Number of undocumented Cubans entering US up sharply in 2015

St. Augustine Record ^ | February 3, 2016 - 5:39pm | Megan O’Matz

[Olog-hai]

More than 51,000 undocumented Cubans entered the United States last year -- a dramatic surge over 2014.

Newly released immigration numbers for the final three months of 2015 show that 17,071 Cubans arrived in the U.S. without prior authorization, bringing the calendar year total to 51,011, according to figures from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

That is an 84 percent increase over 2014. ...

[napscoordinator]

Just in time to vote for Rubio.

/sarc

[LucyT]

More than 51,000 undocumented Cubans entered the United States last year -- a dramatic surge over 2014.

Newly released immigration numbers for the final three months of 2015 show that 17,071 Cubans arrived in the U.S. without prior authorization, bringing the calendar year total to 51,011, according to figures from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

That is an 84 percent increase over 2014.

(Overwhelming the United States, thereby destroying our country with economic collapse and chaos while our compromised congresscritters sit idly by and allow it to happen.)

[frog in a pot]

Thanks for the bump, LucyT. Your #22 and Pgalt's posts above that capture the issue very well.

More than 51,000 undocumented Cubans entered the United States last year...

In sane country, one that wasn't being obviously manipulated by the powers that be, including the MSM, the first question in any debate for each of the candidates would be:

The taxpayers, most of whom are feeling a heavy burden as a direct result of illegal immigration, would like to know if they elect you president what you will do about deporting the tens of thousands of unauthorized Cuban aliens and others like them?

It seems likely Trump is the only one who would give a plausible response. And, they say, NBC is silly.

[okie01]

It seems likely Trump is the only one who would give a plausible response.

I've no doubt that the most direct response would come from Cruz.

He has made it quite clear that no matter where illegal immigrants might have come from -- or how they got here -- that they would be returned from whence they came.

[frog in a pot]

The question was not just about what he might do with regard to future illegal immigration, but about how he would deport illegals presently within our borders.

Unless he has provided specific details about identifying the aliens, terminating welfare/support benefits and effectively transporting them back to their native countries, he could only have made "quite clear" his very broad campaign promise to do so, not their return.

Has he specifically declared he will deport the tens of thousands of Cuban aliens?

[okie01]

The question was not just about what he might do with regard to future illegal immigration, but about how he would deport illegals presently within our borders.

Last night's reiteration of his immigration policy seemed clear: Cruz would use e-verify to deny illegals jobs and he would cut off non-citizen access to welfare payments.

At which point, the illegal is left with little choice other than to self-deport.

[frog in a pot]

Thank you for that, I did miss last night's campaign "debate".

At which point, the illegal is left with little choice other than to self-deport.

As a former bouncer at a popular, high-end night club, most of the trouble I had was with two or more who were over-served and didn't want to leave. Invariably, there was some subtle violence or worse (although the other customers were generally entertained and some even relieved).

To your point, self-deportation is likely at the bottom of the illegal's list. We should not expect that most will be willing to take their kids out of school, gather up their elderly and possessions and line up to march back to the unacceptable, crime ridden sh$$holes they came from. How many would simply leave their children and elderly here to be wards of our state? (We do pay top dollar for our negligent politicians!)

Unfortunately, there will be resistance, no matter what we do. Imagine the clamor from the UN/international rights organizations and our own liberal state courts; think they would use the term "cattle cars"?

At the worse, we should imagine a dramatic nation-wide spike in the crime rate; quite possibly one that does great harm to our law enforcement and prison systems.

At best, tempting illegals to leave will have a substantial, incalculable cost; we may not reach the break-even point for many decades (and I am an optimist).

Perhaps the only difference between us is that I want sufficient specifics from a candidate to be able to set it apart from typical campaign promises. You have said he has been "quite clear" on the issue; I still have serious doubts. Are you aware of any "white paper" he has published in this regard? For the moment, I will only vote for Cruz if I have to.

Have a nice weekend.

[okie01]

Are you aware of any "white paper" he has published in this regard?

Try tedcruz.org.

[frog in a pot]

Try tedcruz.org.

Thank you, your recommendation that I try the obvious paid off.

He does have a detailed approach to the issue along with a bit of pertinent legislative experience. He certainly has a place in our government, and if I must vote for him there may indeed be a silver lining.

I give him a 80%. I may have missed something, largely because I don't care for websites that insist on using a light grey font (do they think they are saving ink?).

1. I would urge him to consider extending E-Verify to the states as well, as it bears on national security (the model of coercing states to adopt fed policies is, of course, well established).
2. In addition to defeating the sanctuary system at the city level (which system is arguably a violation of RICO statutes), I would extend that to state benefits as well there is no sense feeding the security issue.
3. I would not provide federal education funds to states that school the children of illegal immigrants.
4. I would urge him to explain to state and federal LEO's how he intends to increase funds to their departments in order to effectively deal with an expected spike in the crime rate.
5. I would recommend that he list specific nominees and officials that he otherwise intends to appoint to assist with various aspects of his plan.
6. It may be important for him to describe the much stronger measures to be employed v countries that refuse to accept return of their nationals. (Mexico may not be helpful even as a conduit and, in fact, may have automatic weapons on its border as it is does on its southern border. Almost certainly that line will be backed up on our side with demanding logistics.)

It is possible, with this issue alone, he could generate the kind of excitement the Contract with America produced.

Obviously, I am not a politician.

[okie01]

5. I would recommend that he list specific nominees and officials that he otherwise intends to appoint to assist with various aspects of his plan.

By law, a presidential candidate cannot name nominees for government posts prior to election. That is considered tantamount to bribery -- offering a government job in return for support. The only exception is the Vice-Presidency.

Agree with you about gray fonts...

[frog in a pot]

#5. You are correct, of course. I was on a roll brainstorming and that slipped by me.

[Jane Long]