President Trump is winning on immigration: a large number of illegals have apparently self-deported

My good friend Robert Stacy McCain noted this Juneteenth that Steven Camerota and Karen Ziegler of the Center for Immigration Studies analyzed reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and concluded that “the number of illegal immigrants has fallen by one million since the start of the year.” That number is far greater than the number of illegals that have been deported, and that means, if the estimates are close to correct, what President Trump called self-deportation has been occurring in far greater numbers than the most optimistic of us had hoped.

Let’s extrapolate a bit from this analysis. If the number of illegal immigrants decreased by one million in about five months, that’s an average decline of 200,000 every month — roughly 2.4 million per year. So if the current trend could be continued, by the time the 2028 election rolls around, the number of illegals in the United States will be less than it was when Joe Biden took office in 2021.

At this point, Mr McCain noted what this would do to congressional seat, and therefore electoral vote, apportionment. President Trump tried this, sort of, during his first term, when he wanted immigration status included in the 2020 census, as possibly a way to apportion congressional seats based on the number of American citizens rather than raw population, but that effort failed.

But I look at it differently. I have said it previously, that the United States needs immigrants, but that we need good, vetted, useful, legal immigrants, immigrants of good character, immigrants who have clean criminal records in their home countries, and immigrants who are civic minded, attend church, and will assimilate into our country, to wave American flags, not Mexican ones.

Those who have left voluntarily, without being picked up and kicked out, will have the advantage if they apply for legal immigration, not having a forced deportation on their records. We should be able to investigate their records in their home countries, and their records here in the United States, without prejudice, if they apply to return legally. And those who have poor records, we can exclude.

This is what we should want, people who will come to the United States, contribute to our economy and our society. We can assign reasonable criteria that they have to meet:

  • Couples who have been legally married for more than three years;
  • Couples who have children;
  • No single males of military or fighting age;
  • No gangland or gang-related tattoos;
  • People with marketable skills;
  • People who have a record of good employment;
  • Families who attend Mass regularly; and, of course
  • People with clean criminal records.

There was some Democratic politician, I cannot recall whom, who facetiously tried to justify illegal immigration by saying that the Latin American countries were sending us their best people. Actually, I saw it as people who weren’t good enough to make it in their own countries! But with the kinds of criteria I listed, and other criteria could be suggested, we could do our best to assure that the immigrants admitted actually are the best for whom we could hope.

The vast majority of Americans, including the majority of people who voted for President Trump, would gladly accept those kind of immigrants.

Spread the love

6 thoughts on “President Trump is winning on immigration: a large number of illegals have apparently self-deported

  1. “Families who attend Mass regularly”

    Protestants need not apply? Or did you mean “Mass” as a general term to include Church or Synagogue too?

    I further see an issue with this criteria: Does the Catholic church take attendance for Mass? I don’t recall my protestant church ever doing that and the couple of times I’ve gone to Shul with my Jewish best friend, they didn’t even ask my name.

    So, how is that going to be vetted? Maybe we could do a punch card like Starbucks used to do for a free coffee.

    Also doesn’t consider people trying to emigrate from countries who frown upon religious activity. We’re asking them to out themselves to their own government in order to satisfy the requirements of ours?

    In other words, I see that one as problematic.

    • Protestants need not apply? Or did you mean “Mass” as a general term to include Church or Synagogue too?

      Most Christians in Latin America are Catholic, but yes, I’d include our separated brethren and Jews as well.

      I further see an issue with this criteria: Does the Catholic church take attendance for Mass?

      The Diocese of Lexington, at least, does want each parish to report average attendance at Mass, though it’s not exactly “tak(ing) attendance”. Of course, in our small parish, we all know who shows up every Sunday, who comes occasionally, and who never comes at all.

      • “Of course, in our small parish, we all know who shows up every Sunday, who comes occasionally, and who never comes at all.”

        As we did in the small town I grew up in. Everyone know who went to church regularly, even if they went to a different church…but I’m not sure what utility that general knowledge has in the completion of immigration paperwork.

        I guess you could do some sort of “reference letter” from your priest or pastor, but how would INS verify the veracity of such letters?

        It just seems to me a bit impractical to implement considering the lack of any sort of official documentation (assuming it even passed the inevitable SCOTUS review, which is doubtful).

  2. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove

  3. Pingback: Sometimes you just have to be an [insert slang term for the rectum here] to do things right – THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

  4. Pingback: Sometimes you just have to be an [insert slang term for the anus here] to do things right - American Free News Network

Comments are closed.