis might not accept him.

            1. That’s the punchline. At the end of the day, he ain’t going to do shit.

        3. Yeah, libertarians just love murder and unprovoked violence of all kinds.

          1. So tell us again – if you don’t trust your fellow citizens when unrestrained by law, why should they trust you?

            1. Heavy.

                1. If it were decreed that all those here illegally would no longer enjoy the “protection” of the law, would that be local, county, state, and / or federal law? I assume that you intended a top / down approach? In other words, under your proposal, the feds would dictate that all illegals would not have the protection of the law.

                  So, assuming some members of the citizenry begin to take action by forcibly evicting Pedro from his Anchorage abode, would Pedro lose the right to defend himself against the naked aggression perpetrated by anti-intellectual, blue collar, inarticulate, orange haired ruffians?

                  How about HM and Sugar Free? Would they lose their right to assist Pedro in repelling the nutty nativists from their attempts to deport him?

                  Supposing some municipalities, counties and state disagreed with your proposition? Would such political units lose their power to prevent nattering nabobs of nativism from having their way with Pedro?

                  My friend, build a better hypothetical ideological mousetrap next time.

                  1. “In other words, under your proposal, the feds would dictate that all illegals would not have the protection of the law.”

                    Yep!

                    “would Pedro lose the right to defend himself against the naked aggression perpetrated by anti-intellectual, blue collar, inarticulate, orange haired ruffians?”

                    Given that we’ve already established that Pedro would have no legal protection under US law, he effectively has no rights here. Why is that even a question?

                    “How about HM and Sugar Free? Would they lose their right to assist Pedro in repelling the nutty nativists from their attempts to deport him?”

                    What “right” to assist him? They’d be held accountable in the same way that they would if they were interfering with anyone else going about their lawful business.

                    “Supposing some municipalities, counties and state disagreed with your proposition? Would such political units lose their power to prevent nattering nabobs of nativism from having their way with Pedro?”

                    Presumably, yes. It would depend on how the statute is written. And subject to the federal government’s willingness to enforce it’s laws. (see sanctuary cities, marijuana laws, etc.)

                    “My friend, build a better hypothetical ideological mousetrap next time.”

                    Why? What’s wrong with this one? You could have easily extrapolated my responses from the original premise. There are plenty of other laws on the books to use as examples.

    4. So, you’re saying we need a floating wall on the ocean? I imagine a series of colossal water wings strewn together from Vancouver to San Diego, paid for by the Chinese.

      More seriously, the Pew data isn’t reflecting true illegal immigration rates; indeed, how many illegal immigrants self-report to the U.S. Census Bureau? Further, Pew is only counting documented migrants and subtracting those who self-report as being foreign born: “residuals,” obviously an underestimation. Those who were never counted in the first place are left out of the arithmetic.

      You can see the reigns tighten with the Patriot Act. The Asian projections are strange (that boat ride is longer than the wade across the Rio Grande) but, as you note, Pew is just keeping things even trajectories.

  12. “..Mexicans?whom he [Trump] characterizes as rapists, drug dealers, and bringers of crime and disease..”

    Please join us in welcoming Timothy Egan & Frank Bruni to the Reason editorial staff!

    For contractual reasons, they’ll be writing under the pseudonym “Nick Gillespie”.

    Welcome aboard, guys!

  13. ….immigrants expand opportunities, commit fewer crimes, yadda yadda yadda.

    Mr. Gillespie, I agree with you on the topic of immigration. But, can you please stop using this language? It simply isn’t accurate. Immigrants expand opportunities, commit fewer crimes, yadda yadda yadda relative to natives of the same socio-economic demographic. But, immigrants, being generally poor, tend to have worse numbers there than the average native. That doesn’t mean the numbers don’t erase relatively quickly. But, pushing half truths is pretty much a sure way to make sure people pushing your argument tend to look silly against a competent opponent.

    1. Don’t even let him get that far. He’s changing it from “illegal aliens” to all immigrants to make the stats look better. He’s just another dishonest asshole when it comes to this subject

  14. FACT: deportation numbers start going up at the same time as violent crime rates start going down.
    FACT: Record deportation rates coincide with record-low violent crime rates.

    Ergo ipso facto presto chango, if we just deport everyone the crime rate will go to zero. Take THAT, you Muslim-loving, Mexican-flag-waving, liberal commies. What part of ILLEGAL don’t you understand?

  15. U.S. immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.

    I’m sure Gillipsie thinks these immigrants came here using their own money, without any government assistance, now or never will use welfare, hate big governments and will probably vote libertarian once they become citizens, and will create all sorts of companies.

    You cannot have open borders and a welfare state. Hasn’t anyone here noticed the rapid rise in the welfare state since the 60s when US immigration policy was changed to allow millions of third wold immigrants, especially from Mexico and Central America?

    I’m sure we’ll get that libertarian moment once we let in enough third world illegal immigrants!

    1. Hasn’t anyone here noticed the rapid rise in the welfare state since the 60s when US immigration policy was changed to allow millions of third wold immigrants, especially from Mexico and Central America?

      Uh, what?

    2. I doubt Nick rigorously thought all that through, nor does his article suggest as much.

      But it’s more fun to just holler categorical affirmations, slap value judgments on perceived evildoers, and rail against strawmen like nativists & xenophobes.

      1. You mean this strawman?

        Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe|5.13.16 @ 2:36PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

        I have an ideal solution. Simply declare anyone in the country illegally ineligible for protection under US law, and let the citizenry sort this themselves.

        I guarantee, this issue will be in the rear view mirror in record time, and no government intervention at all. Libertarians should love it!

        And don’t dare think this is just a joke. This tuff gai has been posting here for years.

        1. The recent narrative of martyrdom among them has been amusing.

          1. They learned it from watching Daddy T do it.

  16. The scourge of Canadian immigration must be defeated! Take their poutine recipes and BUILD THAT WALL!

    1. But it will be built out of ice blocks. Which will melt on that one warm day in July. And then look out….

  17. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    the best adult dating site!

  18. ONLINE JOBS WITHOUT INVESTMENT AND SKILLSToday!!! I come up with the great oppertunity. No Need Investment smile emoticon smile emoticon No Need Skills. Just work for 2 hours daily and earn 80$ daily or more. Why you stopped. Just Sign up in 15 seconds and start your JOB
    click this link====http://www.earn-yelp.com

  19. ONLINE JOBS WITHOUT INVESTMENT AND SKILLSToday!!! I come up with the great oppertunity. No Need Investment smile emoticon smile emoticon No Need Skills. Just work for 2 hours daily and earn 80$ daily or more. Why you stopped. Just Sign up in 15 seconds and start your JOB
    click this link====http://www.earn-yelp.com

  20. ONLINE JOBS WITHOUT INVESTMENT AND SKILLSToday!!! I come up with the great oppertunity. No Need Investment smile emoticon smile emoticon No Need Skills. Just work for 2 hours daily and earn 80$ daily or more. Why you stopped. Just Sign up in 15 seconds and start your JOB
    click this link==== http://www.earn-yelp.com

  21. ONLINE JOBS WITHOUT INVESTMENT AND SKILLS Today!!!
    I come up with the great oppertunity. No Need Investment smile emoticon smile emoticon No Need Skills. Just work for 2 hours daily and earn 80$ daily or more. Why you stopped. Just Sign up in 15 seconds and start your JOB
    click this link==== http://www.earn-yelp.com

  22. ONLINE JOBS WITHOUT INVESTMENT AND SKILLS Today!!!
    I come up with the great oppertunity. No Need Investment smile emoticon smile emoticon No Need Skills. Just work for 2 hours daily and earn 80$ daily or more. Why you stopped. Just Sign up in 15 seconds and start your JOB
    click this link==== http://www.earn-yelp.com

  23. “Obama’s government has deported more than 2.5 million people?up 23% from the George W. Bush years.”

    This can’t be true because all of my conservative friends tell me that we have open borders.

    1. Well Obama has a larger selection to choose from because we’re busing them over now so they won’t get their backs wet. He could probably double deportations and we’d still be gaining illegals.

      And the answer from the pro-illegal crowd when an anti-illegal proponent says deport illegals is always you can’t deport millions of people, it’s too great a task and America can’t do that. Yet here we have someone saying that a democrat has managed to do just that.

    2. Read the thread and learn how Nick is lying about this, again

  24. We import unskilled, uneducated foreigners to do the jobs we pay unskilled, unemployed Americans not to do.

  25. Always Worse Than Trump on Immigration, Obama Plans Big Deportation Raids Over Next Weeks

    Dear Leader and Trump the Grump are right.
    It is always wise to deport those willing to embrace capitalism and all its rewards.
    Getting rich is for the ruling elitist turds only.
    We’ve had this conversation before.

  26. so, refusing to host, at huge taxpayer expense, millions of lawbreaking foreigh invaders is “sickening”? On what basis? It is up to the CONGRESS to make a uniform path for immigration and naturalisation, and to determine on what basis foreign nationals might enter and/or stay within our borders. Congress have done their job.. poorly, I’ll admit, but nevertheless they’ve established those standards.

    Obama, by his executive amnesty, has clearly violated the laws he swore to uphold. Trump is merely noising about that he WILL abide by those laws of Congress. Natioinal security includes the prevention of unlawful entry.
    Ever sailed in a boat up into Vancouver/Victoria, BC, or into Ensenada, Mexico, or Puerto Vallarta Mexico? See how thorough THEY all are about visitors showing up. Is that “sickening”? Put the shoe on our foot and why is everything suddenly all different? They got here without jumpiing through the hoops,. The result, under current law, is to get elsewhere. Friends of mine lived in Italy for a season, and had to leave every three months and reenter the country. They overstayed one time by a few days, and on their return were denied entry. Sickening? Try that with a family of ten. Their solution? Cheapest airfare they could find at that airport was to Morrocco. guess what? They lived in Morrocco for a year.

    1. Dems da rules, buddy. Stick by em er get dealt with.

      And leave off your whinge about how “sickening” it is for people here illegally to have the lawfully presceibed consequences for their decision come to visit upon themselves. They asked for it by entering illegally and/or staying longer than they should have done.

    2. Dems da rules, buddy. Stick by em er get dealt with.

      And leave off your whinge about how “sickening” it is for people here illegally to have the lawfully presceibed consequences for their decision come to visit upon themselves. They asked for it by entering illegally and/or staying longer than they should have done.

  27. 50-60 million invaders…….

    U.S. Immigration Policies Are Not Broken..I just heard a ‘Univision’ commentator on the Sean Hannity show say that, if elected president, Donald Trump could not deport 11 million illegal immigrants (aka “illegal aliens”)( It’s more like 50-60 million now Terry, the MSM has been using that figure for 15 years) from the United States. He also repeated the lie that we hear constantly from liberals in both political parties that our immigration system is “broken” in the United States.
    Let me tell you that our immigration system is not broken; it is just ignored! The reason that liberals say that our immigration system is broken is because they want chaos in the population and by not enforcing our immigration laws the flood of illegal aliens will effectively break down our national borders and destroy our county internally and economically.

    http://exposingmodernmugwumps……ot-broken/

  28. Why Didn’t Trump Include His Grand ‘Touchback’ Amnesty Scheme In His Immigration Manifesto?

    Answer: Because he knew that revealing this scheme (that he’s been talking about on interview after interview since April 14, 2015) would cause a Conservative revolt and very likely cost him the GOP nomination, so he simply left it out.
    As a result, there is no “touchback” Amnesty mentioned nor is there a mention of his wanting to deport all 40 to 60 million illegals in the U.S. in his manifesto.
    However, Conservatives and others paying attention will not let Trump off the hook re: his Amnesty. We want “the truth”! We want to know “how” he’s going to get “touchback” thru both houses of Congress and we want to know how many illegals-once-removed he will try to bring back..

    thedavelevineshow

    1. You know everyone who reads your suggestion that 1 in 5 or 6 people in this country is an illegal immigrant thinks you’re insane, right?

  29. How many has Obama let in with an open border.

  30. If you come here legally, you have nothing to fear.

    “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

  31. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  32. “Somehow, within a generation or two, my spaghetti-bending wop ancestors and my mackerel-snapping mick forebearers became Privileged White People who are personally responsible for the KKK, slavery, Jim Crow, and the Dred Scott decision.”

    FIFY

  33. que la chingada

  34. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.nypost55.com

  35. So, Obama deports more of those dreaded, horrible “wetbacks,” and you conservative Republican TRUMP THE HUMP worshipers trying to masquerade as “libertarians” because that label sounds less partisan, CONDEMN the former for his actions? What? I don’t get it. Well, actually I do get it. Most of you are merely a bunch of FAUX “libertarians” who are just as partisan and hypocritical, if not more so, as you claim liberals are. Obama does something you people (now I sound like Ross Perot) presumably would love but, because he’s mostly a liberal, you have a little hissy fit. Whereas when someone like TRUMP THE HUMP condemns Mexicans and Muslims, you praise him. Which just proves that all forums like this, and all politics, are BULLSHIT!

  36. I’m making over $8k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do.———————— http://www.earntimes.tk/

  37. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  38. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

  39. I highly suspect Obama is doing this to have photos of women and children being deported in the news cycle for Trump to comment on, and Hillary to emote about.

    Now, on to open borders talk. I like the idea in theory.

    My qualms happen when you consider political culture. Texas has a political culture of pride in small government, for example. Change that culture, and you change the politics.

    Immigration could easily change that culture.

    Mexicans are actually pretty decent compared to a thought experiment of say, Bangladesh and Pakistan sending 20 million people into California.

    How soon would sharia be discussed then? Or voted on?

    Well, look at the UK. Which doesn’t have open borders, and already you might be queasy.

    Culture, once you lose it, hard to get back.

    1. Spoken like a true, crazy, Trump-type, conservative conspiracy theorist. By the way, vote for Gary Johnson if you’re a genuine, philosophically consistent “libertarian.” Unfortunately, however, most of you idiots aren’t that. Fiscally responsible, socially liberal, as Mr. Johnson would say.

      1. Dick-smoker, your link to Huffinglue Post mistakenly directed you to Reason. You should change that.

        1. Childish response from a Faux News/Trump The Hump-loving asshole. This is “supposed” to be a forum for real “libertarians” but, unfortunately, the libertarian movement has been hijacked by lying, hypocritical, odious individuals such as yourself. Now, go watch your favorite partisan, propaganda network Faux. And don’t forget, vote for Gary Johnson in November.

        2. Hey, “VartAndelay,” I bet your number one fantasy is to have a foursome with Trump, Hannity and O’Reilly all taking turns fucking you in the ass. Ha. Ha. Ha. Vote Gary Johnson!

      2. When was the last time the government would willingly tell the press they planned to target “women and children” for deportation? No one would ever say that. That’s why I suspect its designed for a political theater.

        Gary Johnson thinks Jewish bakers should be forced to make Nazi cakes.

        So, maybe he’t not so philosophically consistent as you think he is.

        I live in California. My vote doesn’t matter.

        1. As for Mr. Johnson’s position on Jewish bakers making cakes for conservative Republican, Trump-like Nazis (hey, if Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly can call people Nazis, so can I, right?), he is demonstrating philosophical consistency because he applies the same logic to a crazy religious right-type baker making a cake for a gay couple. What don’t you comprehend about that? And why would you care anyway, because you’d side with the Nazi over the “liberal Jew” any day.

  40. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————- http://youtube.nypost55.com

  41. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..

    OPEN this link …….

    http://www.pathcash30.com

  42. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  43. Allison . if you think Rachel `s artlclee is exceptional… last week I bought audi after having made $5844 thiss month and just a little over 10-k this past month . without a question it is the easiest-work Ive ever done . I actually started eight months/ago and immediately started to earn at least $86 per-hour . Read Full Report…

    ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  44. Allison . if you think Rachel `s artlclee is exceptional… last week I bought audi after having made $5844 thiss month and just a little over 10-k this past month . without a question it is the easiest-work Ive ever done . I actually started eight months/ago and immediately started to earn at least $86 per-hour . Read Full Report…

    ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  45. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  46. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link……….

    =========?[??]? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  47. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  48. With the current welfare state (look at Germany w the Syrian crisis) if every person on the planet could “pick” where they wanted to live, over half would pick just a few countries….probably more like 80%. The US, Canada, parts of Europe, Australia. Gee!!! What do I see? There’s something about culture and ethnicity that is relatively similar in all these places! I highly doubt people would want to move to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe. China. India…etc.

    Mass immigration is a bad thing…as is a welfare state. Shut the borders until we Shut down every part of the welfare state.

  49. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  50. Allison . if you think Rachel `s artlclee is exceptional… last week I bought audi after having made $5844 thiss month and just a little over 10-k this past month . without a question it is the easiest-work Ive ever done . I actually started eight months/ago and immediately started to earn at least $86 per-hour . Read Full Report…
    ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  51. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  52. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

  53. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.