Saturday, April 18, 2026

The cost of illegal immigration since 1965 - over half a century is in the trillions - we MUST correct this national tragedy!

 


DHS Says It Costs $18,000 To Deport An Illegal Alien

It’s criminal that taxpayers must foot that bill, but it’s worth every penny.

Vince Coyner | April 18, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

I saw a video yesterday of Markwayne Mullin, the new DHS Secretary, appearing on Laura Ingraham’s show. He stated that it costs more than $18,000 per deportee to remove an illegal from the United States. If you’re thinking that’s because we’re giving them swag bags and first-class tickets home, you’d be wrong. At least that would be fast. No, the $18,000 is what it costs to navigate an illegal through the justice system because activist “judges” make the government jump through a labyrinth of laws and hoops.

Mullins encourages us to imagine the cost of doing that to the twenty million illegals allowed in during the Biden administration. That would be $360 billion! And there would still be another 30 million illegals in the country.

All of this reminded me of a conversation I was having with a young person recently about the cost of illegals to the country. In this case, we were talking about housing. I mentioned that one of the reasons that housing was so expensive is that there are 50 million illegals in the United States. Despite California’s insane Homeless Industrial Complex, most of them are not living on the streets, in California, or anywhere else. They are living in homes.

The population of the United States is approximately 350 million people, who live in approximately 148 million housing units. That is an average of 2.4 people per house or apartment (collectively, “residences”).

Immigrants typically have more people living in their homes—3.5 people per residence. Using that number, the 50 million illegal aliens in the United States live in 14 million residences. If those 50 million illegals were not here, the housing stock available for American citizens and other legal residents would increase by almost 10%. To put that in perspective, on average, the net number of new residences to hit the market each year is about 1.5 million.

Needless to say, if an inventory of 14 million units were freed up over a 3-5 year period, the cost of housing across America would drop significantly. There would, of course, be consequences, given that real estate is a key element of so many Americans’ net worth, particularly older individuals.

That drop in value, though, would be only one of the myriad effects of removing 50 million illegals, most of them good. Others include changes to education, healthcare, welfare, and, of course, criminal justice and jobs.

Let’s take education. On average, schools spend $16,500 per pupil educating their charges. There are approximately five million children of illegal aliens living in the United States and going to school. Five million students times $16,500 equals $80 billion for education. That number is actually conservative because most illegals live in urban areas, where governments spend far more than average on schooling. There’s also the intangible cost of the decline in education because of students who arrive in the schools speaking no English.

FAIR, the Foundation for American Immigration Reform, a relatively anti-illegal immigration organization, estimates that the United States spent $41 billion in 2023 on healthcare for illegal aliens and their children. For some unknown reason, that number is based on the laughably low 15 million illegals. But we’ll keep it to give them the benefit of the doubt. If we multiply it by two ($82 billion), that’s probably still not close to the real cost.

According to CIS, the Center for Immigration Studies, the average number of immigrant families receiving welfare is extraordinary. For perspective, 27% of US-born households receive some form of welfare. Among immigrants, it’s…slightly higher.

Among Afghan families, it’s 87%, Dominican Republic families 78%, Guatemalan 77%, El Salvadoran 75%, Honduran 75%, Ecuadoran 70%, Mexican 67%, etc. As bad as these numbers are, in reality, they understate the problem.

Ostensibly, illegal aliens are not supposed to receive benefits at all, but they do, and do so at higher rates than legal immigrant families. The numbers above are for both legal and illegal immigrants. As such, the above numbers are averages of both and, therefore, are lower than the percentages of illegal alien families on welfare. CIS estimates that, taken together, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $42 billion annually.

Then there’s crime. Even if one ignores the psychological and physical damage violent crime does to victims, both individuals and businesses, illegal aliens cost Americans tens of billions of dollars per year. FAIR—again using their laughably low numbers—estimates that at the federal level alone, Americans spend $25 billion a year dealing with illegals in the justice system. Elsewhere, FAIR asserts that states spend an additional $22 billion per year dealing with illegal aliens in their respective justice systems.

All of that taken together—$80 billion for education, $41 billion for healthcare, $42 billion for welfare, $47 billion on justice—equals $210 billion per year spent on illegals by American taxpayers. And again, some of those are very low-ball estimates.

The above are explicitly government expenditures. But there are also billions of dollars of additional NGO spending on illegals, although the fact that many NGOs are funded by the government means there’s probably some overlap.

And of course, there are caveats. Some illegal aliens work and pay taxes, which would reduce that number. Schools would be operating in most places even if there were no illegal aliens, so that might reduce that number.

At the same time, most organizations and government agencies have a vested interest in keeping the reported number of illegals far below the actual number. Plus, of course, as stated at the top of this essay, we cannot discount the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of additional housing costs Americans face because there are 50 million illegals competing for the same housing stock.

Assuming we stick with the $210 billion figure and divide it by 50 million illegal aliens in America, that would work out to about $4,200 per illegal alien per year. Compared to Mullin’s $18,000 per illegal deported, it sounds like we would save money by letting them stay. But we wouldn’t, of course. And we shouldn’t. Deportation is a one-time cost. Funding an illegal alien is often a process of years or even an alien’s lifetime.

Given that April 15th was just a few days ago, all of this resonates as one is sitting down to write the IRS a check. And if we had to include in that the impact of illegals on the housing market and wages, it no doubt would be much bigger.

But illegal immigration isn’t just about money. It’s about right and wrong, whether Americans are in control of their own country, and whether our laws mean anything. If we allow some groups to get away with breaking the law with impunity (and benefitting from subsidies, to boot), what message does that send to the rest of the people in America, and more importantly, what message does it send to the rest of the world, particularly the third world, where most illegals come from?

Mullins is right to point out the cost associated with sending illegal aliens home because it’s always helpful for people to visualize where their tax dollars are going and how the out-of-control judicial system is making it worse.

But at the end of the day, illegal immigration is far bigger than just dollars. It’s justice. It’s safety. It’s right and wrong. And sadly, it’s control of Congress! As grifters like Maria Salazar try to pass amnesty by calling it “Dignity,” we shouldn’t let them. She and other Democrats in RINO clothing would replicate Reagan’s worst mistake, on steroids.

Although far too high, that $18,000 is worth every single penny.

 

Friday, April 17, 2026

If leftist governments fail to apply and follow laws, rules and regulations - withholding funding is the last resort.

 

Transportation Dept withholding $73M in federal funds from New York due to CDL failures

Secretary Sean Duffy said the state failed to revoke “illegally issued nondomiciled commercial learner’s permits and commercial driver’s licenses.” An audit of 200 sampled records found 107 – 53.5% – were issued in violation of federal law.

By Alan Wooten | The Center Square 4-16-26 justthenews.com

Federal funds totaling $73 million will be withheld from New York by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation said Thursday.

Secretary Sean Duffy said the state failed to revoke “illegally issued nondomiciled commercial learner’s permits and commercial driver’s licenses.” An audit of 200 sampled records found 107 – 53.5% – were issued in violation of federal law.

New York defaulted to eight-year licenses to foreign drivers for non-REAL ID licenses, regardless of when legal status for the individuals expired. In a Dec. 12 release, the state was ordered by the federal agency to begin revocations; on March 13, the motor carrier administration said again the state failed to complete required corrective actions.

Derek Barrs, administrator of the motor carrier administration, said, ““FMCSA’s mission is safety. That means ensuring that every commercial driver on the road is properly vetted and qualified. New York’s continued refusal to fix these failures undermines that mission, and we will not allow federal dollars to support a system that falls short of the law.”

Added Duffy, “I promised the American people I would hold any state leader accountable for failing to keep them safe from unvetted, unqualified foreign drivers. I’m delivering on that promise today by refusing to fund Governor Hochul’s dangerous, anti-American policies. My message to New York’s far left leadership is clear: families must be prioritized on American roads.”

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration is losing 4% of its National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Program Block Grant Funds with the loss of $73,502,543, says Thursday's letter to Hochul and Commissioner J.F. Schroeder of the New York Department of Motor Vehicles.

Sean Butler, from Hochul's office, told The New York Post on Thursday afternoon. "These charges are a baseless attempt to attack blue states, because as everyone knows New York simply follows federally-issued rules when issuing commercial drivers' licenses, something that even the Trump administration has acknowledged.”

Litigation could be in the offing. For example, Hochul’s administration challenged the Trump administration over withheld funding for the Second Avenue Subway in East Harlem.

President Todd Spencer of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has applauded efforts to eliminate loopholes for unqualified drivers. The issue has been prevalent coast to coast, from Florida and California tripled fatal crashes last year involving people driving big rigs illegally in America to February’s quadruple fatal in Indiana.

“The days of exploiting cheap labor on the basis of false ‘driver shortage’ claims are over,” Spencer said. “OOIDA and truckers across America applaud Secretary Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Barrs for responding to our concerns by taking substantial actions to crack down on the irresponsible issuance of nondomiciled CDLs, particularly in New York.”

 

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

What the 'Dignity Act' would do - scares me beyond belief! It IS amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Call your elected officials and say NO to this bill.

 


Republican Amnesty? The ‘Dignidad’ Act Ignores the Will of the People

Emmy Griffin patriotpost.us 4-15-26

A bipartisan bill that seeks to bring dignity to illegal aliens misses what voters are screaming for with regard to immigration enforcement.

The leadership of President Donald Trump in deporting illegal aliens after the Biden administration left our borders wide open has been stupendous. Not only has Trump deported over 600,000 illegals despite the unbridled resistance from Democrats and judicial activists, but an estimated two million more have self-deported.

Illegal border crossings are at historic lows. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security reports 11 consecutive months with zero releases at the border. In other words, no illegal aliens who have been caught are being released into the country’s interior.

This is what we voted for, which is why it is a little baffling that Republicans in Congress are cosponsoring a bill that functions like mass amnesty.

The Dignidad Act (“dignidad” is the Spanish word for “dignity”) was put forward by Florida Republican Congresswoman María Salazar. Salazar was born in the U.S., though her parents were Cuban exiles who fled Castro’s regime. Ergo, immigration is near and dear to her heart.

Salazar has tried to advance similar bills in the past. This legislation, she claims, is different and not at all amnesty.

Here is what the bill would do:

  • Give DREAMers/DACA a legal status.
  • Forgive student loans for lawyers who provide legal services to illegal immigrants.
  • Re-import illegals who have already been deported.
  • Halt deportations altogether, including those of aliens with DUIs or DWIs.
  • Grant automatic green cards to illegals under the age of 18 who have been here since January 1, 2021.
  • DHS would determine whether an illegal alien meets the criteria of the Dignidad Act. In other words, discernment would be at the mercy of whoever is in the Oval Office.

Regarding illegals, Salazar wants to “buy them peace” while the details are sorted out. She also calls the bill “common sense.” Nothing outlined above is common sense. This is an amnesty bill that would undo the hard work of immigration enforcement agencies over the past 14 months.

The Dignidad Act is cosponsored by 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats and has been dubbed the most serious piece of bipartisan legislation under this administration. That alone constitutes a big red flag.

Despite the current irritation with Republicans for ignoring the will of the people, the introduction of the Dignidad Act presents an opportunity for more conversation. How do we permanently deter illegal immigration? How do we prevent noncitizens from exploiting our elections and congressional apportionment? How do we provide legal residency only for those who came purely for economic reasons?

These are constructive arguments that require thoughtful answers. The Dignidad Act is not the answer that voters are looking for, but it should lead to productive discussions while upholding the border, the Rule of Law, and the safety of the American people.

 

Wise words expressed about sovereignty and eonomic stability in this post.

 


Why the United States Cannot Afford to Restrict All Legal Immigration

Gregory Lyakhov patriotpost.us 4-14-26

Examining the growing view on the Right that legal immigration should be paused or significantly reduced in response to uncontrolled excess.

The immigration debate within the Republican Party has moved beyond border enforcement to a broader question of national sustainability. While there remains overwhelming agreement that illegal immigration must be stopped, divisions are emerging over how to approach both legalization proposals and the role of legal immigration in the United States. That divide reflects a deeper tension between maintaining sovereignty and addressing long-term demographic decline.

On illegal immigration, the policy framework is clear. A country that fails to enforce its laws undermines its own legal system. Proposals such as the Dignity Act attempt to create a pathway to legal status for certain illegal immigrants, but such approaches introduce a structural risk. When individuals who entered unlawfully are later granted legal protections, enforcement loses consistency. The result is not only a one-time policy shift but also a precedent signaling that future violations may be resolved politically rather than legally.

A more coherent approach prioritizes enforcement while recognizing practical limits. Federal agencies can focus first on individuals with criminal records, national security risks, or repeat violations, while expanding broader deportation efforts over time. This structure maintains the integrity of the law without introducing subjective standards about who “deserves” to remain.

Once enforcement depends on economic contribution or personal circumstances, the law itself becomes conditional rather than consistent.

The more complex issue is legal immigration. A growing faction on the Right has begun calling for a pause or significant reduction in legal immigration, arguing that immigration channels strain public resources and slow assimilation. Those concerns are grounded in observable pressures. Rapid increases in asylum claims and refugee admissions under past presidents have placed measurable strain on housing markets, school systems, and local budgets, particularly in major cities.

When intake exceeds integration capacity, the result is not only fiscal stress but also slower economic and cultural assimilation.

At the same time, a blanket halt to legal immigration ignores a fundamental demographic constraint. The United States recorded a fertility rate of approximately 1.57 births per woman in 2025, well below the 2.1 replacement level required to sustain a population. That gap has direct economic consequences. A shrinking working-age population must support a growing number of retirees through programs such as Social Security and Medicare, increasing the burden on each individual worker.

That demographic pressure is compounded by abortion trends. More than one million abortions occur annually in the United States, reducing the number of future workers entering the population. The combination of below-replacement birth rates and sustained abortion levels accelerates population stagnation, creating a structural imbalance between younger and older generations. Without sufficient population growth, economic expansion slows, and entitlement systems face increasing strain.

Countries such as Japan have experienced prolonged periods of low fertility, leading to aging populations, slower growth, and mounting fiscal pressure. The United States has historically avoided the worst of these outcomes in part through immigration, which supplements the labor force and offsets demographic decline. Removing that mechanism without an immediate domestic replacement would intensify similar challenges.

The long-term solution lies in increasing domestic birth rates through policies that support family formation, including housing affordability, tax incentives, and access to childcare. However, those policies have operated over decades and produced limited success. In the short term, immigration is the only viable way to address the United States’ demographic challenges.

A sustainable immigration policy requires differentiation. Illegal immigration should be addressed through consistent enforcement and structured deportation priorities. Legal immigration should be calibrated to serve economic and demographic needs while maintaining strict standards for assimilation and resource capacity. Eliminating legal immigration entirely does not resolve the underlying demographic issue; it accelerates it.

Immigration enforcement, refugee admissions, and employment-based immigration serve different purposes and must be evaluated separately. A system that enforces its laws while allowing controlled, merit-based legal immigration reflects a recognition that sovereignty and economic stability are not competing goals but interconnected requirements for long-term national strength.