Deportations of Illegal Aliens Thread

[Gil Dobie]

Stats from one state, Tennessee

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wate.c ... -2025/amp/

According to the conference, the reports of individuals suspected of being in the country illegally were connected to more than 21,000 total charges, including 2,183 violent crimes. The report includes a list of the top 10 of offenses reported, compiled of the five most serious charges per each reported individual.

Traffic offenses — 3955
Driving without a license — 3771
DUI — 2920
Driving on a suspended or revoked license — 1547
Domestic assault — 966
Failure to appear — 790
Public intoxication — 707
Open container — 623
Aggravated assault — 452
Violation of probation — 429
I-40 E near Asheville Highway in Knoxville reopens after tractor-trailer crash
The report also included statistics about the number of charges and convictions for the most severe crimes, including domestic assault and aggravated assault. Those statistics are listed in part below.


First-degree murder — eight
Unclassified homicide — 19
Second-degree — four
Rape of a child — 11
Aggravated rape — seven
Continuous sexual abuse of a child— three
Aggravated kidnapping — 40
Aggravated robbery — Nine
Vehicular homicide — 10

[BDKJMU]

IRRELEVANT. As soon as I saw the ‘Immigrants‘ I quit reading right there. We aren‘t talking about immigrants- people here legally with green cards. Not surprising they would use less (except for the Somalis and a few other countries). To receive a green card you have to present evidence you won‘t be a public charge (not sure how the Somalis got around that). We are talking about Illegal Immigrants.

[BDKJMU]

IRRELEVANT. As soon as I saw the ‘Immigrants‘ I quit reading right there. We aren‘t talking about immigrants- people here legally with green cards. To receive a green card you have to present evidence you won‘t be a public charge (not sure how the Somalis got around that) and have means of financial support. Green card holders here on work visas tend to have jobs and skills. We are talking about Illegal Immigrants.

[UNI88]

IRRELEVANT. As soon as I saw the ‘Immigrants‘ I quit reading right there. We aren‘t talking about immigrants- people here legally with green cards. To receive a green card you have to present evidence you won‘t be a public charge (not sure how the Somalis got around that) and have means of financial support. Green card holders here on work visas tend to have jobs and skills. We are talking about Illegal Immigrants.

Using that standard, we can dismiss 99% of your, trump's and other MAQA yahoo posts/comments where you call someone a commie.

Congratulations for making your own opinions irrelevant.

[BDKJMU]

IRRELEVANT. As soon as I saw the ‘Immigrants‘ I quit reading right there. We aren‘t talking about immigrants- people here legally with green cards. To receive a green card you have to present evidence you won‘t be a public charge (not sure how the Somalis got around that) and have means of financial support. Green card holders here on work visas tend to have jobs and skills. We are talking about Illegal Immigrants.

Using that standard, we can dismiss 99% of your, trump's and other MAQA yahoo posts/comments where you call someone a commie.

Congratulations for making your own opinions irrelevant.

No more irrelevant than yours.

[UNI88]

Using that standard, we can dismiss 99% of your, trump's and other MAQA yahoo posts/comments where you call someone a commie.

Congratulations for making your own opinions irrelevant.

No more irrelevant than yours.

So what?

[BDKJMU]

No more irrelevant than yours.

So what?

You’re the one who brought it up.

[UNI88]

So what?

You’re the one who brought it up.

I'm not the one dismissing points based on semantics to avoid having to address actual information.

[BDKJMU]

You’re the one who brought it up.

I'm not the one dismissing points based on semantics to avoid having to address actual information.

It’s not semantics. The studies headlines just said ‘immigrants’. Didn‘t say if just legal, or legal and illegal lumped together. The info is garbage if don‘t separate legal from illegal.

[UNI88]

I'm not the one dismissing points based on semantics to avoid having to address actual information.

It’s not semantics. The studies headlines just said ‘immigrants’. Didn‘t say if just legal, or legal and illegal lumped together. The info is garbage if don‘t separate legal from illegal.

A lot of the supposedly illegal immigrants aren't illegal. They came here legally and then had their status changed. Do you or MAQA journalists distinguish between the two or do you lump them together? If you're lumping, then I guess your info is garbage as well.

[BDKJMU]

It’s not semantics. The studies headlines just said ‘immigrants’. Didn‘t say if just legal, or legal and illegal lumped together. The info is garbage if don‘t separate legal from illegal.

A lot of the supposedly illegal immigrants aren't illegal. They came here legally and then had their status changed. Do you or MAQA journalists distinguish between the two or do you lump them together? If you're lumping, then I guess your info is garbage as well.

Yes, like visa overstays.

Or they entered illegally, then the Autopen/Mayorkus allowed some BS asylum claim. And those asylum claims in 2022-2023 that they didn’t show for in 2025 have been denied. So yeah, their status has changed.

Or they entered illegally and the Autopen/Mayorkus gave them TPS. And the TPS is no more. Newsflash the ‘T’ TPS stands for ‘Temporary.‘

[UNI88]

A lot of the supposedly illegal immigrants aren't illegal. They came here legally and then had their status changed. Do you or MAQA journalists distinguish between the two or do you lump them together? If you're lumping, then I guess your info is garbage as well.

Yes, like visa overstays.

Or they entered illegally, then the Autopen/Mayorkus allowed some BS asylum claim. And those asylum claims in 2022-2023 that they didn’t show for in 2025 have been denied. So yeah, their status has changed.

Or they entered illegally and the Autopen/Mayorkus gave them TPS. And the TPS is no more. Newsflash the ‘T’ TPS stands for ‘Temporary.‘

Yes, you and/or MAQA journalists distinguish between the two and you don't lump them together?

Because if we following the standard that you want to set then the info you and/or they provide is garbage if you're lumping.

[BDKJMU]

You’re the one who brought it up.

I'm not the one dismissing points based on semantics to avoid having to address actual information.

You posted ‘No shit Sherlock ‘ information that immigrants have lower use of welfare rates than native born USC.

According to federal law, immigrants have to satisfy the Public Charge rule in order to receive a greencard. So that limits immigrants who can be on federally funded welfare (obvious glaring exception would be the Somalis).

And according to federal law, illegal aliens are ineligible to federally funded welfare. Now doesn’t mean that some blue states (California) are illegally doing it anyway.

So the system is set up so that few immigrants and illegal aliens are suppose to be receiving federally funded welfare, which then would be at lower rates than native born USC.

And you make a post that states immigrants receive welfare at lower rates than native born USC.. Are you going to next state water is wet?

[UNI88]

I'm not the one dismissing points based on semantics to avoid having to address actual information.

You posted ‘No shit Sherlock ‘ information that immigrants have lower use of welfare rates than native born USC.

According to federal law, immigrants have to satisfy the Public Charge rule in order to receive a greencard. So that limits immigrants who can be on federally funded welfare (obvious glaring exception would be the Somalis).

And according to federal law, illegal aliens are ineligible to federally funded welfare. Now doesn’t mean that some blue states (California) are illegally doing it anyway.

So the system is set up so that few immigrants and illegal aliens are suppose to be receiving federally funded welfare, which then would be at lower rates than native born USC.

And you make a post that states immigrants receive welfare at lower rates than native born USC.. Are you going to next state water is wet?

And you go back to an earlier post to avoid the reality that based on your own standard, your information is "garbage".

[BDKJMU]

You posted ‘No shit Sherlock ‘ information that immigrants have lower use of welfare rates than native born USC.

According to federal law, immigrants have to satisfy the Public Charge rule in order to receive a greencard. So that limits immigrants who can be on federally funded welfare (obvious glaring exception would be the Somalis).

And according to federal law, illegal aliens are ineligible to federally funded welfare. Now doesn’t mean that some blue states (California) are illegally doing it anyway.

So the system is set up so that few immigrants and illegal aliens are suppose to be receiving federally funded welfare, which then would be at lower rates than native born USC.

And you make a post that states immigrants receive welfare at lower rates than native born USC.. Are you going to next state water is wet?

And you go back to an earlier post to avoid the reality that based on your own standard, your information is "garbage".

What information?

[BDKJMU]

https://twitter.com/CatoInstitute/status/2016276307886092799

2024 immigrant and illegal alien households higher welfare use than US born, according to CIS.

Most new legal immigrants, as well as illegal immigrants, are barred from using most welfare programs. However, for several reasons these restrictions have only a modest impact on welfare use by immigrant households.

For one, immigrants, even including illegal immigrants, can receive benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children. Second, the restriction does not apply to all programs, including WIC and school meals, nor does it apply to non-citizen children in some cases.

Some states also provide their own welfare services to otherwise ineligible immigrants, and several million illegal immigrants have obtained work authorization or Social Security numbers (e.g. DACA, Temporary Protected Status, and many parolees) allowing receipt of the EITC. Naturalized green card holders gain full welfare eligibility, and many legal immigrants have lived here long enough to qualify for welfare even without naturalizing. Collectively, this means that millions of immigrants receive support from the U.S. taxpayer.

The 2024 SIPP shows that 53% of all immigrant households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 37% of U.S.-born households. Based on this data, my best estimate is that 51% of households headed by legal immigrants and 61% of households headed by illegal immigrants use at least one major welfare program. Compared to U.S.-born households, those headed by immigrants make especially heavy use of food programs, Medicaid, and the EITC.

If one assumes that immigration is supposed to benefit the United States, such high welfare use by immigrants is extremely problematic.

The federal government spends roughly $1 trillion per year on welfare, and states spend another $300 billion a year on Medicaid alone. High welfare use makes it likely that immigrants are a net fiscal drain, both because of direct costs and because those accessing means-tested programs typically pay little to no federal or state income tax. This assistance should go toward helping the needy and low-income already here.

https://www.commonplace.org/p/steven-camarota-the-high-cost-of

[kalm]

2024 immigrant and illegal alien households higher welfare use than US born, according to CIS.

Most new legal immigrants, as well as illegal immigrants, are barred from using most welfare programs. However, for several reasons these restrictions have only a modest impact on welfare use by immigrant households.

For one, immigrants, even including illegal immigrants, can receive benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children. Second, the restriction does not apply to all programs, including WIC and school meals, nor does it apply to non-citizen children in some cases.

Some states also provide their own welfare services to otherwise ineligible immigrants, and several million illegal immigrants have obtained work authorization or Social Security numbers (e.g. DACA, Temporary Protected Status, and many parolees) allowing receipt of the EITC. Naturalized green card holders gain full welfare eligibility, and many legal immigrants have lived here long enough to qualify for welfare even without naturalizing. Collectively, this means that millions of immigrants receive support from the U.S. taxpayer.

The 2024 SIPP shows that 53% of all immigrant households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 37% of U.S.-born households. Based on this data, my best estimate is that 51% of households headed by legal immigrants and 61% of households headed by illegal immigrants use at least one major welfare program. Compared to U.S.-born households, those headed by immigrants make especially heavy use of food programs, Medicaid, and the EITC.

If one assumes that immigration is supposed to benefit the United States, such high welfare use by immigrants is extremely problematic.

The federal government spends roughly $1 trillion per year on welfare, and states spend another $300 billion a year on Medicaid alone. High welfare use makes it likely that immigrants are a net fiscal drain, both because of direct costs and because those accessing means-tested programs typically pay little to no federal or state income tax. This assistance should go toward helping the needy and low-income already here.

https://www.commonplace.org/p/steven-ca ... gh-cost-of

CIS is an anti immigration right wing think tank. They were created to do this.

[BDKJMU]

Illegal immigrant households' welfare use nearly doubles US-born, study shows
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6388954561112

[BDKJMU]

And PA gave this illegal his CDL..

[Caribbean Hen]

And PA gave this illegal his CDL..

I made a few I-78 posts on here, a lot of the truckers out there are scary bad

[BDKJMU]

The below is too nuanced for the left to digest. Expect to hear more ICE is the Gestapo, Trump is a fascist, and they are deporting poor refugees..

For years, the one-year refugee adjustment requirement existed in federal statute with more theory than enforcement.

Refugees admitted to the United States are required to apply for lawful permanent resident status after one year. The law says they “shall” return or be returned for inspection and examination. In practice, however, that deadline often functioned more like a compliance expectation than a custody trigger.

On Feb. 18, DHS changed that.
In a new memorandum, the Department of Homeland Security directed USCIS and ICE to treat the one-year mark as a mandatory re-vetting checkpoint. The administration’s position is direct: Refugee admission is conditional. Adjustment after one year is required. If that step does not occur, DHS must enforce the statute.

The memo states:

DHS must treat the one-year mark as a mandatory re-vetting point for all refugees who have not adjusted to LPR status, ensuring either that they are scheduled to ‘return’ to custody for inspection or, if they do not comply, that they be ‘returned’ to custody through enforcement action.

That language is not advisory; it is operation.

Under prior ICE guidance from 2010, failure to obtain lawful permanent resident status “by itself” was not treated as a proper basis for detention. That policy has now been formally rescinded. In its place, DHS has tied the one-year statutory requirement directly to custody authority.
The mechanics are straightforward:

The refugee must return, or be returned, to Department of Homeland Security custody for inspection and examination for admission as an LPR.

If the return is not voluntary, the memo leaves no ambiguity:

If the refugee does not voluntarily return, DHS will return the individual to custody (i.e., arrest and detain) for this purpose.

The directive also clarifies that inspection detention is not confined to a brief administrative hold:

Detention pursuant to INA § 209(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1), is not indefinite, but it is also not limited to merely 48 hours. Instead, it may last for the reasonable length of time it takes to inspect and examine the alien to determine whether he or she is admissible.

Taken together, the memo converts the one-year deadline into an enforceable checkpoint backed by arrest authority.
DHS argues that this shift is data-driven.

According to the memorandum, a USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security review examined 31,000 refugees admitted from Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Venezuela between 2021 and 2024. The findings were not minor.

10% had evidence of public safety concerns, including gang membership, that were not addressed.

That figure alone challenges the assumption that the one-year inspection requirement was redundant.

But the broader issue, according to DHS, involved incomplete screening and identity verification failures.

Over 42% had been insufficiently vetted to determine whether they presented a public safety concern due to an inability to fully verify identity.

In other words, in a substantial share of cases, the government could not conclusively verify who it was adjusting to permanent status. And when DHS stepped back and evaluated the full sample, the result was even more sobering:

Less than 47% could be conclusively found to not represent a public safety concern.

………. ICE is not being handed a new law. It is being directed to execute the one Congress already wrote.

https://redstate.com/ben-smith/2026/02/ ... e-n2199326

Bottom line, the AutoPen & Mayorkus were letting in hordes of so called refugees without proper vetting/background checks. This is a step to fixing that.

[kalm]

She’s a train wreck of misinformation with zero accountability.