President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” : A Comprehensive Overview and Analysis

 

If there is anything we can all agree on about Donald Trump, it’s his propensity for hyperbole. Going all the way back to when he first appeared on Robin Leach’s “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”, Trump  has always described anything he’s involved with as “the biggest”, “the most”, “the best”, “the greatest ever”, and so forth. Everything he does is over the top. 

Trump, the son of a real estate entrepreneur, learned as a child that it’s not what you actually say or do, it’s all about the perception. So, now, here we are with President Trump’s 870 page “One Big Beautiful Bill” which (allegedly) contains the greatest sweeping changes in our country’s history. The bill, we're told, will become legendary. Aren’t we blessed to be here and now to witness its unveiling? But just what is in this bill and is it as wonderful as it’s being portrayed by the Republicans? Is there anything in it we're not being told? 

The bill was officially known as H.R. 1 “One Big Beautiful Bill” (aka “OBBBA”) and was sponsored by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) and originated in the House Budget Committee May 20, 2025 (I’m sure he’ll find an extra special “something” in his Christmas stocking).

The bill passed in the House with a 218 to 214 vote after barely sliding by a vote in the Senate, 51 to 50, marking a significant victory for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) despite three Republican senators voting against the bill--- Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

The bill, which focused on tax cuts, was considered by many to be an extension of President Trump’s earlier bill, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”). The bill represents a saving of about $3.7 billion tax dollars to taxpayers (or if you look at it another way, $3.7 billion in taxes that the federal government won’t collect for various programs).

The bill makes Trump’s previous tax cuts permanent, while increasing spending for border security,  military expenditures, and energy production (with little funding for alternative energy projects). Two compromise points was postponing the sale of public land for the time being and temporarily prohibiting state regulations over artificial intelligence (AI).

Funding for the increases came, in part, from reductions in the budgets for programs like Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program, better known as “SNAP,” as well as other healthcare and nutritional support programs. Some opponents claim that the reductions will potentially leave some without healthcare and leave the underserved even worse off. Congressional Republicans deny this will happen.

For some reason, I’m reminded of when President Ronald Reagan made a similar cut in the National School Lunch Program. At one point, after being criticized over the cuts in fresh fruits and vegetables being available to school age children living poverty, he said the ketchup, which was readily available in school lunchrooms, should be counted as vegetable (also mentioned was pickle relish). It’s just not the same Gipper.  The cut of 1.5 million dollars was intended to give schools more “flexibility” to the lunch programs, however, it backfired. As I’ve said on many occasions, perception in politics is everything.

With respect to Medicaid, which was created in 1965, approximately 71.4 million people are currently using Medicaid which is intended for low income individuals and families as well as those disabled and unable to work. A further 7.3 million are enrolled in the Children’s health Insurance Program (“CHIP”), which brings the total to 78.7 million people who benefit from Medicaid, or roughly 24% of the U.S. population.  

As an aside, both Medicaid and Medicare were expanded under President Obama’s healthcare legislation, known as the “Affordable Care Act” in an effort to  provide coverage for those without any healthcare and to provide a bridge for those who fell through the cracks. So, I guess “Obamacare” has effectively been replaced by “OBBBAcare”!

Some of the changes made under Trump’s bill includes changing annual application enrollments to every six months and additional residency verification requirements in order to eliminate non-citizens from applying. Medicaid has always been for low income or handicapped individuals and their families. Under the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, there will be tighter restrictions on incomes.

Federal provider coverage will dropped from 6% to 3.5% over the next seven years.  That’s expected to have an adverse effect on small community clinics and rural hospitals (especially in low income areas like the Ozarks and Appalachia). The bill mandates that “able bodied” adults to work or volunteer up to 15 hours per week. This also applies to those receiving SNAP benefits to work or volunteer a minimum of 15 hours weekly.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, an estimated 12 million Medicaid recipients could lose coverage over the next decade. Proponents claims that only those able to work and obtain coverage on the open market and those who’ve obtained coverage fraudulently (such as illegal immigrants) will be affected.

Social Security will also be affected. Once considered to be “untouchable”, Congress regularly raids Social Security with the assurance that these “loans” with be repaid but has resulted in concerns that the national retirement safety net  will go broke over the next few decades. 

A good piece of news is that individuals dependent on tips or overtime to make ends meet with no longer be required to pay taxes on their income up to $25,000. Many individuals, especially in the service industry, aren’t paid a standard wage. Instead, they depend on tips while others, especially in manufacturing, count on overtime to make ends meet.

Previously, workers were required to pay taxes on this extra but essential income, under Trump’s bill, they will be tax deductible on the first $12,500 of overtime earned. The child tax credit will be increased by $200, making it now  $2,200 and then adjusted for inflation thereafter.

Taxpayers will be able to write off a portion of their state and local taxes (SALT) on their federal taxes up to $40,000 on incomes up to $500,000 until 2029 when it will drop back to the current rate of $10,000. The deduction benefits those who pay high property taxes, which tend to be the wealthy. Private jets will now be tax deductible. In another prop for the well-to-do, individuals can now pass up $15 million to their heirs tax free (if any of you are rich, I’m available for adoption).  

Private school vouchers were also added to the bill. Families who earn less than three times the local income average may now receive up to $5000 in tax credits to be used for homeschooling and private schools (including religious based schools). Private colleges with a student population of 3000 or more, will pay up to 8% in taxes on their endowments. Students will now be capped on the amount of federal loans they can borrow for college. 

Car buyers will be able to write off up to $10,000 in interest annually on car loans IF the car is assembled in the United States. A boon for American auto workers. Additionally, those 65 and over will be able to deduct up to $6000 in taxable income off the top through 2028.

According to a Penn Wharton Budget Model Forecast, the beneficiaries of this portion of the bill will be those in the upper income brackets, especially the top 1% (as if they need another tax break). Low income families currently receiving Medicaid and/or SNAP benefits could lose around $28,000 over a lifetime while those earning $58,000 or more could see savings as much as $65,000 over the same period.    

When it came to the energy and the environment, it was a victory for oil and gas companies. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” cut President Biden’s clean energy tax breaks for alternative energy sources (such as wind and solar power), especially those with “foreign ownership or other connections” (ie: China). Companies currently involved with alternative energy will continue to be eligible for the full tax credits. However, starting in 2026, new construction projects will be eligible for just 60% of those credits, dropping to 20% in 2027, and disappearing altogether by 2028.

It bears mentioning that the bill includes language encouraging continue and accelerate oil and gas leasing as well as permits oil and gas companies to us deductions built into the bill to avoid paying so-called "must pay" minimum corporate taxes of 15% imposed by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. 

The U.S. military is the largest in the world, exceeding the next ten nations combined (including China, Russia, India, France, and the UK), but under Trump’s bill, they’ll received an increase over their current budget by $150 billion dollars, with an emphasis on rebuilding a badly depleted military in addition to creating a missile defense “Golden Dome” along the lines of Israel’s “Iron Dome” (look for China to build a “Jade Dome”) next.

In 2024, the Heritage Foundation published a summary of U.S. military readiness and key foreign threats. According to the report, the U.S. military was not adequately prepared for a two front war or a prolonged war across a broad single front. The U.S. Army’s capacity was listed as “weak” while its capability was “marginal”. The Navy’s capacity was categorized as “very weak” while its capability was “marginal” and its readiness was “weak”.

The Air Force was “very weak” when it came to readiness. Its capability and capacity were both determined as being “weak”. The Marines, as expected, were listed as “strong” when it came to readiness and capability, yet “weak” in regard to capability. The Space Force was “marginal” across the board (making us vulnerable to Martians I suppose). Overall, the report indicated that the current state of our military was on the low side of “marginal”.

The Golden Dome will be specifically designed to stop incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles (“ICBMs”) as well as the latest in high tech destruction, hypersonic missiles which travel at five times the speed of sound and “fractional orbital bombardment systems” or  as they’re better known, “FOBS”.  FOBS are a type of multiheaded nuclear ballistic missiles which, after launch, remain in low earth orbit, until being directed toward their intended target much like a maneuverable  glider.

 As an aside, in the event the crisis is alleviated (such as capitulation or diplomacy), they can redirected into space and detonated.  Critics say the “Golden Dome” only heightens global tensions while proponents believed it will serve  to deescalated the threat of a global war.

Trump has promised (and largely delivered) to enforce existing immigration laws and improve border security. Accordingly, thousands of migrants have been rounded up and deported. In an effort to continue and step up efforts, the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)  was being given an additional $150 billion to their budget, which had been reduced to just $8 billion dollars by previous administrations. The increase now makes ICE the top funded federal law enforcement agency in the country.  

In summary, President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” will extend tax cuts over the next decade, resulting a savings of approximately $4.5 trillion dollars to taxpayers and corporations. Border security and immigration enforcement will see an increase in their Christmas stockings of $129 billion dollars, and the military will get an increase over their current budget of $150 billion dollars. That should buy a lot of new toys for them to blow up.

On the down side, the Congressional Budget Office said that Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” will likely add $3.4 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. The debt ceiling will be raised to $5 trillion dollars, ostensibly to help pay for current and future federal programs.

Medicaid will see a drop of $930 billion dollars over the next decade (some see it as a savings since it will reduce from the roll those not legally entitled to the various programs covered under Medicaid). Because of reductions in Medicaid, nursing homes receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding will face a hiring moratorium.  

The bill also provides Big Pharma with a major break. It limits Medicare's ability to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Other public assistance programs, such as SNAP, will see a reduction of $287 billion over the next ten years (the same reason as above). Meanwhile, the so-called “green industry” will lose some $488 billion dollars in federal support.

In conclusion, President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” is largely positive overall for most Americans, and certainly for big business as well as the very well-to-do. However, as usual, lower income brackets (and by extension, minorities) and some seniors didn’t fare well with reductions in the social safety net programs. However, many of the tax breaks and other cuts are temporary which may be the best a deeply divided Congress can do.

The military, as is usually the case, made out like a pirate (or should I say “privateer”?). For those who are curious, the budget for intelligence agencies are separate and are generally kept secret from the public as well as the majority of Congress.  Thus, their budgets are apparently none of our business even though we fund them through our tax dollars. Tax breaks on income, especially tips and overtime, were long overdue, but come on, private jets? Really? 

 Crackdowns on illegal immigration and dramatic improvements in border security are seen as a good thing for national security, though it may be closer to the proverbial closing of the chicken coop after the foxes are in. Educational funding had a number of pros and cons but ultimately benefited the kids, which is what matters the most (now they need to figure out how to improve the quality of their education).  

Finally, all things considered, after having spent a lot of time researching the bill, I’m not sure I would have called it “One Big Beautiful Bill”, but I guess “One Big Not Ugly Bill” doesn’t sound as marketable.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

H.R. 1 One Big Beautiful Bill text

Big Beautiful Bill 101: What you need to know about the newlaw

Affordable Care Act

Senate passes Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” in 51 to 50 voteafter marathon session

Ketchup as a vegetable

Can Donald Trump build the ‘Golden Dome’ over the US?

What are the key items in Trump’s sprawling budget bill?

Is the Pentagon headed for a military readiness crisis?

Military Readiness: Implementing the GOA’s recommendations…

Executive Summary of the 2024 Index of U.S. Military Strength

7 Overlooked Provisions In Trump and The GOP’s Ugly Tax Bill

 

“No King” But Plenty of Fools? Civil Disobedience Then and Now

 

Growing up in the 1960’s and 70’s, I remember watching major historical social events such as Hispanic civil rights activist and labor leader Cesar Chavez leading his migrant field worker’s  on a “1000 Mile March” (or "Peregrination") from the farm fields of Southern California up along the coast educating farm laborers about their newly won rights, including the right to organize.

Then there was no looting or defacement of the Lincoln and Washington monuments. No one peed in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool while listening to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s stirring “I have a Dream” speech (aka “March for Jobs and Freedom" speech, 1963).  

There were the famous protests for civil rights led by likes of Rev. King,  A. Phillip Randolph, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, such as the Montgomery Bus Protest (1965/66), the Birmingham campaign (1963), the Selma march (1965), or the Chicago Peace March (1967) or the March against the Vietnam War (1967). Then there was the “Poor Peoples Campaign in 1968 which was aimed at alleviating the economic poor and improving housing for all races, but where was the violence? There wasn't any.

 Chavez, King, Abernathy, and all the others never intentionally blocked traffic. They never looted or defaced property. They didn’t try and keep people from going to their jobs to earn money in order to put food on their table or keep a roof over their head. They didn’t try to keep ambulances from helping individuals in crisis.

No one blocked the fire department from trying to save someone’s home and their possessions, not to mention their lives? They didn’t loot, commit arson, deface public and private property, throw trash cans everywhere or set bonfires in the middle of road? None of that happened? They didn’t intentionally assault anyone? They didn’t even spit on anybody or scream in their ear? Once again, the answer is no. Leaders repeatedly reminded their followers to avoid violence at all costs. They were also encouraged to respect people’s personal space.

Vehicles weren’t attacked with rocks, bricks, chairs, or pummeled with boards and hammers.  Protest signs weapons. They simply conveyed a message.  What about protesters randomly attacking police officers or federal agents? That rarely happened, and when it came to assaults and law enforcement, protestors were just as often on the receiving end.

Didn’t  “social justice warriors” like King, Chavez, Wilkins, and Abernathy modelled their protests after the anarchist, Mahatma Gandhi? Afterall, aren’t you supposed to substitute yourself in place of the message?  Isn't ending dialogue the goal right?

Well, no. While they did model their protests on Gandhi, he was all about non-violence, passive resistance, and trying to create dialogue. Gandhi wasn't an anarchist although some try to portray him as such today. So, today’s protests and protestors (aka “social justice warriors”) are nothing like their Civil Rights movement counterparts. So, if not the Civil Rights Movement, what about other protests? Incidentally, while Caser Chavez was a major proponent of migrant rights and founder of the United Farm Workers, he opposed illegal immigration, believing it harmed those here legally and gave the impression that all Hispanics were criminals. 

There were the anti-war protests, often led by individuals like Tom Hayden, Jerry Rubin, and Abbe Hoffman.  in Lafayette Park, the National Mall, and the campuses at universities like Berkeley, Kent State, Chicago, and throughout the U.S., as well as the 1971 Mayday Protest. There was the protests by Native Americans, led by individuals like Dennis Means, Russell Means, and Clyde Bellecourt. They led a series of non-violent protests (known as the “Trail of Broken Treaties), including occupying the offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but that too was non-violent.

Following a notoriously violent police raid in 1969 on a gay nightclub in New York’s Greenwich Village, gays, fronted by leaders like Phyllis Lyons and Frank Kameny, began openly (yet peacefully) protesting for a change in laws to decriminalize homosexuality. The “Women’s Liberation Movement” , whose leadership included Bella Abzug, Democratic presidential candidate, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem, also started in the 1970’s over a number of issues ranging from equal pay and treatment at work, abortion, separate credit and financial rights, etc. None of these protests involved spitting on people, arson, or looting (although a few innocent bras were burned).

In Chicago, in 1968, there was the infamous “police riot”, ordered by Chicago political boss Mayor Richard Daley during the Democratic Party National Convention, on anti-war demonstrators.  The result was 11 deaths and nearly 800 injuries, which include 152 officers. The officers used nearly everything at their disposal. They were wildly swinging their batons and deploying voluminous amounts of tear gas, causing confusion and panic among the protestors and innocent bystanders. Many of the injuries were head and neck related or the result of being trampled.  

The following year, in 1970, on the relatively quiet campus of Kent State University in Ohio, just over 300 or so students had gathered to protest the expansion of the war in Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. The Ohio National Guard was called in to maintain “control” over loud but otherwise well behaved students. For reasons still unclear, 28 members of the National Guard opened fire on the peaceful crowd.

By the time the shooting stopped some 13 seconds later, 67 rounds had been fired and four students lay dead. Two were 19 and two were 20. Nine students were badly injured. Although there was a hearing, not one of the 28 members of the National Guard or their officers, were found guilty. As a result, over four million students across the country staged a mass walk out and there was no looting. No arson. A friend of mine, who was a student journalist at Kent State at the time, told me that despite the anguish and anger, there was no talk of revenge on the National Guard members or the judge.

None of this is intended to imply that the 1960’s and ‘70’s lacked violence from the Left. They did, and lots of it, such as the Watts Riots in LA which spread across the nation or the riots following the murder of MLK in 1968. However, the majority of violence, as it pertains to protests, didn’t come from the protestors themselves. It came for the “Establishment” and those on the Far Right. So, what happened? What changed?

By the mid-1970’s, protesting was becoming organized and financed. There were individuals called "coordinators" who were considered “experts” at organizing a protest (Saul Alinsky is considered to be the "father" of modern protests). They would train or bring in certain individuals to be “squad leaders” to lead the direction of the protests, who continuously reported to the coordinators.

They would also work with coordinators and others to create local specific slogans for signs and banners which were produced out of state and shipped in to avoid being traced by law enforcement with other signs, more generic, were homemade. 

Seminars would be formed to help participants learn how to deal with police tactics, passive resistance, how to non-aggressively provoke the other side and law enforcement, and deescalate any anxiety participants might have. They would also practice ways to non-aggressively resist, rehearse their message, and gain the media’s attention in a way to make it appear that they have the moral high ground.

Links would be established with like-minded groups, organizations and legal aid societies, including a bail fund.  Key individuals would be given an 800 phone number which will connect them to a lawyer  on standby who will help with the bail and obtain their quick release from jail.

By the early 2000’s, tactics changed again. Protests became almost indistinguishable from riots. Violence, once shunned by earlier organizers (including Alinsky), became virtually “de rigueur”. The actions of the individuals took the forefront, often obscuring the message of the protest. 

Actions could include trying to block vehicles with your body (especially if the media was present), ignoring the other person’s personal space while over emphasizing yours, shouting (or screaming) the opposition down, spitting on someone to provoke a reaction,  exaggerated acting to an action, using certain words, phrases, or sounds to rally and surround a perceived “threat”, as well as protesting without a permit or illegally blocking traffic (even King obtained a permit).

Physical violence, with the aim to intimidate and demoralize the other side, has also found its way into modern “protests” in a way that would have appalled Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, or Shirley Chisolm. As an aside, some use protests today as a cover for looting, theft, arson, disfiguring or destroying public and private property (which is solely intended to create an added strain on local first responders).  If these wannabe “social justice warriors” truly want to change the system, they need broad public support across social, racial, and economic lines. What they are doing is not how you get it. Mayhem, rather than the message, seems more and more to be the objective. That only weakens the message and prevents the change you want. 

Many of today’s faux revolutionaries think they’re recreating the “social revolution” of their grandparents from the 1960’s and 70’s, when, in fact, they’re acting like spoiled or coddled children not getting their way in a toy store. They spend to much time in the world of make believe instead of reality. In the words of their ideological model, Vladimir Lenin, they are little more than “useful idiots”.  How can you be  an “anarchist” while living in mom and dad’s basement and off their parent's credit cards? The closest many will get to Marx is watching Harpo, Groucho, and Chico on late night TV. 

Personally, I’m not sure I’d even give them that. I prefer to think of them as cannon fodder and eventual statistics. Their ‘60’s and 70’s predecessors were mostly successful with their goals when based on non-violence. The actions of the current generation  will likely result in failure because of choice to use violence. Regardless, if they continue with their present strategy, the end result will be that they accomplish nothing with the exception of alienating people to their cause and enhancing the power of the surveillance state and the empire.  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 An Organizers Guide To Protests and Political Change

How to Organize a Protest

APWU: Our Labor History: Cesar Chavez Leads “1000 Miles March”for Farm-Worker Rights in California

Cesar Chavez

Cesar’s Thousand Mile March: A 59 Day Trek

Martin Luther King Jr.: 8 peaceful protests that bolsteredcivil rights

Malcolm and the Civil Rights Movement

Speaking and Protesting In America: Protesting in the 1960’sand 1970’s

Leaders in the Struggle for Civil Rights

 

Anti-War Protests of the 1960-70’s

1968 Democratic National Convention Protests

The Whole World Was Watching…

Kent State Shootings

Watts Riots

 

 

Confronting Illegal Immigration: Understanding Who Illegal Immigrants Really Are

We previously published a brief history about U.S. immigration ("Our Never Ending War on Illegal Immigration: A Brief History"). As noted, every president since Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s has promised the American People that they would do whatever was necessary to end the onslaught coming primarily from across our southern border. And yet, virtually every one of those presidents lied.

Not only did they not take steps to halt illegal immigrations, most took steps to open the border even further. They’ve cut budgets, restricted enforcement, changed laws to allow for easier immigration, and permitted cities to openly defy federal immigration law.

President Obama even sued the State of Arizona to prevent them from enforcing immigration laws (and in a legal first, allowed a foreign power---Mexico---to join the lawsuit). The end result is that there are now some 11 million illegal residents now living in the United States.

According to a December 4, 2024 study by the Department of Government Efficiency, the U.S. is spending 2% of its budget on illegal immigration. How much is that to American taxpayers? Roughly $150.7 billion dollars.  While President Trump is doing what few before him has done---keep his word on illegal immigration---the question which arises is whether he can reverse decades of subversion to our national sovereignty?

With 11 million individuals illegally living in the U.S. (which, no doubt, has to include terrorist’s cells from the Middle East), just who are these people who knowingly broke our laws to be here? Why did they come? What are their long-term intentions? Are they hoping for amnesty and eventual citizenship or is this just about employment? In this issue, we’re going to take a look at who these people are.

When most of us think of illegal immigrants, a certain stereotype comes to mind. We tend to think of them as Hispanic, mainly Mexican, illiterate, minimally skilled, and so forth, but what’s the truth?

As of 2022, illegal immigrants represented 3.3% of the U.S. population and 23% of the foreign born population. Naturalized citizens make up roughly 23.4 million of the foreign born population or about 49%. Legal permanent residents number approximately 11.5 million people, which is 24% of the foreign born population living the U.S.  Temporary lawful residents (comprising 2 million people) are just 4% of the population. So, where do these individuals come from?

Mexico is the home of some 4 million illegally. Immigrants. Although Mexicans were historically has represented the largest segment, since 2022, that number has declined. Today, it’s just around 37% of “undocumented” immigrants. The majority of those here illegally come to fill temporary agricultural jobs (many return to Mexico after the harvesting season has ended), while some end up employed in domestic and service positions.  

The largest increase in the illegal population has come primarily from the Caribbean (mainly Haiti, Trinidad and Jamacia), Europe (especially southeastern Europe), Asia, and believe it or not, Canada (many of these are of Asian descent).  Central America has contributed a large percentage of illegal immigrants as well, especially the area known as the “Northern Triangle”.

 The “Northern Triangle” is comprised of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.  As of 2022, these three countries represented 1.9 million of the illegal population living in the U.S.(El Salvador 750,000, Guatemala 675,000, and Honduras 525,000).  India, which is typically considered a part of Asia, is responsible for approximately 725,000 illegal residents now in the U.S.

Other countries with large “undocumented” populations in the U.S. include Venezuela (which has jumped from approximately 55,000 in 2007 to  270,000 in 2022), Brazil, Columbia, Dominican Republic,  as well as the Philippines, China, and the former USSR.  

Where do the majority of these people tend to settle? California tops the list with about 1.8 million illegal residents. Following California is Texas (1.6 million), Florida (1.2 million), New York (650,000), New Jersey (475,000), and Illinois (400,000).

In addition, there are several other states with large populations of illegal immigrants, including Washington State, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The states with the fastest growing populations of “undocumented” residents are Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. It’s not surprising that the majority of these states also provided so-called “sanctuary cities”.

Illegal residents, as of 2022, made up 4.8% of the total U.S. workforce (down from 5.4% in 2007). That’s roughly 8.3 million workers. The majority of these individuals tend to occupy the lower rungs of the labor market. Many of the women find jobs working in the hospitality industry in housekeeping, as domestic workers, cooks, or working in factories.

Men tend to be employed in construction related jobs, agriculture and farms (including racetracks), handymen, and odd jobs. Given that they make up 3.3% of the population and comprise 4.8% of the workforce, many obviously work multiple jobs.

Nevada has the largest percentage of illegal migrants in their workforce with 9%. Texas and Florida each have 8% while illegal workers make up 7% of the workforce for California, Maryland, and New Jersey each.

According to a November 24, 2024 Pew Poll, 64% of Americans believe that illegal residents should be offered a pathway to remain in the U.S. The largest majorities favoring a legal pathway for the “undocumented”  are naturalized or native born Hispanics, Asians, and Black Americans.

White Americans are nearly evenly divided, with a slight majority favoring some sort of legal pathway. It bears mentioning that 88% of Trump supporters favor immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Younger Americans (mostly Gen Z and some Millennials) are mostly likely to support a means for illegals residents to remain while older adults (especially Boomers and Gen X) believe that illegals need to be deported and should follow the law if they want to come to America.   

Nevertheless, 96% agreed that breaking the law (in this case, immigration law) should not be rewarded or encouraged. 94%  also thought that allowing illegal immigrates to remain was unfair to those trying to the right thing and follow the law. Lastly, 83% said that illegal immigrants took resources aways from U.S. citizens.

When asked what a possible “pathway to legal residency” might look like, 79% said that a background check was mandatory. 52% said they must be employed. 25% believe that illegal residents must pay a fine or penalty if they want to remain. Not qualifying or solely qualifying for residency is having a “anchor baby” (a child born in the U.S. by a mother here illegally) by a margin of 84%.

Owning a resident should not qualify as the primary reason to be allowed to remain according to 88% of those polled. (half of those said it should be considered at all). 89% said owning a business in itself shouldn’t be the only reason to qualify for residency.  

Finally, why did some 11 million individuals leave their homes to come to America illegally? There’s little doubt they knew that doing so was an intentional violation of U.S. immigration law, if for no other reason, that their home country has similar, and more often, stricter immigration laws.

The majority of individuals come to America strictly for economic reasons. They’re looking for a job. Even low paying jobs here are viewed as far better than what’s available at home. Often, they leave poor countries with third world economies. There are few jobs for most workers, especially those without a good education or connections. It’s not uncommon for them to send money back home to support their families. There are some communities which depend on this money to survive.

Their home countries often lack an adequate social safety net. To make matters worse, their governments tend to be run by incompetent or corrupt leaders and bureaucracies, making actual reform unlikely. Often they can't even turn to the judicial system or churches (which has historically sided with the wealthy). As a result, many head to the U.S., bypassing other nations  even though some of them have a stronger economy, but due to stricter immigration laws, they are unable to remain.

Studies have shown that few of those who come to America illegally are actually interested in citizenship per se, and they have no interest in becoming part of the great “mixing pot”, often refusing to learn or use the English, adopt to the traditions, values, or laws (which is not unusual even among legal immigrants, depending on others to accommodate them instead).

Increasingly, many of these immigrants come here claiming “amnesty”. However, according to international law, someone seeking amnesty must be fleeing their home country due to persecution for religious, racial, ethnic, or similar reasons.  Unfortunately, economic reasons don’t count. Secondly, they must seek sanctuary in the next closest (and safest) country. That means they don’t get to randomly choose what country they go to.

However, some do come here with the intent of staying permanently.  Pregnant women often use the 14^th Amendment as a means to obtain residency (infamously known as “anchor babies”). While intended for the newly emancipated slaves, the laws states that any child born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen.  Of course, you can’t deny a child their mother…or father…or siblings…or grandparents, etc. It’s easy to see how it can spiral out of control, especially when dealing with individuals who come from strong extended family cultures.

Others simply try to blend in. Some even try to register to vote, thinking that might be a means to establish residency (and some states now allow illegal residents to vote in local elections). You also have various groups (mostly religious oriented) who aid newly arrived immigrants by providing them with “sanctuary” in a church. They assist them to find housing, employment, and even manipulate the system to get healthcare and other taxpayer benefits, and, of course, in evading immigration officials. They will even help to get their children into public schools complete with a translator at the taxpayer’s expense!

So, there you have it. A factual picture of those individuals who, for whatever reason, have decided to bypass the law and come to the United States illegally. The majority are here strictly for economic purposes, although some do come for legitimate reasons. Determining the difference is difficult, time consuming, and expensive.  Many of their home countries were happy to see them go regardless. They couldn’t afford to provide for them anyway.

Deportation, while providing an immediate solution, is also a temporary one. It doesn’t address the "why" these people are fleeing or prevent them from returning (which is likely) and thus perpetuating the cycle. What are some of the long term solutions? Certainly, addressing our foreign policy is one answer. We can’t be destabilizing countries solely because we disagree with their political or economic philosophy. Promoting increased trade and greater self-sufficiency at home through the development of natural resources as well as greater investment in R&D, especially in emerging technologies, is another.

 However, stricter immigration requirements (such as enforcing laws on employers on employers of illegal workers,  revoking tax exemption status on religious groups adding illegal immigrants and mandatory jail time and/or fines, making more green cards or visas available with improved tracking, requiring a minimum level proficiency in English, and tighter border security are just as important.  

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Illegal Immigration Cost U.S. Taxpayers $150.7b: DOGE

What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.

Most Americans say undocumented immigrants should be able tostay legally under certain conditions

Demographic Divides Immigration and Diversity 

Our Never Ending War on Illegal Immigration: A Brief History

Immigration has been an important issue in the United States since at least the middle 19^th century when the U.S. began considering the creation of immigration laws. During the post-Civil War period, the United States experienced an economic boom, and we were expanding westward at breakneck speed. We needed people able and willing to meet this boom head on. Men and women were needed to fill the ranks in factories, lay railroad tracks, bend rivers to our will, level mountains, build cities, work farms, raise cattle and sheep, and provide back breaking labor. The war had laid bare our "Manifest Destiny".

Starting in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the first immigration law. The law included a literacy test, established a tax to be paid by new immigrants, and allowed officials a wide berth in deciding who could be admitted or excluded. The law also contained a “Asiatic Barred Zone”, which was a quota system to limit individuals from certain country entrance into the U.S.

Nevertheless, it paved the way for the Immigration Act of 1924. Originally, the laws were created with the purpose of keeping track of and limiting who was entering the country, their skill level or occupation, level of education, did they have the means provide for themselves until they got established, and country of origin. Eventually other statistics came along and asked questions about age, religion, overall health, or ethnic group to gain a more complete picture of our changing national demographics. America was, after all, a melting pot.

Today, we continue to regulate and monitor who comes and goes from our country, as does every other nation on the planet. Governments worldwide have a duty to secure their borders and an obligation to protect their citizens. It’s the central component to the legal concept of national sovereignty. Without a defined and secure border, it's not truly a nation. It's merely a territory.

America is facing a national crisis. Some even refer to it as a non-violent “invasion" similar to what Europe is currently experiencing (although that situation has become more violent due to an increase in physical assaults, murders, robberies, and rape gangs). While illegal entry into this nation (mainly along our southern border) has been going on in drips and drabs for decades, it’s been since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that it has evolved into the serious problem is it is now. 

The primary reason for the influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, at least initially, was the social and economic upheavals happening in Latin America (some at our instigation), such as militarily in places like El Salvador, Panama and Nicaragua, or were due to violent hurricanes and tropical storms  hitting nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic. President Ronald Reagan was the first post-Watergate president to address the issue of illegal immigration.

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (aka "IRCA"). The law set new minimum guidelines for arriving immigrants and streamlined immigration policy.  It promised tighter border security and established strict penalties for employers who knowingly hired someone here illegally. In addition, Reagan granted amnesty to some 3 million, mostly Hispanic, individuals illegally residing in the U.S. 

In signing the bill, President Reagan made it clear that this was “one and done” and that the U.S. would crackdown hard on illegal immigrants and there would be no further amnesties offered or given. However, what would-be migrants apparently heard was that if they could illegally enter the U.S. and evade authorities long enough, they’d eventually be granted amnesty too. As a result, the flow of migrants crossing the border illegally increased over previous years.

During George H. W. Bush's administration in 1990, Congress modified and expanded the Immigration Act of 1965, which increased immigration levels by 40% and included a provision for allowing family members to join those already here. It also doubled the number of work-related visas and increased the number of applications available to “underrepresented” nations.

 In 1994, under Bill Clinton’s presidency, Congress also pardoned roughly 548,000 illegal immigrates living the U.S. while fining them $1000 (which was waived). This amnesty was renewed in 1997 and again in 2000. Also in 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) which give legal status to over one million illegal residents (most form Latin America) who had lived here since 1995. Facing claims of discrimination, NACARA was amended in 1998 to include an undisclosed number of Haitians illegally living here since 1995.

However, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRAIRA”). Critics thought the bill went too far.  Under the bill, immigrants, regardless of the legal status, could be deported if they were convicted of having committed a felony. The new law would also remove anyone who overstayed their vistas, by so much as a day, could be deported and would automatically be ineligible to apply for a new non-immigrant visa. From 1996 through early 2000, deportations went from 50,000 to more than 200,000.

In 2000, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE”) was passed, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants attempting to obtain permits (aka “green cards”) to work here legally and had married legal or natural citizens. This allowed them to jump to the head of line, thus bypassing millions of other would-be immigrants waiting to gain legal entry into the United States. And who says crime doesn’t pay?

Despite promises to crack down on illegal immigration while running for office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). This allowed some allowed some 700,000 individuals who had come here illegally while under the age of 18, de facto U.S. citizenship in the form of renewable grants.

In 2013 and 2014 two efforts were made to allow illegal immigrants a path to remain in the U.S. The first was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The bill would also dramatically increase the number of work visa programs from 65,000 to 180,000. In 2014, President Obama attempted to get Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (“DARPA”) into law but failed. This was another efforts to provide a pathway for approximately 3.6 million illegal immigrants to become citizens.

During this same period, dozens of American communities opted to ignore federal immigration laws by declaring “sanctuary” status. What this meant was that they would not cooperate with federal immigration officials is identifying, apprehending, or detaining any non-resident, illegal or otherwise. Not unexpectedly, there were massive increases in illegal migrants which brought huge jumps in demand for government services.

As a result, local taxes were dramatically increased along with demands for more state and federal money. Can you imagine refusing to cooperate with federal authorities while demanding they send more money to help them in breaking the law? Talk about a sense of entitlement!

Under President Donald Trump’s first term, there were several attempts made to curtail the tidal wave of illegal immigrants coming from our southern border, but from Asia (including China), Africa, the Caribbean (many of whom were fleeing areas hard hit by storms and corrupt governments), and the Middle East, which included not just refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but unfortunately members of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorists as well.

Trump went so far as to try to contain the influx of migrants attempting to cross illegally by beginning to be a massive wall along the southern border. While nationally, many people supported the concept, which was also locally popular, Trump face widespread criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, various pro-immigration groups (many of whom had strong church ties), and even foreign governments.  In addition, Trump was urged to suspend all border crossings under Title 24 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Starting on day one, President Joe Biden sat about dismantling as much of Trump’s immigration policy as he could by signing the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. He ended Trump’s travel ban which prohibited unrestricted travel from known terrorist countries like Iran and Libya, started tearing down the border wall, and reaffirmed the legal status of DACA recipients. 

 In June 2024 he signed legislation to shut down the border in illegal crossings that surpassed 2500 a day.  Between January 2021 and January 2024, ICE encountered 7.2 million illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. In 2023, there were a record 2.5 million occurrences.  The bill also suspended protection from deportation to anyone unable to provide proof of need for asylum.

It's also worth mentioning that international law states individuals seeking asylum may do so if they are being persecuted due to their race, religion, gender, or ethnic status. Seeking asylum for economic purposes is not recognized as a legitimate reason to be granted asylum. Secondly, the individual seeking asylum must apply to the next closest country, not the country of their choice.

Now that Trump is again president, he has hit the ground running on the immigration issue as promised. With nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and decades of bipartisan blunders to correct,  thousands of illegal immigrants have already been deported to their home country, despite a lot of gnashing of teeth by their respective leaders.  Apparently, they think that the United States is somehow obligated to accept and provide for these individuals. Ironically, if this happens there, the outcome wouldn’t be so amicable. Individuals caught in their country illegally face an automatic prison sentence as does anyone who aids them in any way.

Some leaders of foreign countries have been openly critical of the United States efforts to exercise this most basic of national rights, while at the same time exercising their right to secure their national borders and protect their national sovereignty.  The media makes sure you see migrants carrying signs which read "We're Human" and "No One is Illegal". No one is doubting their humanity or that people aren't illegal. However, sometimes their actions are. That's why we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. It's the price we pay for a civil society. 

Clearly there needs to be a single universal law regarding the disposition and repatriation of individuals seeking to enter a country illegally which protects the right of a country to secure national borders and maintain its national sovereignty.  It should also include guidelines for dealing with individuals, groups, or associations (and private or religious) who promote the breaking of international and national laws concerning immigration. It should be up to each nation to provide for any exceptions such as a natural or manmade disaster.  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

 Historical Overview of Immigration Policy

The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)

 

Immigration and Immigrants: Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996

Immigration policy under the Joe Biden administration

The Migrant As Pawn

For decades city mayors and state governors, mostly Democrat, have chosen to ignore federal immigration laws by defiantly declaring themselves  a"sanctuary" in the name of compassion. However, all isn't so well in the liberal world of "Bolshevia'. The problem is that they're running out of taxpayer money. 

I suppose all is well so long as the "gravy train" continues to run.  But for that to happen, ordinary working men and women must work longer and harder to stoke the economic engine with more of their hard earned money while leaving ever less money to pay their own bills, put food on the table and put a roof over their heads. Data shows a virtually non-existent middle class compared to just as few generations ago while poverty and homelessness (especially among veterans) grows to unsustainable levels.

To make matters worse for these mayors and governors of Utopia is that other elected representatives and their constituents in other states and towns don't want to play the "kick-the-can-down-the-road" game any longer. Someone, after all, has to be the grown up.

As a result, they've started sending these migrants to all those sanctuary locations with one way bus tickets and a meal card. It's certainly cheaper than forcing their citizens to pay millions just to support the grand ideals of others. If sanctuary cities and states want them, then they can have them along with the responsibility that comes with their words.

But now sanctuary cities and states are rapidly  running out of money. They've already had to cut back on public programs which were available for and paid by their citizens. They've started allowing the homeless to live in public parks, doorways, or wherever else they want. They can use public sidewalks as their personal toilets. Local businesses can't keep them out of their stores or from using their restrooms to clean up in. Businesses are even prohibited from detaining shoplifters, thus crime and everything associated with it becomes rampant.

The result is that tax generating businesses are leaving and taking revenue generating jobs with them. So, local mayors and state governors are demanding that the federal government in Washington turn up the money faucet in order to help them continue to defy federal immigration laws and reinstate public programs. How's that for having chutzpah? 

No one is quite sure about how many illegal immigrants have been shipped around the country, but it's  at least around 100,000 if not more. Of course, you have to feel sorry for these individuals---the men, women, and children---for being moved here and there like some pawn on a chess board, to be used and discarded. After all, most are simply coming here for work and hopefully a better life.

But nevertheless, it's fair to assume that they are aware of the risk and what they were attempting to do was illegal. Breaking U.S. immigration laws was little different from breaking immigration law in their native homeland, except that the repercussions were almost always far more severe.

We can only assume that these individuals have been convinced themselves that they were different. That they could evade authorities and slip across the border undetected. Perhaps long the way one of those church organizations who help individuals break the law could help them. Maybe too they could help shield from the border patrol, ICE, and others. All they need to do was make their way undetected to one of those sanctuary states or cities.  

Hopefully someday, down the road, they can stop looking over their shoulder, stop running and hiding, and just settle down. Perhaps, if they're lucky, some U.S. President, while trying to curry support from certain voters, will grant them amnesty like President Reagan or President Obama did.  Until then, they remain political pawns and will continue to live their life like anyone else on the run. But until then, that's a lot of hoping, wishing, and stress to go along with those "maybes" and "perhaps".

We've all seen those signs which read "No Human is illegal". It seems they're always at every pro-amnesty or pro-migration protest. While it's true that "no person is illegal", on occasion their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system to enforce those laws.

The countries from where many of these migrants embark from, be they in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East, all have similar immigration laws. just like the United States does. The main difference is that the punishment for breaking their migration laws often far more severe than ours, and yet why does no one complains or speaks out against those?

Nations have defined borders and the right to regulate who crosses those borders. It's one of the cornerstones to national sovereignty which have existed for over five millennia, but today there are those who would deny us that right.  Why should we not have that same right of national sovereignty as any other country? Why should other nations be allow to have borders and laws to enforce those borders but America's be porous?

Europe is prime example of what happens when countries fail to secure their border. The EU has a "open border" policy which allows anyone from anywhere in enter their country regardless of any other factor. As a result, they are being overwhelmed by migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Most are young, male, poorly educated, and Muslim. The result has been a serious clash of cultures.

Many of these individuals are under the false impression that they are "entitled" to practically everything; that the state has to provide them with whatever they want. As a result many have become a serious drain on the nation's safety net. There have been numerous clashes over culture traditions, and values which has its basis in Christianity and the Enlightenment. Crime has also become as serious matter with assaults, rapes, and robberies leading the way.

Meanwhile, oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait  have seen virtually none of these migrants despite sharing similar traditions, values, culture, and language as many of these migrants. They even share the same faith--- Islam.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough tents with air condition to house and support three million migrants, and yet they remain empty. So, why aren't these millions of migrants from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Africa not going there?

For one, these Arab nations have strong border security. Anyone illegally crossing their borders are dealt with severely. They also have very restrictive immigration laws. While they do allow individuals to apply to come and work there, long term settlement is very rare.

In addition, these countries are highly selective in who they award temporary work permits to, preferring individuals with good educations and no criminal records, and while they have a very liberal social safety net, they actually expect people to follow the law and work. Imagine that!  As a result, Europe is getting the dregs I suppose.

The U.S. may be facing a similar situation. Very few of those seeking to come illegally aren't well education. The overwhelming majority have a minimum education. Many have little about a basic level. In addition, most of these individuals are low skilled or unskilled. They're coming for any low level job they can find, which is unfortunate since it perpetuates the poverty they're trying to get away from.

In today's high tech world where companies (and employees) compete on a global basis, what the United States desperately needs are doctors and nurses, engineers, data scientists, software developers, and AI specialists. There is, however, a demand for skilled and licensed electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC specialists, data systems service technicians, and carpenters thanks to the closure of trade and technical schools several years ago.  

So, what does that mean for us? While most of the illegal immigration is coming from Latin America, there are strong indications that we're beginning to see more coming from Asia (especially China and North Korea), India and Ski Lanka, the poorest of the African nations such as Somalia, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone, as well as the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Among this latter group, there has been several arrest by Mexican authorities of individuals with connections to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS. These individuals were caught while trying to blend in with the migrant caravans. While there's no doubt that there are likely terrorist cells already here, what we don't need are more.

Presidents, Congress, and others of both parties have been promising the American taxpayer for decades that they will "do something" to secure our borders, especially our southern border which is a porous as Swiss cheese.  Thus far, whether you like him or not, only one--- Donald Trump----actually made a serious effort, and he meet with unbridled resistance from both political parties, the media, and financed special interest groups with a vested interest in keeping the border open.

We cannot continue to allow our borders to remain open. Not only are these serious national security issues, they represent a serious threat in the form of diseases we're no longer vaccinated again and viruses like COVID, while the influx also puts as serious strain on our national safety net just as in Europe. And while we need to fill low level jobs, what we seriously need are engineers, doctors, and high tech specialists. Anything less, will only continue hasten America's decline as a world leader.  

Finally, no more "anchor babies". To many women have used their pregnancies and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to circumvent immigration laws to remain in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was never intended to be use in that way. It was intended to confer citizenship on all former slaves. Currently, any child born on U.S. soil automatically gains birthright citizenship. That right extends to the child's parents as well.  

In the interim, the United States needs to accept responsibility for its part in creating the situation in the first place.  We need to stop trying to remake other nations over in our own image. Not everybody wants to be America when it grows up. Hell, given our broken political system, even we don't even want to be America anymore!

 We need to stop throwing our political, economic, and military weight around and intervening in other countries elections. That also includes imposing sanctions and embargoes. If they want to freely elect a socialist, republican, or whatever form of government, that's their business not ours (as an aside, let's stop installing Far Right wing military juntas too okay?). Why don't we act like a world leader and come to a civil solution?

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

A few countries take responsibility for most of the world's refugees

US to reopen border crossings as illegal immigration drops

 

Migrant crisis explained: What's behind the border surge

CFR: Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle WithMigrant Flows in 2022

Anchor Babies

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist?

Saudi Arabia Has Enough Tents With AC To House 3 MillionPeople, And Yet Has Taken In ZERO Refugees