A news anchor was moved out from a recent press conference in the event of Donald Trump Presidential campaign in Iowa. Donald Trump, the candidate for the Republican President, was in a prolonged confrontation with the news anchor in the middle of the press conference. Trump explicitly stated that he had not been called to take […]
A news anchor was moved out from a recent press conference in the event of Donald Trump Presidential campaign in Iowa. Donald Trump, the candidate for the Republican President, was in a prolonged confrontation with the news anchor in the middle of the press conference.
Trump explicitly stated that he had not been called to take questions from the news reporters.
The incident occurred this Tuesday where Jorge Ramos, a Miami-based news anchor from a leading Spanish news channel stood in the middle of the conference and started to hurl questions at the Republican.
All of a sudden, the news anchor began to ask Trump about his proposals on immigration, which includes ending the law that provides automatic citizenship for infants born illegally to the parents in The US.
As Ramos continued to speak, Trump interrupted and repeatedly told him to sit down and then asked him to return to Univision.
The situation was dealt by one of the security personals in the news conference.
As the security personnel approached Mr Ramos, he continued to speak loudly saying “You cannot deport 11 million people”. Mr Ramos was referring to the proposals made by Trump regarding the illegal deportation of all the people before allowing some of the people to return to the country.
Mr Ramos was moved out from the conference room with the help of the security personal and while moving out he hurled arguments regarding several proposals of the Trump’s plan.
This was an annoying situation for all the delegates present at the diplomatic campaign.
Trump ignored all the arguments saying that people like Ramos always stand up and scream unknowingly.
Career Politicians as Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are evaporating in the polls because the momentum in this election has shifted away from standard rule by the political hierarchy that rose during the measureless growth of government that has took place over the past decades toward a populist majority that rejects administration by a cunning and materialistic self-selected elites. The question the election of 2016 will settle is whether the voters will choose populism on the right or populism on the left to replace the fading dynasties of those who thrive on power. As I said in my previous commentary utilizing the program E-Verify would be the perfect tool, to chase down employers who are hiring illegal aliens instead of Americans and those immigrants that came here legally.
It would be the perfect arrangement between Donald Trumps Wall, and the internal enforcement by more recruited ICE officers enlisting the operation of—MANDATORY—E-Verify. No bending the rules that if you get caught having hired foreign nationals who don’t have the required documentation; you are looking at a statutory time of 5 years in prison. If either Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Jeb Bush or some of the other politicians its without any doubt—no wall, no Mandatory E-Verify and little enforcement of any kind. In truth most are for stealthily open borders, so Democrats can get more illegal aliens to unlawfully vote and Republicans more cheap labor for what both political parties want to pacify their wealthy donors.
Digging around on the web each day, I came across this interesting article about if the millions of illegal aliens were under the tremendous strain of not being able no longer to find a job?
Report: Every Deported Illegal Household Saves Taxpayers More than $700,000
by Julia Hahn, Breitbart, 8/24/15
Advocates for mass-migration are using skewed financial claims to smear Donald Trump’s popular border proposals, which actually would help revive the near-bankrupt Social Security and Medicare programs.
For every illegal migrant household that leaves the United States under Trump’s plan, Americans would recoup nearly three-quarters of a million dollars ($719,350), according to 2010 data collected by Heritage scholar Robert Rector.
The lifetime savings accrued from one deported illegal household would provide funds for 125 low-income inner city students to receive the maximum Pell Grant award in 2015-2016 ($5,775); it could cover the cost of pre-kindergarten for 90 at-risk children (around $8,000 per child); or it could cover the one year cost of Medicaid for 124 enrollees ($5,790 based on FY2011 data).
But business interests want the illegal nationals to stay. That’s because illegal migrants help lower the cost of Americans’ wages, but also because the migrants spend their wages — plus taxpayer aid — at retail stories and rental agencies.
For example, the American Action Forum (AAF), a business-backed pro-amnesty group, claims that legal costs and forced migration would spike the cost of Trump’s plan up to $300 billion to arrest and remove all illegal immigrants living in the United States. The AAF was founded by Fred Malek, who co-founded and chairs a hospitality investment company whose hotels employ many low skilled migrants.
AAF’s cost projections have been trumpeted by many in the mainstream media such as NBC , the alphabet channels and Fox News.
In reality, “a modest increase in enforcement (such as E-verify or visa tracking) would cause significant attrition in the illegal population– sending millions of illegal’s home on their own at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies. There’s good evidence for Vaughan’s argument. “Arizona’s population of unauthorized immigrants of working age fell by about 17 percent” in the course of a single year, after the state began to enforce E-verify, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
The claim from Malek’s AAF also ignores the financial savings caused by the return of migrants to their home countries.
Illegal migrants cost U.S. taxpayers a net total of nearly $100 billion annually, concluded a 2010 investigation by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The 2010 report calculated the total contributions (mainly taxes) generated by the illegal migrants, and then subtracted the cost of taxpayer aid to those unlawful migrants. The aid includes education, subsidized housing, food stamps, tax credits, medical expenses. Overall, the report found illegal migrants cost taxpayers a total of $113 billion a year. The report then “accounts for taxes paid by illegal aliens [which is] about $13 billion a year, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of about $100 billion.”
Under the Trump plan, that spending could be used to reduce taxpayer spending. The resulting savings could fund the entire federal cost of major proposals by liberal Democrats, such as a Universal Pre-Kindergarten program. President Obama’s original 2013 proposal was projected to cost $75 billion over a decade.
Or the government could allocate 60 percent more resources and benefits for returning American soldiers and veterans (increasing the President’s 2016 budget request for the VA from its current $168.8 billion to $268.8 billion)
Alternatively, public schools could have the funds to employ an additional 1.9 million elementary school teachers to help teach young Americans in already-overcrowded schools.
State and local governments could employ 1.6 million more police officers in to reduce crime in gang-besieged neighborhoods.
These savings could the expand the government’s allotment for Emergency Shelter Grants, which provide support for the homeless or victims of domestic violence, by than 400 times its 2014 budget ($250 million).
Upon first hearing the costs illegal migrants impose upon U.S. taxpayers, many find the figure difficult to believe, says Heritage’s Robert Rector:
“The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution… Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a ‘fiscal surplus’ that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society.”
Nations that are more serious about enforcing their immigration laws, however, are aware of the fiscal burdens mass migration places on its citizenry and have taken measures to combat economic strains. Israel, for example, has begun offering migrants $3,500 in cash and a one-way airplane ticket home in order to encourage repatriation.