Donald Trump

Prediction: Donald Trump Will Take Full Credit for Decrease in Illegal Immigrants That Started in 2007

He's already done the same thing with various other things, so why not his pet obsession?

|

Georgetown Book Shop

Nothing was more central to Donald Trump's presidential campaign than his promise to deport illegal immigrants and build a wall on the border between Mexico and the United States.

Lest we forget, that's what he opened his candidacy with, a litany of the supposed hordes of drug-carrying, disease-ridden rapists scuttering onto our pristine shores like…well, exactly like the Italian immigrants who came "direct from the slums of Europe" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. See image to the right, from the horrid old nativist mag, Judge. The Italians even kind of look like Mexicans, don't they? Mustaches, guns, knives, rats! The only real difference was that there were effectively no limits on immigration from Europe or Mexico until the 1920s (Asia was a different story, sadly), so the category of illegal immigrant didn't really exist.

But here's the thing: Illegal immigrants in the United States peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million and has since declined to around 11 million. The main reason for that isn't because of tougher sanctions against illegals—though there's no question that Barack Obama was indeed the "deporter in chief" and Trump's presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, had nothing but hate in her heart for illegals, depending on the setting—it's because the U.S. economy tanked. Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, come here mostly for economic opportunity. Indeed, that's what the First Lady, Melania Trump, said about why she emigrated from her native Slovenia:

"I wanted to follow my dream to a place where freedom and opportunity were in abundance. So of course, I came here."

Talk about the American Dream! Showing up here, working illegally, gaining citizenship, and then marrying the most nativist president since Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson!

Pew Reseach

Trump is now laying out plans to build a wall and beg for funding from a Republican Congress that mostly seems all too eager to play along on this topic—remember, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru says that being anti-immigration is a "defining" issue for conservatives now and NR editorialized that Trump was too soft on immigration even though he pledged to deport 12 million illegals. Whether the wall ever gets built (or finished, as we've already got hundreds of miles of it in place), the president will be able to take credit for the slowdown that's already years old. The number of illegals in the workforce peaked in 2007 and has also declined. Nothing is smarter than a politician who takes credit for trends that are already in place and Donald Trump is nothing if not a brilliant politician (seriously, people who think he's a dummy or mentally ill fail to recognize his masterful campaign that eked out a victory despite his many negatives). Even more important, given his specific animus against Mexicans, Trump can take credit for reducing their numbers, which peaked in 2009 at about 6.2 million and has been dropping since (the Mexican economy offers them relatively better opportunities these days). Illegals are more likely to come from India, China, and other parts of Asia these days from Mexico.

This wouldn't be the first time that Trump takes credit for something that he had nothing to do with. Back in November, recall, he took credit for saving a Ford plant that wasn't closing. In December, he took credit for creating 50,000 jobs at Sprint that had already been announced and apparently had nothing to do with him. Get ready for him to start defining victory downwards, too. The U.S. economy has limped along at around 2 percent growth for years before bumping up a bit in 2016 and the latest CBO estimates suggest 2 percent for years to come. It won't be long before Trump starts taking credit for growth, however anemic it is.

File all that under smart politics—and utter horseshit.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sorting Through Trade, Tariffs, Taxes, and Trump on SiriusXM Insight from 12-1 p.m. ET

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. Nick is already sick of winning.

    1. just lose one time so we can remember what it was like.

    2. I initially read that as “whining”, so I didn’t know what the hell you were talking about.

      1. I hope to live to see the day that Gillespie gets sick of whining.

        1. I’d be satisfied if he just disavows the legitimacy of welfare.

        2. The universe will crunch back down to a pin-head sized singularity before that happens.

      2. Yeah initially though he said “whining” too, and I was like, “wow maybe I should go back and actually read the whole thing”. Luckily I saw your post in time.

    3. His headlines aren’t really winning. If immigration does decrease again (not necessarily a good thing, IMHO), Don should take credit/blame. It’s been steady for the past 7 years, so if it starts going down again, it would likely be tied to something he did.

  2. I’m at the stage where I judge the quality of an immigrant by what they bring to the table. I mean that literally. Italians brought meatballs and pizza. Mexicans have tacos. Africa, Indians, and Middle Easterners are really going to have to step up their game.

    1. Naan and hummus not enough for you?

      And sumac.

      1. Yeah, we really don’t have enough falafel stands in this country.

      2. Tasteless bread and fried plants…god no.

        1. I’ve never had fresh naan, but fresh khubz (“pita”) is anything but bland

      3. Plenty of great Indian food such as curry and, well different curry.

        But hummus is a pretty weak entry. Like choosing grits to represent southern food.

        By the way we can give Africa partial credit for southern food.

    2. I judge the quality of an immigrant by what they bring to the table

      TYPICAL ANTI-IRISH SENTIMENT

      1. What is wrong with whiskey?

    3. Well, Africans brought okra, which, breaded and fried, makes excellent eating. Also, we would not have barbeque without Africans.

      My wife has made something called mboga, which is like a stew made with meat (sometimes), veggies, and kale. I eat it with cayenne pepper sauce, and it’s delicious.

      I happen to like naan bread; it’s the best part of Indian food. Masala Dhosas (sp?) are pretty good.

      1. “””Also, we would not have barbeque without Africans.””

        So those stupid Europeans never cooked food over a fire outdoors?

        1. That’s grilling – barbecue is low and slow. But barbecue is not really from Africa:

          “The English word Barbecue and cognates in other languages come from the Spanish word barbacoa. After Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, the Spaniards apparently found native Haitians roasting meat over a grill consisting of a wooden framework resting on sticks above a fire. The flames and smoke rose and enveloped the meat, giving it a certain flavor. Etymologists believe this to be derived from barabicu found in the language of the Arawak people of the Caribbean and the Timucua of Florida;[1][page needed] it has entered some European languages in the form of barbacoa.”

    4. Middle Easterners have nothing outstanding to offer on the culinary front? Oh, honey child, one day you’ll be embarrassed you said that out loud.

      Tzatziki. I can recommend hanging the yogurt in cheesecloth beforehand. Try this with chicken. Remember how parents would tell you to eat something because it’ll put hair on your chest? This must’ve been what they meant. Science.

      Smack you with some shawarma, I ought to.

      1. Mmmmmm tzatziki. I love gyros.

      2. Here’s one: olives.

      3. Tzatziki is associated with Greeks who are not Middle Easterners. They don’t look that much different – and I say that because I am one – but come on, man.

        1. Close enough. /typical American

        2. Hey. It’s right there by Turkey and across from Egypt, and the Greek cuisine has far more in common with either than with Italy-

          You know what, fuck off slaver. Hating on my tzatziki/shawarma answer.

          Kebabs. There. No one can argue that kebabs are Middle Eastern in origin.

          1. Now I want a kebab

        3. They serve a cucumber/yogurt sauce in the middle east too. It’s Lebanese

    5. Re: Brochetta,

      I’m at the stage where I judge the quality of an immigrant by what they bring to the table.

      It’s not up to YOU to judge the quality of anybody unless you’re engaging in voluntary trade with that specific person.

      Mexicans have tacos.

      And chiles in nogada.

    6. UnCiv- Brochetta needs to get out more.

    7. The true reason England had to try and colonize the entire world was so they could get a decent meal somewhere.

  3. I predict Reason doesn’t quite meet their fundraising goal again.

    1. I don’t object to the message, per se. Politicians take credit for shit that happens regardless of whether they were there or not, and I’m not on board with a Great Wall of Trump or deportation squads. I just find this prediction entirely inane.

      Nick sees no connection between the economy tanking and the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment (which always really sells). And he thinks Trump is going to take credit for some decade long trend that no one cares about and Trump doubtlessly isn’t even aware of. It’s a dumb prediction. It’s the sort of punditry I’ve come to expect and ignore from the Jacket.

      The main reason for that isn’t because of tougher sanctions against illegals?though there’s no question that Barack Obama was indeed the “deporter in chief”

      I’m also tired of Reason repeating this lie.

      1. What’s it like to walk around with Trump’s dick up your ass? Judging my his hand size, I guess it’s possible that you might not even be aware.

        1. Not a big Trump fan douchebag. I want to see Reason do better and succeed, not make craptastic arguments about what he might or might not do which is counterproductive. Fuck off, or don’t, I really don’t give a shit.

  4. Prediction: PROVE THAT IT WASN’T HIM. That’s what I thought. But watch them start coming again to a newly great America. Then watch the president stop them.

    1. I think Trump is making America so great again it literally blew Nick’s mind.

  5. So peak immigration hit right around the time the economy tanked. COINCIDENCE?

    1. The damn illegals tanked our economy and then fucked off back to their own countries!!11!!!!

  6. It won’t be long before Trump starts taking credit for growth, however anemic it is.

    What happens if the economy takes off though? Does anyone truly believe that Nick and the rest of the press are going to ever give Donald any credit for an economy that rapidly improves?

    He could land on the moon in four years and all you’d hear is “WE WERE GONNA DO THAT ANYWAYS, BIG DEAL.”

    1. What happens if the economy takes off though? Does anyone truly believe that Nick and the rest of the press are going to ever give Donald any credit for an economy that rapidly improves?

      It won’t if pushes through his economically moronic protectionist policies.

      We all know the only way that happens is if he gets the Federal government to back off on regulations and encourages Congress to pass tax reform. He seems capable of doing the former, at least, but it’s up to Congress to stop him from making things worse faster than they can get better.

      1. It won’t if pushes through his economically moronic protectionist policies.

        I agree that protectionism may end up being his Achilles heel. I just hope that the people he surrounds himself with will explain to him why he doesn’t need to do it. And as you said, if he truly follows through with deregulation the economy could truly explode in ways that we haven’t seen since Reagan.

      2. It won’t if pushes through his economically moronic protectionist policies.

        1 – so far we’ve heard ‘signaling’ with little real actual policy proposals. i think threatening mexico with a ‘border tax’ when you’re trying to arm-wrestle them into cooperating on border-security (aka ‘wall’ gibberish) is more “nice NAFTA you got there, shame if something were to happen to it”

        2 – while i’m no protectionist, the thing with trade-policy is that it isn’t like taxes. lowering taxes pretty much helps everyone in business. changes to trade policy helps some, hurts others. is the net-net of free-er trade better than the net-net of less-free trade? i think so. but there are still a lot of industries that would benefit more from tariffs than others would be hurt. consumer prices would go up in a lot of areas, but i am not sure dirt-cheap items at Wal-Mart benefit everyone as much as ‘higher-wage hiring growth’

        i am for free trade, but what we had had is not free trade, and what trump proposes to do (even if he started slapping border taxes on certain imports) isn’t really even any different than what most of our trading partners already do.

        shorter = i don’t think mild protectionism (*assuming its mild) would necessarily cause any massive near-term pain to the economy, provided it were offset with corporate tax cuts and other ameliorating provisions.

        1. provided it were offset with corporate tax cuts and other ameliorating provisions.

          Well that’s the problem. There is a real possibility enough Democrats will be willing to join Republicans to make up for any GOP defectors on Trump’s trade policy.

          But we both know Democrats will filibuster the crap out of anything that lowers taxes for the evil kkkorporations or 1%. Thus we end up with more protectionism and the same tax code.

          1. we both know Democrats will filibuster the crap out of anything that lowers taxes for the evil kkkorporations or 1%

            Actually i don’t think that’s the case. But we’ll see. I think corporate tax reform has far more bipartisan support than might be apparent to the superficial viewer. But the devil is in the details. Democrats will demand all sorts of rich handouts/benefits/loopholes for their own crony-constituents in exchange for any reduction in the headline rate. And i expect republicans will probably give it to them so they can take credit for a major long-term promise.

      3. We all know the only way that happens is if he gets the Federal government to back off on regulations and encourages Congress to pass tax reform.

        Doing that, or trying to do that, will result stories that are just as predictable: regulation slashed, millions will die; tax cuts for the rich; and the list goes on endlessly. I agree with both of those ideas but they’ll draw fire just as much as talk of tariffs does.

      4. If he does that at the same time as he pushes Congress toward deregulation and lowering of corporate and individual tax rates, it probably will. And depending on the scale, the impact of protectionism could be overstated. Classical trade theory doesn’t account for the welfare state (or, at least, its premises are not usually modified accordingly), so while the economic pain will be spread around more (which may be offset by tax cuts), it’s hard to say how much it will increase.

    2. Does anyone truly believe that Nick and the rest of the press are going to ever give Donald any credit for an economy that rapidly improves?

      Dude, please. Hillary was totally going to start slashing government regulations and lower corporate taxes too.

      1. I’ll see it when I believe it.

        1. A beautiful, pithy description of confirmation bias.

  7. Obama took full credit for the economic recovery, the drop in murder rates, decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and energy independence. It’s what politicians do.

  8. Prediction: Reason will do no coverage on the March for Life

    Why do you think this is?

    (a) Not enough vagina hats

    (b) Cocktail parties, of course

    (c) Shut up you stupid yokel!

    1. One of their managing editors is there right now. https://twitter.com/sladesr

      1. Is everyone at Reason an editor? Who’s the washroom editor?

        1. Based on all the South Carolina articles, Shackford got stuck with that duty.

        2. That title goes to an intern, ne?

  9. Looks like Nick is still complaining about Melania Trump coming to the US illegally. Here’s what the first sentence of article he links to says:

    Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press.

    So she was in the US for 7 weeks illegally making a ton of money. How many of those estimated 11.2 illegal immigrants now in the country will be making $20K while waiting a month or two to be legal? My guess would be ZERO.

    And if Nick prefers Mexicans, Central Americans, Syrians, etc sneaking in illegally over the likes over Melania then there’s something seriously wrong with him.

    1. Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press.

      Don’t suppose those ledgers, etc. have actually been published for public review, have they?

      Seriously, I’d like to see them; this sounds like new info to me.

    2. Oh I see, so illegal immigration is only bad if it’s poor Mexicans slouching around, not when it’s hot European models making bank. What about TEH RULE OF LAW!!!!!!???????

      1. Exactly. It almost seems more offensive when a model breaks immigration law than a poor Mexican who is looking for a job.

        NOTE: I am definitely pro-super model. Also, I think Nick is milking this Melania had an expired visa for seven weeks nonsense too much.

      2. “Oh I see, so illegal immigration is only bad if it’s poor Mexicans slouching around, not when it’s hot European models making bank.”

        Well I mean, isn’t that true?

      3. Did you even read the article? She had a visa to be in the country but it wasn’t a work visa. She didn’t enter the country illegally, she started working before she was allowed to. That’s not the same as Mexicans coming to the country and staying decades without even trying to become citizens.

  10. So the rate slowed by a tiny fraction but millions still come in. Do you not still try to plug a hole in a ship when the rate of sinking has slowed by a tiny fraction? No you continue to stop all the leaks that you can. A decrease and this article provide no proof that nothing should be done about illegal immigration.

  11. MOAR PREDICTIONS FROM GILLESPIE

    It’s expected by most people who aren’t dazzled by the glints of gold from everything associated with Donald Trump that he will lose decisively tonight to Hillary Clinton. And then probably pitch a fit for the next couple of weeks.

    Good times.

  12. OK, what else are you predicting? That spring will follow winter? EVERY president, to one degree or another, stands around taking credit for anything ‘good’ that happens. It’s somewhat bulls*t, but to be fair he’s going to catch the blame for anything BAD that happens, regardless of whether he had anything to do with it.

    Case in point; Bush is still catching the blame for the economic crash that closed out his term. It was an is the fallout from the real estate supple, which was, in turn, the natural consequence of the change in lending standards push by a lot of idiots starting sometime in the ’80’s. Bush and the Republicans (or at least some of them) had tried at least twice to audit the Federal entities who were driving the bubble, and were blocked by the Democrats. But Bush gets the blame and the Democrats get off more or less scott-free.

    And people still ask why Congress hasn’t held hearings about that Crash. If they held public hearings asking who caused it, somebody would likely TELL THEM. On National Television.

    1. If they held public hearings asking who caused it, somebody would likely TELL THEM. On National Television.

      I think such a hearing would be pointless. It would be 9 platitudes about intangible “greed” and one person who points to government policies. Who will get the favorable write-ups in the NYT?

      1. The NYT is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Even my reflexively Liberal in-laws no longer read it.

    2. I can’t sell when I’m well, and a flu just throws what little ability I have out the window. *sigh*

    3. Re: C.S.P. Schofield,

      OK, what else are you predicting?

      This is my prediction: That dumb, knuckle-draggin’ Trumpistas will trumpet this great triumph by their beloved leader despite the fact you, Nick and I tell them that is it all a lie and that politicians always take credit for things they never did, and we will be scorned and attacked and labeled anti-American traitors and scum, the equivalent of being called a racist homophobe when the attack comes from the left.

      1. From the evidence of the last couple of weeks, the knuckle draggers seem to mostly have been on Shrillary’s side. At least, it’s her supporters who are breaking windows, torching cars, littering like it’s a sacrament, amd so on. Every time I run into a story about thuggish Trump supporters it seems like three days later there’s another story about how the first one proved to be a hoax.

  13. Of course, the reason that illegals slowed down was because our economy has been tepid at best.

    If he does got regulatory and tax reforms that goose the economy, the flow of illegals will (try to) pick up. That’s when we’ll see if we can (or what it would take to) control immigration on the southern border.

    there’s no question that Barack Obama was indeed the “deporter in chief”

    Less fake news would be nice.

    1. Just try to understand, a Republican won the presidency. Nick has a duty as this magazine’s senior editor to ingratiate himself to leftists and make sure they don’t say mean things about him or his publication.

      1. I’m sure championing Betsy DeVos has won Reason many fans on the left. Progs may love them some immigrants, but they’re deadly serious about protecting teachers unions.

        1. we should really have a “fuck you” attitude for both sides. they both disagree fundamentally with some part of the libertarian platform. Why bother? why hide any of it. We like school choice. We don’t like war. We like drugs. suck a dick.

          1. A lot of people here DO have a “fuck you” attitude to both sides. Problem is, there are also a lot of people here who expect that anything written critically about Trump should also include as a disclaimer “BUT HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!!!” even if that is not even true.

        2. Reasonoid doesn’t take my hardline stance on pet issue = Reason is just catering to the left/right in H&R land

          1. Telling truth and not regurgitating MSM’s bogus talking points would be nice. No one is demanding that Reason’s office should be adorned with pictures of the Dear Leader.

    2. Re: R C Dean,

      Of course, the reason that illegals slowed down was because our economy has been tepid at best.

      Which should then be a great cause for concern – less “ILLEGULS WHO TAKUM ER JEBZ!” means a weaker economy. Because it DOES, it’s no joke. Trumpistas are a joke.

  14. 1. Everyone loves to cite this Pew Report, but it ends in the middle of 2014. So we can’t be sure the number of illegals in the country is still decreasing.

    2. Even if the total number of illegals stays constant or decreases, that doesn’t mean that new additional illegals aren’t still entering the country. About half a million Illegals already in the country get legal status, die or leave the country. So if the border were “sealed” (whatever that means) and no more illegals were entering you’d expect to see larger decreases.

    3. Pew for some reason counts the American-born (US Citizen) children of illegals who leave the country as part of the outflow if illegals. Not sure why, but using that methodology makes it look like more illegals are leaving than actually are.

    4. Of course if you are an Open Borders Libertarian points 1-3 really don’t matter anyway, and I accept that many on H&R feel that way.

    1. if you are an Open Borders Libertarian points 1-3 really don’t matter anyway

      even if you’re not (i’m pro open-ish borders, but not for libertarian orthodox reasons) #1 & #2 are mostly just “Reductio ad ignorantiam” anyway.

      e.g.

      1) “”we can’t be sure the number of illegals in the country is still decreasing.”” – which is basically saying, “i have no evidence of anything, i just want to rhetorically devalue evidence that does exist”

      its the same “we can’t be sure” anti-GMO activists appeal to when pretending GMO are a great danger.

      2) more or less the same thing. although you’re also imputing positive ‘possibilities’ to flat-data, basically saying “the data that does exist is being hidden by this otherwise normal looking number”. which isn’t exactly reductio ad ignorantiam (which relies on claiming that data is always insufficient compared to ‘unknowables’)… its sort of suggesting what we do know includes scary hidden potential implications.

      as for 3…. i don’t know anything about that, but at first glance it sounds (*as someone who used to work with lots of demographic data in micro-detail) either unknowable or negligible. How many ‘anchor babies’ are there per-year? and if the anchor baby parents flee, does that mean their flight rescinds their claim of citizenship? if so, it would make sense to count them as a net decrease. but whatever, still seems sort of minor.

      1. How many ‘anchor babies’ are there per-year?

        I’ve wondered that myself. I’ve worked at two hospitals within a short drive of the border, and I can tell you, based on that sample, that its not a small number. Not counting the illegal residents, there’s a fair number of Mexican women who come to the US solely to have a kid.

        1. Would you be ok with changing citizenship at birth to “only if mother entered U.S. nine months prior to the birth?” This would eliminate a whole bunch of anchor babies, wealthy pregnant Russian women coming in as tourists, etc.

          1. It would be reasonable to go, not as far as birthright citizenship, but limit it to those who have at least one parent with permanent legal resident status. Otherwise, they’re assumed to inherit citizenship of their parents.

            1. *removing birthright citizenship

        2. based on that sample, that its not a small number.

          yes, but i think you just clarified that its not even remotely a representative sample.

          Its like saying, “based on my visits to rural cambodia, i can assure you the risks of being hurt by legacy land-mines is significant”

          I’m not devaluing your point entirely, just saying that i don’t think there’s any quality visibility into the numbers at all – and i doubt there’s even very good proxy-visibility (e.g. secondary data that would provide good indicators of the share / trend)…. such that arguments that rely wholly on claims about ‘anchor baby’-stats are weak by default.

  15. Regarding the protectionism i dont support it but i can see why people gravitate to it

    The government has been fucking over americans with regs, taxes, mandating wages and benefits, green nuttery which drives up costs and makes overseas more attractive.

    Typically i think you address root cause however the govt wont give up that power.

    So i can see why some want it.

    The government causes most of the problems in society

  16. Wait..you mean politicians take credit for things they may or may not have a role in? When did this start?

    1. politicians take credit for things they may or may not have a role in? When did this start?

      every time a republican takes office.

      1. I expect the Homeless Problem will be re-discovered shortly as well.

        1. And the horrors of the Drug War.

  17. The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country.

    If that’s true about not being allowed to earn any money while your legally in America that’s bullshit.

  18. it’s because the U.S. economy tanked.

    Something that Barack Obama was careful to not take credit for.

  19. I am shocked, literally shocked that a politician would take credit for something he didn’t do. This must be the first time ever, right? I mean Jeezus, this is like predicting the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Dig a little deeper if you’re going to go to the effort of writing an article…

  20. On the positive side, Democrats will finally stop blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong.

  21. When are the Koch brothers finally going to realize that they can almost certainly find a Mexican who can do Gillespie’s job a hell of a lot cheaper (and probably better to boot)?

  22. I suspect there will be a substantial decrease after the current trend as well, but Trump will claim all of it.

  23. Former President Obama stated as he left office and Hillary Clinton echoed the statement that he was very proud about his opening up the border and the increase in illegal immigrants that resulted just in 2016 alone. Therefore, and simply stated, the title of your article makes no sense.

  24. Nick’s Leather Jacket of Denial delivers once again!

  25. An elected official taking credit for something they didn’t do. Wow, that has never happened before. /sarc

  26. Prediction, the mentally disturbed obama cock sucker, Nick Gillespie, will continue to troll Trump for the next 2 years of his presidency after which time unReason will fold for lack of any readers with an IQ above 5.

  27. Don’t really care who takes credit so long as it stops. 78k convicted criminal aliens arrested at the border last year. Sex traffickers, smugglers, gangs, narcos, abusers, assaulters.

    1. That’s cute.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.