Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Donald "the enemy of the People" Trump is redoubling his efforts to get Republicans to kill the filibuster. WHY? Because America agrees with the Democrats that protecting healthcare is more important than reopening gov't.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … s-11-03-25"Trump administration will provide partial November food stamp benefits"
Will anyone object when I call Trump the real enemy of Americans and a honest to god, real asshole?
The Trump administration said today that it will provide partial food stamp benefits for November by tapping into the program’s contingency fund amid the ongoing government shutdown.
A US Department of Agriculture official said in a sworn statement that the agency will use $4.65 billion from the contingency fund to pay the November benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which he said will “be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households’ current allotments.”
Recipients will not see the payments immediately.
In court papers submitted Monday, the administration said it decided against pulling funds from other sources of money to provide full SNAP benefits for November. The program costs a total of roughly $9 billion for the month, the agency has said.
The decision came after a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the US Department of Agriculture last week to either start providing full November benefits to recipients or partial benefits if the agency opts to only draw on SNAP’s contingency fund.America is finally regaining its sanity after 10 horrific months of the mentally ill, enemy of the people Donald "I'm God" Trump.
Across America they delivered a very loud message that they REJECT this sick president many of them voted for.
VA - CRUSHING WIN FOR DEMOCRATS with Spanberger winning by DOUBLE DIGITS (13%) and sweeping the LT. Governor and AG. They also picked up a WHOPPING 13 seats in their House of Delegates.
NJ - CRUSHING 13-POINT HISTORIC WIN FOR DEMOCRATS as Sherriil beats Trump backed candidate.
PA - TRUMP's attempts to reshape its Supreme Court failed SPECTACULARLY
NYC - CRUSHING WIN FOR MAMDAMI despite Trump telling Republicans to vote for Cuomo.
CA - In response to Trump's probably illegal attempts to redistrict Red States, Californians RESOUNDINGLY accepted a temporary redrawing to counter the cheating Republicans. Better, they did it the LEGAL way by having the PEOPLE choose.
LATINO VOTERS - After realizing they have been LIED TO by Trump, they rejected him and were KEY in many Democratic victories.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics … y-virginia
SHUTDOWN - Federal workers urge Democrats to keep up the fight for their healthcare. Polls show clearly that stopping Republicans from killing HealthCare is more important than keeping the government open.And what is hilarious? After a terrible night, their first order of business is making it harder to vote instead of making grocery prices lower like they promised....LOL. so out of touch. Republicans lost because Americans reject their insane policies.
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1986067998323392668And...
Democrats broke the Republican Party’s supermajority in Mississippi, flipping two state Senate seats in a huge win!
For the first time in 13 years, Mississippi Democrats will be able to exert some political power in that sorry state.
Democrats flipped two statewide seats in Georgia by double digits also!
Trumpism was roundly and overwhelmingly rejected yesterdayThey sure did. Trumpism lost everywhere it was on a ballot. Millions of voters refused to go along with the cruelty and unfairness of the Trump regime.
"Trump's predecessors increased their wealth by millions, his net worth has risen billions just in 2025 alone. "
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets … ocialshare
Politics aside, folks, you've been duped.
(And it is not as though you weren't warned.)How about re-do that comment, using percentages instead of dollars. You know - predecessors increased their worth by 10,000% while Trump increased his by 20%.
Pretty easy to make a buck when you have 4B already. Not so easy when you're broke to start with.Percentages are often useful metrics but not in this case where, as you said, the baselines are so different.
Clinton's book deals don't raise ethical questions. Trump's cybercurrency manipulations, probably illegal and certainly unethical do.
AI put it this way succinctly:
Percentages can sound dramatic, but raw dollars are what actually move power, create conflicts, and shape public risk. A 10,000% jump off a tiny base may be life-changing for one person, yet it’s trivial next to a 10% gain on a multibillion fortune—hundreds of millions that can buy media, fund PACs, hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists, and influence markets. Percentages are also easy to game: start from a low or temporarily depressed estimate and the ratio explodes, while a billionaire’s equally—or more—consequential windfall looks small. Ethics, policy leverage, and democratic vulnerability track the magnitude of money at stake, not the optical flash of a denominator. In public accountability, the meaningful question isn’t “what percent,” it’s “how many dollars—and where did they come from?”
It looks like Donald "the failure" Trump is in deep trouble with his mostly illegal tariff war.
I listened to some of the Conservative Justices grill the Solicitor General - it was humiliating. Gorsuch got him to almost admit that it would be constitutional that Congress could delegate declaring war to Trump.
Even the most conservative Justices Thomas and Alito wasn't buying what Trump was selling about his faux emergencies.
"Trump admin faced deeply skeptical Supreme Court in tariff arguments"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … s-11-05-25I'm guessing we'll have a 7-2 ruling striking down Trump's ability to impose tariffs. Any chance it could be 9-0? I didn't hear much from Thomas or Alito
Before this armchair experts here on Hubpages start tearing down,tap-dancing around, and throwing "whataboutisms" at it, I encourage you to read at least part of it or watch the PBS interview with the authors.
This is one of the saddest and scariest comment in the piece, in my opinion. This is what MAUGA and the Trump voters here have done to America.
"The DOJ you know, many of your viewers know is a very opaque institution. It's secretive. It keeps its own counsel. It doesn't share things unless it's in public court filings. But these people who lean conservative and careful and don't talk and squawk about their work are now coming to us and talking because they are basically crying for help.
They're saying this is a five-alarm fire, that the next terror attack, they're not sure that they're as prepared. In fact, they feel certain they're not as prepared as they were a year ago with the lack of expertise that's gone. One person said to me there is no imaginary security blanket around America. It's made up with these people with this expertise and they are, as Aaron said, gone."
Who made them GONE, the Trump voter did, they stripped our nation of its protection from foreign and domestic threats and today we are paying the price for it.
Remember this?
Vance said foreign students at elite U.S. universities are “not just bad for national security,” but also “bad for the American dream, for American kids who want to go to a nice university but can’t because their spot was taken by a foreign student.”
-March 2025
Rubio says U.S. will 'aggressively' revoke visas for many Chinese students
In the latest and most drastic move yet to curtail the numbers of international students studying in the U.S., the federal government will "aggressively" revoke visas from Chinese students and enhance scrutiny for future applicants, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
During the first Trump administration, thousands of mostly graduate-level Chinese students had their visas revoked, particularly if their research was in cutting-edge engineering fields that may have dual-use applications.
The newest move to pare back the numbers of Chinese students in the U.S. will likely further strain a bilateral relationship that has been imperiled by another trade war and serious technological competition over artificial intelligence and semiconductor chips.
- May 2025
Trump Administration Proposes New Rule to End Foreign Student Visa Abuse
“For too long, past Administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the U.S. virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging U.S. citizens,” said a DHS spokesperson. “This new proposed rule would end that abuse once and for all by limiting the amount of time certain visa holders are allowed to remain in the U.S., easing the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and their history.”
- August 2025
Well...
Also, in August...
In August – just months after claiming that a lot of foreign students couldn’t even do basic math – Trump announced his intention to give 600,000 visas to Chinese— a figure more than double the number in the US now.
In Sept 2025,
US President Donald Trump has defended his decision to issue 600,000 Chinese student visas, despite a backlash from some supporters.
He told the Daily Caller on Sunday that it would be "insulting" to ban them. "I have a very good relationship with [Chinese] President Xi. I think it's very insulting to a country when you say you're not going to take your students.
The president is reversing the hard line his administration has taken on this for months, as trade talks with China continue.
Nov 2025
President Donald Trump defended his controversial plan to bring hundreds of thousands of Chinese students into the country on Monday, declaring, “I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else.”
“A lot of MAGA folks are not thrilled about this idea of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in the United States,” said Ingraham. “You’ve said as many as 600,000 Chinese students could come to the United States. Why, Sir, is that a pro-MAGA position when so many American kids want to go to school and there are places not for them, and these universities are getting rich off Chinese money?”
“We do have a lot of people coming in from China, and we always have. China and other countries. We also have a massive system of colleges and universities, and if we were to cut that in half, which perhaps makes some people happy, you would have half the colleges in the United States go out of business.”
“So? So what?” shot back Ingraham.
“Well, I think it’s a big deal,” replied Trump.
Ingraham: Are they fans of the United States?
Trump: Yeah but you would have, as you know, historically black colleges and universities would all be out of business. You would have a system of colleges and universities–
Ingraham: So we’re dependent on China to keep our university system going?
Trump: No, not China, but I actually think it’s good to have outside countries– Look, I want to be able to get along with the world.
Ingraham: They’re not the French, they’re the Chinese. They spy on us, they steal our intellectual property.
Trump: You think the French are better?
Ingraham: Yeah.
Trump: Really? I’ll tell you, I’m not so sure. We’ve had a lot of problems with the French where we get taxed very unfairly on our technology. You know, they put 25% taxes on American products. Look, assuming everyone treats us badly because that’s the way I am, but we’re taking trillions of dollars from students. You know, the students pay more than double when they come in from most foreign countries. I want to see our school system thrive.
Trump insisted, “It’s not that I want them, but I view it as a business.”
He then concluded, “You don’t want to cut half of the people, half of the students from all over the world that are coming into our country, destroy our entire university and college system. I don’t want to do that, and don’t forget MAGA was my idea. MAGA was nobody else’s idea. I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else, and MAGA wants to see our country thrive.”
Trump defended China a second time when Ingraham brought up that a Chinese diplomat said Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi should be beheaded over comments she made about Japan potentially defending Taiwan.
'Well, a lot of our allies aren't our friends either,' Trump said. 'A lot of our allies took advantage of us on trade more than China did.'
MAGA!!
SMHGood proof Trump is mentally ill - dangerously so!
More evidence that maga / trumpists stand for nothing but the daily whims of mango Mussolini.
LOL, "America first" was thrown into the dumpster and set on fire a while ago. I do think it's hilarious how the followers have to keep pivoting in terms of what they call their deeply held "ideology"More MAGA!!
Trump organization requested record number of foreign workers in 2025
The Trump Organization requested 184 foreign workers to work across various company properties, a record number that has increased over the years.
The company sought to hire workers through H-2A and H-2B visas for temporary positions at Mar-a-Lago, two golf clubs and at Trump Vineyard Estates in Charlottesville, Va., according to data from the Department of Labor.
Over the course of Trump’s first term and the first nine months of his second term, the Trump Organization’s visa requests increased from 121 in 2021 to 184 in 2025, according to Forbes.
Trump previously defended bringing in foreign workers on visas on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle” on Tuesday. He argued that the U.S. does not have enough people with “certain talents” to do particular jobs.
After Ingraham said that bringing in thousands of foreign workers would hurt efforts to raise wages, Trump agreed but added, “You also do have to bring in talent.”
Overall, his company has filed to hire 566 foreign laborers to work as servers, farm workers, kitchen staff, clerks and housekeepers, primarily.
So, you know, people with “certain talents” to do particular jobs. MAGA!!!!So?
I thought the left was all about letting people immigrate into the country.
This proves the left just has an issue with people doing it legally. I suppose the left believes it would be better to have people swarm across the border and be here illegally.
Can you say hypocrisy?I have no problems with them having foreign workers.
I have problems with MAGA hypocrisy.
How?
The issue has never been about immigrants coming into the country. The issue has ALWAYS been about them coming into the country legally.
So, supporting legal immigration seems to be pretty consistent.There is a difference between bringing in a SKILLED WORKER on a Visa...
And allowing in TEN MILLION UNSKILLED MIGRANTS and putting them on Government handouts.
Common Sense. Following the Law. Not hypocrisy.
SheeeeshThank you --- It is clear we need to offer a visa to attract well-educated workers in skills we can't fill. In my view, the Nation has enough unskilled workers. I mean, I am glad you pointed out the cost of unskilled migrants.
Many universities today are struggling to fill seats, and it’s not just about money — it’s about survival. With the number of American high school graduates leveling off or even declining in some states, colleges are facing a shrinking pool of domestic applicants. So, bringing in students from overseas isn’t just a preference anymore; it’s a necessity to keep enrollment numbers up and campuses running.
I actually see some positives in Trump wanting to bring in more college students from overseas. From my point of view, it’s a smart move economically and strategically. These students pay full tuition, which helps keep our universities strong and even lowers costs for American students. Many of them are bright, ambitious, and eager to contribute, so if they study here, graduate, and choose to stay, that’s a win for our economy and innovation. I like that Trump’s approach isn’t about open borders, it’s about attracting talent that benefits America first, which makes sense to me.
It also explains why so many schools are suddenly pushing international outreach programs and partnerships abroad. They know that without those foreign students paying full tuition, many departments, and even entire schools, could be forced to cut back or close. To me, it’s a sign that higher education in America has grown too dependent on steady enrollment rather than adapting to the country’s changing needs. Instead of rethinking what kind of education Americans actually want and need, universities are plugging the gaps with foreign students just to stay afloat.You're right.
Overall, his company has filed to hire 566 foreign laborers to work as servers, farm workers, kitchen staff, clerks and housekeepers, primarily.
I think you missed the larger point of my comment about the need for educated workers, as well as the importance of taking a serious look at how dependent our universities have become on foreign students just to stay financially afloat. Yes, it’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s also a reality that can’t be ignored.
That said, I have to ask—has it ever actually been proven that Trump was hiring undocumented migrants, or were those individuals working for him legally? It’s clear that we need to fill both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep our economy strong. What we don’t need, in my view, is an overflow of migrants who end up straining federal and state resources, funds that could be used to make life better for Americans who are genuinely in need. We already have laws that provide many avenues for foreign workers to come here legally, contribute through taxes, and maintain lawful status while helping to meet our workforce demands."What we don’t need, in my view, is an overflow of migrants who end up straining federal and state resources, funds"
Source to prove the validity of this statement?There is no source other than the myths from right-wing media.
Joel Steinn wrote:
"What we don’t need, in my view, is an overflow of migrants who end up straining federal and state resources, funds
Source to prove the validity of this statement?" Willow
ECO replyed --There is no source other than the myths from right-wing media." ECO
I have posted this information multiple times here on HP-- along with the laws that allow these funds to be spent on non-citizens. Hopefully, some will take the time to read the following and take note of the huge amounts of funds our Federal Government and State governments spend on non-citizens.
Here is my request to ChatGPT: I need facts to prove that non-citizens are using state and federal funds I need facts. I find it hard to find, so dig deep and give facts.
I’ll lay out verifiable, source-backed facts (first person, paragraph form) that prove non-citizens — including undocumented immigrants — are using both state and federal funds for emergency and pregnancy/childbirth care, and I’ll give the best numeric figures available for 2023–2024 timeframes along the way.
First, federal law allows Emergency Medicaid to pay for emergency medical conditions (including labor and childbirth when it’s an emergency) for people who otherwise aren’t eligible for full Medicaid because of immigration status. That is the legal mechanism by which federal Medicaid dollars sometimes flow to non-citizens who lack lawful status.
KFF
Second, on the national scale, the Congressional Budget Office / Kaiser Family Foundation aggregation shows meaningful federal + state spending on Emergency Medicaid for non-citizen immigrants: about $27 billion in combined state + federal Emergency Medicaid spending for non-citizen immigrants between FY2017 and FY2023, and about $3.8 billion in FY2023 alone (roughly 0.4% of total Medicaid spending that year). Those are direct, government-level figures that demonstrate aggregated federal/state outlays for emergency care provided to non-citizens.
KFF
Third, states themselves publicly report spending tied to non-citizens and to persons “not lawfully present.” For example, Texas HHSC released data showing $121.8 million in health-care costs for persons not lawfully present in hospitals for November 2024 alone. That is state-level reporting that documents real dollars spent caring for people lacking lawful status. Independent reporting and policy experts noted that such totals are part of a larger, measurable set of hospital expenditures for that population.
Texas Health and Human Services
Fourth, states that expanded coverage for undocumented residents provide large, explicit dollar totals showing state (and in practice some federally reimbursed) spending. California’s expansion to cover low-income undocumented adults is publicly reported as costing on the order of $8.4–$8.5 billion annually (state budget estimates for 2024–25), and the budget shortfall and subsequent reporting documents how much the state is allocating from its general fund to pay for that coverage. Because Emergency Medicaid is an available federal reimbursement channel for emergency services, expansions and how states classify services can affect the federal/state funding mix. In short: California’s official budget numbers show billions spent at the state level to cover undocumented people’s care.
CalMatters
Fifth, utilisation and share data from state analyses and reporters shows that undocumented patients account for a measurable share of hospital and ER visits in some states: one data-driven review found immigrants without legal status accounted for about 0.8% of hospital and ED visits in the second half of 2023 in Florida — which, when applied to that state’s total hospital spending, translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in care in that period. Those kinds of state dashboards and reports are concrete evidence that non-citizens use hospital services that are funded by state and federal mechanisms.
Stateline
Sixth, high-quality research and policy work (Urban Institute, KFF) confirm the pattern and limits: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for full Medicaid, but they do receive emergency services reimbursed through Emergency Medicaid and some states use state funds or state-only programs to provide prenatal/birth care and other services — and those state programs are captured in state budgets. See the Urban Institute’s work outlining noncitizen coverage and state responses for 2024.
Urban Institute
Seventh, important caveats so your proof is airtight: (1) federal law forbids most federal Medicaid for undocumented people except emergency care, so much of the spending is either Emergency Medicaid (which is federally-matched for those covered services) or entirely state-funded programs where states voluntarily cover undocumented people’s non-emergency care; (2) many public figures conflate “non-citizen” with “undocumented,” and some published totals mix lawfully present non-citizens together with undocumented people — so when you present numbers, be explicit about the population and program (Emergency Medicaid vs. state-funded full coverage). KFF and Urban Institute explicitly call out these distinctions.
KFF
Bottom line — the provable facts you can cite right now are: Emergency Medicaid exists and reimburses ER and emergency childbirth care for non-citizens (federal + state dollars flow here); CBO/KFF data show roughly $27 billion in Emergency Medicaid spending for non-citizens across FY2017–2023 and ~$3.8 billion in FY2023 alone; state reports (Texas, California budget documents, state dashboards) show hundreds of millions to several billion dollars in state spending tied to care for people not lawfully present or to state programs that cover undocumented residents (California ≈ $8.4–8.5 billion in 2024–25 budget estimates). Those are direct, citable facts you can use to prove that non-citizens are using state and federal funds for ER and birthing care.
KFF
If you want, I’ll do the next step and compile a state-by-state table for 2023–2024 (California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc.) with the exact official citations or budget lines that show how much each state reported spending on non-citizen care (Emergency Medicaid, state prenatal programs, “persons not lawfully present” hospital costs). I can also produce a short one-page handout you can use to prove the point with five numbered citations. Which of those would you like me to prepare?
My request ---Yes, do that —keep facts only with sources.
Quick table of state / national figures (2023–2024 timeframe)
Jurisdiction : What the number measures 2023–2024 figure (most recent public figure) Source (official/major reporting)
United States (national) Emergency Medicaid spending for non-citizen immigrants (federal + state combined), FY2017–FY2023; FY2023 single-year figure ~$27 billion (FY2017–FY2023 total); ~$3.8 billion (FY2023). KFF summary of CBO / CBO report.
KFF
+1
California (state) State budget estimate for Medi-Cal costs attributable to covering undocumented residents after expansion (state funds & program costs) ≈ $8.4 billion for FY 2024–2025 (state’s enacted budget estimate / reporting). California budget documents & POLITICO reporting.
ebudget.ca.gov
Texas (state) Hospitals’ reported costs for patients “not lawfully present” (reported to Texas HHS) — single month snapshot $121.8 million in health-care costs for persons not lawfully present in November 2024 (reported by Texas HHSC). Texas HHSC press release / state announcement; reporting in Texas Tribune.
Texas Health and Human Services
Florida (state) State’s health agency estimate of hospital care cost for people not legally in U.S. (2024 admissions reporting) ~$660 million (total cost of care provided to immigrants not legally residing in the state, 2024 admissions data); $76.6 million federal Medicaid payments for emergency care in 2024 (per state release). Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) press release / state report (March 2025).
Florida Health Care Admin
New York (state) Emergency Medicaid / “emergency Medicaid” enrollee growth and state reporting State records show sharp increases in Emergency Medicaid enrollment (reports cite hundreds of thousands of enrollee interactions; one analysis reported Emergency Medicaid enrollment surging to ~480,000). Empire Center reporting on NY state records; NY Medicaid scorecards.
Empire Center for Public Policy
Illinois (state) Actual vs. estimated spending for state-funded coverage programs for undocumented seniors (HBIS / HBIA program audits) Audit found actual program costs for Medicaid services for undocumented older adults were ~$262.2 million for FY21–FY23 (vs lower initial estimates). Illinois Auditor General performance report.
Illinois Auditor General
I dug through official state budgets, agency releases, high-quality think-tank work and contemporaneous reporting and assembled a compact state-by-state summary (2023–2024 time frame) that shows where state and/or federal funds were spent on emergency care, childbirth, or state-funded coverage for non-citizens (including undocumented people). I’ve included only verifiable figures and put source citations after each entry so you can paste these into your proof or handout.
What I can firmly prove (short, first-person paragraph)
I can prove, with official documents and mainstream reporting, that federal and state public funds are being spent on medical care for non-citizens: (1) federal Emergency Medicaid reimburses emergency medical and childbirth care for people who are otherwise ineligible due to immigration status — CBO/KFF aggregate data show ~$3.8 billion spent in FY2023 and ~$27 billion across FY2017–FY2023 (federal + state combined). Congressional Budget Office+1 (2) States publish their own expenditures and program estimates — California’s enacted budget and reporting put the cost to the state for covering undocumented residents at ≈ $8.4 billion for FY2024–25; Texas HHS reported $121.8 million in hospital costs for persons “not lawfully present” in November 2024; Florida’s state report estimates ~$660 million in hospital costs for people not legally in the U.S. in 2024 (with $76.6 million in federally-required Emergency Medicaid payments that year). Those state numbers are in official releases or state budget/audit documents, so they’re provable citations you can use. Politico+2Texas Health and Human Services+2
Important caveats you should include when you present this
“Non-citizen” is not identical to “undocumented.” Many published figures group lawfully present non-citizens together with undocumented immigrants; always quote the exact population the source uses. (KFF/CBO explicitly discuss “noncitizen immigrants” in Emergency Medicaid totals). KFF
Emergency Medicaid vs. state-funded full coverage: Federal Medicaid is generally not available for routine care for undocumented people; Emergency Medicaid covers emergency conditions (including emergency childbirth). States may use state funds (not federally matched) to provide broader coverage; California’s $8.4B is a state program cost estimate for expanded Medi-Cal. Be explicit which program you’re citing. Congressional Budget Office+1
Timing and aggregation: Some numbers are single-month snapshots (Texas Nov 2024), some cover fiscal years, and some are multi-year aggregates (CBO FY2017–FY2023). Match the time window in your claim to the source. Texas Health and Human Services+1
Methodological debates exist. Several state releases and partisan outlets interpret the same data differently; independent outlets (e.g., Texas Tribune) and auditors sometimes question methodology or representativeness. If you intend to make a national extrapolation, say so and show your assumptions. The Texas Tribune+1
Five most load-bearing sources (so you can paste them directly)
CBO report / KFF summary on Emergency Medicaid spending (national): CBO, “Emergency Medicaid Services for Certain Non-U.S. Nationals” and KFF summary. Congressional Budget Office+1
California enacted budget reporting / news: California budget documents / POLITICO coverage showing Medi-Cal estimate ≈ $8.4 billion for 2024–25. ebudget.ca.gov+1
Texas HHSC data release: Texas HHSC — $121.8 million in Nov. 2024 for persons “not lawfully present.” Texas Health and Human Services
Florida AHCA release (hospital admissions 2024): Florida AHCA — ~ $660M total cost; $76.6M federal Medicaid payments for emergency care in 2024. Florida Health Care Admin
Illinois Auditor General audit of HBIS/HBIA — showing ~$262.2M actual costs for Medicaid services for undocumented seniors across FY21–FY23. Illinois Auditor General
Would you like a one-page handout?
I can turn this into a one-page handout with the five numbered citations above, short explanatory bullets, and a one-sentence citation line under each bullet (ready to print or email). I can also expand the table to include more states (NY, NJ, MA, Washington, etc.) if you want a broader state-by-state spreadsheet. Tell me which you prefer and I’ll produce the handout now.Most of what your AI states are federally funded emergency funds that are by law have to be provided and state funded emergencies that have to be funded by law. it also makes a distinction between Undocumented and Non Citizens and it tells you to be careful as they can be conflated.
This is from your AI:
Seventh, important caveats so your proof is airtight: (1) federal law forbids most federal Medicaid for undocumented people except emergency care, so much of the spending is either Emergency Medicaid (which is federally-matched for those covered services) or entirely state-funded programs where states voluntarily cover undocumented people’s non-emergency care; (2) many public figures conflate “non-citizen” with “undocumented,” and some published totals mix lawfully present non-citizens together with undocumented people — so when you present numbers, be explicit about the population and program (Emergency Medicaid vs. state-funded full coverage). KFF and Urban Institute explicitly call out these distinctions.
KFF
What is KFF?KFF stands for Kaiser Family Foundation.
I believe my comment more than shows the amounts that are being spent on what could be labeled --- migrants, non-citizens, illegal aliens or asylum seekers...
Our laws cover all --- Not sure how many more times I need to post these facts. I also added where the Feds take the cash from to pay for these benefits.
Here are key U.S. federal laws and regulations that govern what non‑citizens—including undocumented (unauthorized) immigrants—can access in terms of emergency medical care, maternity/childbirth care, and food/public benefits. I’ll provide the statute/regulation, a brief summary in plain language, and how it applies. If you like, I can dig up specific state‑level statutes too.
1. Emergency Medical Care
Statute / Regulation: Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”)
Requires that hospitals which participate in Medicare provide a medical screening examination to any person who comes to the emergency department, regardless of ability to pay or legal status.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheet … hatgpt.com
Therefore: Even undocumented immigrants are entitled to emergency medical care in hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid funds.
Statute / Regulation: 42 CFR § 440.255 – “Limited services available to certain aliens”
Federal regulation implementing part of the Medicaid statute: it allows “federal financial participation” (i.e., federal Medicaid matching funds) for services to aliens who are ineligible for full Medicaid benefits only where services are “necessary to treat an emergency medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery)” or for pregnant women in certain cases.
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42 … hatgpt.com
In plain language: A person not lawfully present may be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for emergency care including childbirth in an emergency/“labor” situation—but they are not eligible for full Medicaid coverage otherwise.
2. Public Benefits / Food Aid / Welfare Eligibility
Statute: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), 1996, codified in part at 8 U.S.C. § 1611 and § 1621.
8 U.S.C. § 1611(a): States that “an alien who is not a qualified alien … is not eligible for any Federal public benefit” except as provided in § 1611(b).
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text … hatgpt.com
§ 1621(a): A state may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present may be eligible for state or local public benefits only through an enactment of state law after Aug 22 1996.
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text … hatgpt.com
These statutes restrict eligibility of undocumented immigrants for many federal public benefits (e.g., SNAP, TANF, SSI).
Supplementary summary:
According to analyses, undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for most federal benefits like SNAP, welfare (TANF), SSI, full Medicaid, except only very limited programs.
migrationpolicy.org
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content … hatgpt.com
Some in‑kind or emergency services may be available (see exceptions).
Congress.gov
For example: Some food programs (like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]) may have different rules depending on status. (Note: WIC is an example of in‑kind benefit, not always the same restrictions as cash benefits.)
migrationpolicy.org
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content … hatgpt.com
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R4 … hatgpt.com
3. Maternity / Childbirth Care
As noted above, via 42 CFR § 440.255: reimbursement may be available for emergency medical conditions including emergency labor and delivery for aliens ineligible for full Medicaid.
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42 … hatgpt.com
Thus childbirth in an emergency/urgent context is covered even for people who are not lawfully present—but routine prenatal and regular obstetric care may not be fully covered under federal Medicaid for undocumented immigrants.
Also, because EMTALA applies, hospitals must treat labor/emergency conditions regardless of status.
What this means in practice
If someone is undocumented (or otherwise not lawfully present), they are not eligible for most federal public benefits programs such as SNAP (food stamps), full Medicaid (in many cases), TANF.
They are eligible for emergency medical treatment and emergency labor/delivery services under the laws cited above.
States may choose to provide additional benefits (state‑funded) to undocumented immigrants, but federal law does not require it; many programs are restricted at the federal level.
Food aid: Unless the program is an exempt in‑kind benefit or state‑only program, undocumented immigrants generally cannot receive federal public benefit food programs (e.g., SNAP) under PRWORA restrictions.
HOW ARE THESE BENEFITS FUNDED
I can break this down clearly. The federal government does not have a specific “migrant medical care fund.” Instead, emergency medical care for undocumented immigrants is reimbursed using existing federal programs, mostly through Medicaid-related mechanisms and general federal health funding. Here’s how it works: AI
1. Emergency Medicaid (EM-Medicaid)
Statute / Regulation: 42 CFR § 440.255; 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1)
Purpose: Provides federal reimbursement for emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery, for immigrants who would otherwise be ineligible for Medicaid because they are not lawfully present.
Funding source: Federal matching funds (FMAP) through the MEDICAID iprogram. States pay the provider and then get reimbursed by the federal government.
Notes: Only covers emergency conditions, not routine care, prenatal visits, or chronic conditions.
2. EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act)
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd
Purpose: Requires hospitals participating in Medicare to provide emergency care regardless of legal status or ability to pay.
Funding source: Hospitals absorb costs themselves or are reimbursed indirectly through programs like Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments—a federal Medicaid-related program that provides extra funds to hospitals treating a high number of uninsured or low-income patients.
Notes: EMTALA itself does not provide a federal fund; it imposes a mandate. Reimbursement comes through Medicaid/DSH or hospital budgets.
3. Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4
Purpose: Helps hospitals that serve a large number of uninsured or low-income patients, including undocumented immigrants.
Funding source: Federal Medicaid DSH funds plus state contributions.
Notes: Often used to cover uncompensated care, including ER services for undocumented migrants.
4. Summary
There is no separate “undocumented migrant fund.”
Costs for ER/emergency labor care are paid via:
Emergency Medicaid reimbursement (federal/state match)
DSH hospital payments (federal + state)
Hospital self-funding or charity care programs (sometimes funded by state or local governments)
Routine benefits (like SNAP, full Medicaid, or non-emergency care) are generally not covered federally for undocumented immigrants, except through specific state programs or in-kind exceptions (like WIC or school meals).
AI asks -- If you want, I can make a one-page table listing all federal funding mechanisms, the statutes, and what types of migrant medical care they cover—that makes it very clear which costs are paid by whom. Do you want me to do that?
My response -- Yes, do that --- keep factual
Perfect—I’ll make a clear one-page table showing the main federal funding mechanisms that cover emergency medical care for undocumented immigrants, including statutes, what they cover, and how the funding works.
Funding Mechanism Statute / Regulation What It Covers How Funding Works
Emergency Medicaid (EM-Medicaid) 42 CFR § 440.255; 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1) Emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery, for immigrants ineligible for full Medicaid due to immigration status States pay hospitals/providers and claim federal matching funds (FMAP) from Medicaid
EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act) 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd Requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay Hospitals must provide care; no direct federal fund. Reimbursement may come indirectly via Medicaid or DSH payments
Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4 Helps hospitals serving large numbers of uninsured or low-income patients, including undocumented immigrants Federally funded (via Medicaid DSH funds) plus state contributions; helps cover uncompensated care in ERs and labor/delivery
State/Local Charity Care or Emergency Programs Varies by state May cover additional costs for ER or maternity care not reimbursed federally Funded by state budgets, hospital charity funds, or local government programs
Key Points
You moved the goal post from your original claim that migrants are "STRAINING" federal and state resources.
To stay on topic, the question you should have asked is "Here is my request to ChatGPT: I need facts to prove that migrants are "straining federal and state resources" I need facts. I find it hard to find, so dig deep and give facts. (those were your words.)
So, I asked that question (not in deep research mode) and got the answer I would have expected given the limited framing. Since the implied problem is that migrants cause a national long-term problem (I assume you don't disagree with that) I followed up with a question to get to the heart of the matter.
I need facts to prove that migrants are "straining federal and state resources" I need facts. I find it hard to find, so dig deep and give facts.
Here are hard, citable numbers that show how recent migrant arrivals are straining federal, state, and local resources (cash, staff time, and service capacity). I kept this short and pointed.
#1 — New York City budget impact (local services): NYC’s Independent Budget Office estimated asylum-seeker spending at $3.6B in FY2024 and $3.1B in FY2025 (about $6.7B total, excluding some shelter build-outs) for shelter, food, case management, and related services. That’s a direct draw on city resources even after federal/state aid.
#2 — Federal emergency aid (FEMA/SSP) is large but still partial: DHS/FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program (SSP) has provided hundreds of millions to cities and NGOs. Example: NYC received $80.5M in one SSP tranche; Chicago, Denver, El Paso and others also received SSP grants—evidence that FEMA is backstopping local safety-net systems. (SSP is a DHS/CBP-funded program distinct from longer-standing FEMA shelter grants.)
Governing
#3 — Denver’s general-fund pressure: The City and County of Denver projected ~$180M in 2024 costs tied to the migrant response, forcing service reductions and budget reprioritization per local budget reporting.
#4 — Chicago’s ongoing city outlays: Chicago’s 2024 budget for migrant services has required repeated supplemental appropriations and federal SSP backfill, with AP noting sustained spending needs driven by shelter and care for arrivals (city, state, and federal funding streams combined).
Wikipedia
#5 — State-level spending on border operations: Texas’s Operation Lone Star has cost more than $11 billion since 2021 (state general-revenue and related funds). That’s a clear, multi-year diversion of state resources to policing, detention, and logistics at the border.
#6 — Capacity strain in shelters & services: NYC reported adding tens of thousands of people in city shelters—requiring hotels, respite centers, and emergency sites—while also seeking federal work authorization to relieve pressure on city systems. (AP overview of the scale and the city’s emergency posture.)
InfoHub
#7 — Federal courts & case-processing backlog: The immigration-court backlog has swollen to millions of pending cases, prolonging work authorization and case resolution, which in turn keeps people reliant on interim public services (shelter, schooling, health clinics) for longer. (AP explains how the backlog reflects system strain.)
Wikipedia
#8 — Congress scaled SSP appropriations in 2024: AP reported that congressional negotiators cut SSP from $800M to $650M in a spending deal—while cities’ obligations (shelter, food, school enrollment support) remained high. This widens the local-funding gap that cities must cover.
Wikipedia
Why these facts prove “strain”
The NYC IBO total alone (billions) shows extraordinary city-level fiscal pressure beyond baseline social-service budgets.
FEMA/SSP grants exist precisely because local systems are over capacity; the scale and repeated tranches document ongoing federal triage.
Governing
Denver and Chicago show the same pattern—large, unplanned outlays and tradeoffs within city budgets.
Wikipedia
Texas’s multi-billion dollar border operation is a state-level resource diversion.
The federal court backlog prolongs reliance on temporary local supports, increasing cumulative costs.
Wikipedia
One thing to keep in mind about ChatGPT is that it tends to aim for “polite middle ground.” If you ask a question that sounds like it’s only about costs or funding, it will often answer in that narrow frame—how much migrants cost—without automatically stepping back to ask about the net picture. The real issue isn’t just what migrants use in public services, but how those costs compare to the taxes they pay and the economic value they create. That’s the question my follow-up is trying to force onto the table: what are the net costs or benefits of having migrants in the country?
So, does that prove migrants are a major drag on American society like the question suggests?
Short answer: not by themselves.
What those figures show is acute, localized strain—big, unplanned costs hitting a handful of cities and some state programs (e.g., shelters, schooling, emergency aid, Texas border ops). That’s real pressure on those budgets. But that evidence doesn’t prove migrants are a “major drag on American society” overall.
Here’s the clean way to think about it:
What your numbers DO show
Concentrated fiscal stress in specific jurisdictions during a surge (NYC, Chicago, Denver) and large state outlays (e.g., Texas).
Operational bottlenecks (shelters, casework, courts) that force trade-offs and service cuts locally.
What they DON’T establish
A nationwide net negative effect. To show “major drag,” you’d need evidence that, in aggregate, migrants’ net fiscal impact (all taxes paid minus all services used across federal + state/local) and macro effects (labor supply, inflation, growth) are materially negative for the country as a whole—not just costly in receiving hotspots.
What the broader literature generally finds
In the short run, new arrivals can impose net costs on local governments (especially where education/shelter costs are high and federal reimbursements lag).
Over the long run, many studies find small net fiscal effects overall (sometimes negative at the state/local level for first-generation adults, often positive for the second generation) and labor-market/macro benefits (larger workforce, entrepreneurship, sectoral fill-in).
Put simply: “surge-driven local strain” ≠ “national drag.”
How to actually prove (or disprove) “major drag”
A nationwide net fiscal accounting over multiple years (federal, state, local) for the recent surge cohort.
Macro indicators tying inflows to weaker national outcomes (lower GDP per capita growth, higher structural unemployment/inflation) after controlling for confounders.
Counterfactuals (what those cities/states would’ve spent/earned without the arrivals).
If you want, I can assemble a one-page brief that cleanly separates: (A) proven local strain (budget line items you already have), from (B) the national-level evidence on net fiscal and macro impacts—so you can argue precisely what’s supported (local strain) without over-claiming a country-wide “major drag.”
Your edited post has nothing to do with my original point.
So, ooook.
Noted.Short answer: Yes,
Beyond the fact that it is in his character (no morals, no ethics, self-servicing) that he would do so it’s been very clearly documented that Trump’s businesses used undocumented workers for years.
There was so much evidence, I had to wait for ChatGPT to finish printing it before copying.
What’s not true is that Trump himself has been criminally convicted although he should have been for knowingly hiring them. But the idea that this is all rumor or “unproven” is just wrong.
Let me break it into buckets.
1. The Trump Tower / Polish workers case (this one did go through court)
In the early 1980s, during demolition of the Bonwit Teller building to make way for Trump Tower in Manhattan, hundreds of Polish laborers worked the job. Court records and later-unsealed documents show:
A class-action lawsuit alleged that undocumented, non-union Polish workers were used for the demolition and not properly paid. a common Trump tactic
Reporters Committee
+1
A federal judge found Trump was the “legal employer” for relevant purposes and noted Trump “should have known” about the workers’ status.
Wikipedia
+1
In 1998, Trump paid about $1.375 million to settle the case.
AP News
+1
The settlement wasn’t a criminal conviction, but between the court findings and the settlement over “undocumented Polish workers”, it’s fair to say:
It has been proven in civil court that Trump’s flagship tower project relied on undocumented workers.
2. Golf clubs and other properties (heavily documented by reporters & workers’ own admissions)
Decades later, during Trump’s political rise and even while he was president, investigations found his company still relied on undocumented workers:
Golf clubs (NY, NJ, FL, VA)
A 2019 Washington Post investigation interviewed 48 current and former Trump workers and found that undocumented immigrants worked at at least 11 Trump properties as housekeepers, waiters, groundskeepers, and stonemasons, in some cases for more than a decade.
The Washington Post
+1
After two housekeepers (Sandra Diaz and Victorina Morales) went public, the Trump Organization fired at least 19 workers from several golf courses for being undocumented and then rolled out E-Verify across the company.
The Washington Post
+1
Those workers described routinely using fake documents and said managers knew or even helped them get papers. One Ecuadorian stonemason put it bluntly:
“If you’re a good worker, papers don’t matter.”
The Washington Post
+1
The New York Times first broke the Bedminster story:
Victorina Morales, a Guatemalan housekeeper at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, openly stated she was undocumented and worked there for years making Trump’s bed, cleaning his toilet, etc.
She and another worker told the Times that supervisors knew they were undocumented and helped them elude detection, and Morales said there were “many people without papers” working there.
Spectrum News 13
+1
Again, no criminal conviction for Trump personally, but you have:
Workers publicly admitting they were undocumented,
Multiple properties suddenly firing undocumented staff once the story broke, and
The company changing hiring practices (E-Verify) after the fact.
That’s not what “everyone was working for him legally” looks like.
Trump Winery
In 2019 reporting and later summaries, at least seven workers at Trump Winery in Virginia said they had worked while undocumented.
TBA
+1
3. So were they “working for him legally”?
From an immigration-law perspective, no:
Undocumented workers using fake or borrowed documents are not legally authorized to work in the U.S.
Employers are supposed to review documents in good faith, but if management knows or looks the other way (as multiple workers allege at Trump properties), the workers are still unauthorized employees, and the employer can be liable under IRCA.
What’s also true:
Trump and the Trump Organization typically say they didn’t knowingly hire undocumented workers and that they were fooled by false papers.
Apart from the Polish-workers civil case, there has been no criminal conviction of Trump or his company specifically for knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
But when you step back:
There’s a civil case with court findings + a $1.375M settlement over undocumented workers at Trump Tower.
AP News
+1
There’s extensive, consistent reporting across WaPo, NYT, AP, Univision, and others that Trump businesses relied on undocumented workers for years, and
The Trump Organization’s own behavior (mass firings + belated E-Verify rollout) lines up with those reports.
The Washington Post
+2
The Washington Post
+2
So if someone claims “it’s never been proven; they were all legal,” a fair, accurate response is:
We have a documented civil case showing undocumented workers were used on Trump Tower, and multiple later investigations, worker testimonies, and the Trump Organization’s own actions showing that his properties employed undocumented workers for years. What we don’t have is a criminal conviction for Trump personally — but the idea that everyone was working for him legally is simply not supported by the record.
This is also relevant to the "right in front of you" forum.
As to the myth of straining federal and state resources, I once again offer one of the many studies that debunk that myth.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catal … mmigration
The premise that skills "can't be filled" domestically is challenged by many, who suggest that the problem is not a lack of qualified local workers but rather employers' unwillingness to offer sufficient training, competitive wages, or improve working conditions to attract local talent. It's a fact that the so-called skilled workers on these visas have substantially lower wages.
Critics, such as the Economic Policy Institute, argue that employers can legally use a flawed prevailing wage system to underpay H-1B workers relative to market standards by assigning them lower "wage levels" (e.g., Level I or II for entry/qualified positions). Their analysis suggests a majority of H-1B jobs are certified at wage levels below the local median wage, which can be 17% to 34% lower on average for computer occupations.
A majority of migrant workers employed with H-1B visas are paid below-median wages: Large tech firms, including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, use visa program to underpay workers | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/cuHsDm09anhkvWPSnI will fall back on our laws, not speculation.
Relevant statutes & regulations
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(n)(1)(A)(i)(I) & (II) requires that the employer attest that the wage offered to the non‑immigrant will be at least:
the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question; or
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment — whichever is higher.
DOL
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/laws-a … hatgpt.com
Under regulations, 20 CFR § 655.731 (Labor Condition Application requirements) states that an employer must attest on the LCA (Form ETA 9035/9035E) that they will pay the “required wage rate” which is defined as the greater of actual wage or prevailing wage.
Legal Information Institute
The U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance lays out that for an H‑1B worker you must be paid at least the actual wage for similarly employed workers or the local prevailing wage, whichever is higher.
DOL’s “Prevailing Wages” page notes the INA requires that the hiring of a foreign worker will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of comparably employed U.S. workers, and for H‑1B, H‑1B1, E‑3, etc., employers must pay the prevailing wage rate for the occupational classification in the area.
Nothing more to share on the subject.... Shared my thoughts. No further interest in the subject.The EPI report is most certainly not "speculation" but based upon real-world data. DOL "prevailing wage"
doesn't reflect reality for H-1B visas is based on the fact that a significant number of employers certify H-1B positions at the two lowest wage levels, which are often below the local median wage for similar jobs. This occurs because employers choose the wage level, and the government doesn't investigate unless there is a complaint or lawsuit. While the official prevailing wage determination sets a minimum, critics argue it's often manipulated by using low-level wages, allowing H-1B workers to be paid less than market rate and potentially undercutting U.S. worker wages.
EPI comments on DOL Request for Information on determining prevailing wage levels for H-1B visas and permanent labor certifications for green cards | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/FiMiQljiHIVwjTqxS
EPI comments on DHS’s “Modernizing H-1B” proposed rule | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/ZowaBECP4xBMajXQS
H-1B visas and prevailing wage levels: A majority of H-1B employers—including major U.S. tech firms—use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/FsZYNwanYFbxWaAVW“The premise that skills "can't be filled" domestically is challenged by many, who suggest that the problem is not a lack of qualified local workers but rather employers' unwillingness to offer sufficient training, competitive wages, or improve working conditions to attract local talent. It's a fact that the so-called skilled workers on these visas have substantially lower wages.”
Again, I am with you on this one, Joel. Again, the ideal and the reality are two different things such as the idea that benefits for workers would be the same for domestic workers verses migrants. Migrants are, many times, vulnerable or would be less likely to register complaints to authorities of labor violations by employers. Otherwise, what is the advantage of hiring them over domestic labor which would be far less involved? Unless a complaint is officially lodged, who is going to know?Cred,
As someone from a family with legal immigrants, I can say, you are correct. If you are here with a legal work visa there are those who will take advantage of your situation. On the flip side, there are also employers who are absolutely wonderful. It sort of like anyone who goes to a job. You never know. Depending if you got the visa on your own or if you got your visa through your employer will determine if you can easily move to another job. I know people who have come here with an employer sponsored work visa and when it didn't work out, they went back to their home country. They always have that option. If you want to stay and seek other employment, you can apply for simple work visa.
There are always ways to resolve immigration issues when you are in the country legally.“If you are here with a legal work visa there are those who will take advantage of your situation. On the flip side, there are also employers who are absolutely wonderful.”
This problem has been with us for a while, I believe that the former is not just an aberration but is the case more often than people would admit.
I would also have to say that many under such a visa do not always have the option of returning home because if the economic situation were viable, they would have had no reason to leave their native country in the first place.
Many of these people cannot afford to stir a cauldron that would likely make it more difficult for them to retain their employment.Trump is using labor from foreign countries to do his labor tasks for him. It begs the question of why doesn't he use people in this country to do the jobs? in my view it is because of one man, Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people per day being deported without any due process of law.
I asked AI, how many field workers, domestic workers, and construction workers were deported between 2016 and 2025 without due process of law? Here is the results.
**Direct Answer:** Between 2016 and 2025, U.S. immigration courts issued *hundreds of thousands of deportation orders in absentia* (without the immigrant present), which are widely considered due process failures.
Based on ICE removal totals and in absentia rates, a **conservative estimate is that tens of thousands of field workers, domestic workers, and construction workers were deported without due process during this period**.
Exact counts by occupation are not published, but forensic modeling shows these three sectors together likely account for **5–10% of all such removals**.
-Deportation Totals (2016–2025)
- **ICE removals per year** ranged from ~65,000 (2021, pandemic dip) to over **200,000+ in 2025** under intensified enforcement.
- **Aggregate 2016–2025 removals:** ~1.5–1.7 million people.
In Absentia (No Due Process) Rates
- **2016–2020:** In absentia removal orders averaged **35–50% of immigration court completions**.
- **2021 pandemic dip:** ~10%.
- **2022–2023 surge:** 22–33%.
- **2025:** Early data shows sharp increases again, with mass expedited removals.
- **Aggregate 2016–2025 in absentia removals:** ~400,000–500,000 cases.
Occupational Exposure
Using labor-force composition of undocumented workers:
- **Agriculture (field workers):** ~25% of undocumented deportees.
- **Domestic work:** ~12–15%.
- **Construction:** ~15%.
Applying these shares to the ~400,000–500,000 in absentia removals:
- **Field workers:** ~100,000–125,000.
- **Domestic workers:** ~50,000–75,000.
- **Construction workers:** ~60,000–75,000.
-Why These Groups Are Overrepresented
- **Field workers:** Rural isolation, seasonal contracts, high undocumented share.
- **Domestic workers:** Informal employment, lack of legal protections, isolated workplaces.
- **Construction workers:** Frequent worksite raids, subcontracting, mixed legal status.
Summary
From 2016–2025, **roughly 200,000–275,000 field, domestic, and construction workers combined were deported without due process of law**. These numbers are modeled estimates, not official counts, but they highlight how enforcement disproportionately impacts the most precarious labor sectors.If I didn't know better, PeoplePower, I would swear you are describing conditions in a third would dictatorship.
Trump is using labor from foreign countries to do his labor tasks for him. It begs the question of why doesn't he use people in this country to do the jobs? in my view it is because of one man, Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people per day being deported without any due process of law
=========
Mike, I have always said that these attacks on migrants have been supply based with no focus on the demand. People like Trump want their Mexican gardeners while making the issue akin to an invasion from south of the border. I positively loathe the man. I thank you for providing the detail supporting a correct point of view.You are welcome. I asked AI if Stephen Miller's quotas for ICE are like bounty hunters? Here is the answer I received.
This is a sharp analogy, Mike, and it gets at the mechanics of how enforcement incentives can distort behavior. Let’s break it down:
Stephen Miller’s ICE Quota Push
- During the Trump administration, Stephen Miller was reported to have pushed for **arrest and deportation quotas** within ICE.
- The idea was to set numerical targets for detentions and removals, effectively measuring ICE’s “success” by volume rather than by prioritization (e.g., focusing on violent offenders).
- This approach was controversial because it shifted ICE from discretionary enforcement toward a **production-line mentality**: more arrests = better performance.
Comparison to Bounty Hunters
- **Bounty hunters** operate under a **financial incentive system**: they get paid for each fugitive they capture.
- Miller’s quota system created a **numerical incentive system**: ICE agents were pressured to meet targets, regardless of context.
- The similarity lies in the **mechanism of external pressure**—agents are judged not by the quality of enforcement but by the quantity.
- The difference: bounty hunters are private actors chasing profit, while ICE agents are state actors chasing compliance with political directives. But the behavioral distortion—pursuing easy targets to meet quotas—is structurally similar.
Strategic Implications
- Quotas risk **misallocation of enforcement resources**: agents may go after low-hanging fruit (e.g., immigrants with minor infractions) rather than high-priority threats.
- This mirrors bounty hunters who sometimes prioritize easier captures over more dangerous fugitives.
- In both cases, the incentive system can undermine the stated mission (public safety vs. immigration control) by rewarding numbers over outcomes.
Historical Analog
- The analogy echoes **policing quotas** in U.S. cities, where officers were pushed to meet arrest or ticket numbers. That often led to disproportionate targeting of marginalized communities, not necessarily crime reduction.
- Miller’s ICE quotas fit into that same lineage: enforcement distorted by metrics rather than mission.
So yes—your “bounty hunter” analogy is apt. It captures the way quotas transform enforcement into a numbers game, incentivizing agents to chase volume rather than justice.
Careful there, it's dangerous to put up real world data. You will be accused of lying or of fake news. LOL
If Trump doesn't obey the law, why do you expect anybody else to - especially employers whose only motivation is the bottom line.
If the law worked, people wouldn't speed, would they.Right back to Trump. I’m not interested in the direction you diverted to. I’ve said many times that I don’t get into those Trump diversions because they, in my view, feed into others' negativity and make the whole conversation feel less intelligent. I’d rather stay focused.
Apparently, even some MAGAs have problems with MAGA hypocrisy.
Trump faces heat from MAGA base on ‘America First’ agenda
MAGA leaders erupted this week over President Donald Trump’s assertion that the United States needs foreign workers because it does not have enough “talented people,” questioning the president’s commitment to the “America First” politics he popularized.
The dissent showed an impassioned base willing to challenge Trump on some issues while largely supporting his leadership. Some warned that the rifts could depress turnout among less engaged voters that Trump mobilized, with Republicans already nervous that they will not show up when he is not on the ballot.
Trump has responded defiantly to criticism and cast himself as the ultimate arbiter of what his “Make America Great Again” movement wants.
“Don’t forget MAGA was my idea,” he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week after she questioned the number of foreign students he is allowing into the country. “MAGA was nobody else’s idea. I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else.”
Ingraham’s Monday interview with Trump triggered much of the latest blowback...
“If you want to raise wages for American workers, you can’t flood the country with tens of thousands, or hundreds —” she said.
“Well, I agree, but you also do have to bring in talent,” Trump said.
“Well, we have plenty of talented people here,” Ingraham said.
“No you don’t,” Trump said. “No you don’t.” He continued to press his case, adding that it’s difficult to fill some specialized jobs with Americans who lack experience.
The GOP backlash was unusually fierce.
Conservative radio host Erick Erickson remarked on his Wednesday show that this was the “first time” he had seen so many longtime Trump supporters “furious with the president.”
“Saying that we don’t have talent in America doesn’t sound very ‘America First,’” Erickson said. “The splits are coming within MAGA, because the president is a lame duck, and as he says stuff like this, he exacerbates the splits.”
MAGA influencers were direct in their rebukes. Tim Pool, a right-wing YouTuber, wrote sarcastically Wednesday on X: “Dont worry Trump is bringing in more H1Bs to make sure our young people are f----d.”
Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer known for her loyalty to Trump, said in an interview that the MAGA base “has every right to feel disappointed” over the Trump administration’s approach. “We need to make sure that promises made are promises kept,” she said.
Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump adviser and prominent MAGA commentator, devoted much of his show Wednesday to the H-1B visa issue. But he focused on members of Trump’s Cabinet, playing clips of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reiterating Trump’s points and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem defending the visa program. “What’s driving this is the tech bros and the oligarchs,” Bannon said.
Trump also has gotten crosswise with his allies on other matters. He drew some backlash on the right last month for aid to Argentina, which critics called at odds with the “America First” message.
Let's not forget. Talent!
"Overall, his company has filed to hire 566 foreign laborers to work as servers, farm workers, kitchen staff, clerks and housekeepers, primarily."
MAGA!!! LOLHe seems to be on a roll in pissing off his MAUGA base.
* This
* Epstein
* Not giving them SNAP money
* Taking away their health insurance.
How much more can they take from this dangerously mentally ill who is in cognitive decline megalomaniac? (That description is based on reports from hundreds of mental health professionals)
It appears you had to fabricate "This proves the left just has an issue with people doing it legally" JUST SO you could get in "Can you say hypocrisy?"
We see right through you.
An expansive liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in the Arctic took a big step forward this week while officials at the Energy and Interior Departments heralded it as key to President Donald Trump’s "American energy dominance" agenda.
Alaska LNG, a branch of the New York City and Anchorage-based Glenfarne energy company, and energy technology giant BakerHughes announced an alliance that will bring to reality and accelerate plans for a nearly 1,000-mile, 42-inch LNG pipeline down the middle of the Last Frontier, and a corresponding terminal on the Kenai peninsula.
The 807-mile pipeline is projected to begin near Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic Ocean and run down to Nikiski – a village halfway between Anchorage and Homer. Fox news
The Alaska LNG Project has the potential to bring substantial economic benefits to the United States. By unlocking vast natural gas reserves from Alaska’s North Slope, the project will create thousands of high-paying jobs in construction, engineering, operations, and support services, both in Alaska and nationwide. The export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to global markets, particularly Asia and Europe, could generate billions in revenue, strengthen U.S. trade balances, and solidify the nation’s position as a leading energy supplier. Beyond direct employment and revenue, the project will stimulate local economies through infrastructure development, ancillary services, and increased state and federal tax revenues. In addition, the project supports long-term energy security, reduces dependence on foreign energy sources, and enhances geopolitical leverage by supplying allies with a reliable U.S.-produced energy resource.
I’ve been following the Alaska LNG Project for some time, and I believe what we’re seeing now is the culmination of many years of planning, fits and starts, regulatory pauses, and ultimately, a moment of momentum. The project, which aims to pipe natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope to a liquefaction terminal on the Kenai Peninsula for export, is finally moving into the “build” phase.
The Early Years
The idea of getting North Slope gas to market has been around for decades. The project’s initial design called for an 800+‑mile, 42‑inch pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, Alaska, plus a liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal. By 2020, the project secured a major federal milestone: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorised its construction and operation.
Stumbling Blocks Under the Joe Biden Administration
Despite this federal authorisation, the project did not immediately surge ahead. Several issues held it back:
Regulatory and environmental review: While permits were in hand, executing the project still required detailed engineering, land acquisition, environmental mitigation, and securing long‑term commercial agreements.
Market and investment uncertainty: The cost has been estimated at tens of billions of dollars. Large‑scale infrastructure of this kind needs robust off‑take contracts (buyers for the LNG), financing, and certainty. Without full visibility on those, progress slows.
Policy shifting: While the Biden administration approved the project’s export authorization and offered support, the broader policy environment emphasized climate goals, renewable energy, and longer‑term reduction of fossil fuels. A massive gas pipeline and export project like this did not align as neatly with the messaging, which likely affected the pace and clarity of execution.
Structural delays: The sheer complexity, remote terrain, Arctic conditions, multi‑agency coordination, long lead times meant even well‑authorised projects often sat in “pre‑construction limbo”.
So while the project had what looked like major approvals, it lacked the full commercial push to go into construction. In my opinion, the administration under Biden did not block the project, but the momentum simply didn’t reach the “go‑building” stage yet.
The Shift
Then came recent developments. Earlier this year, the state entity Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) entered an exclusive agreement with private developer Glenfarne Group (via its Alaska LNG unit) to advance the project, signalling that private‑sector alignment was falling into place. By mid‑2025 more than 50 companies had expressed interest in being partners for the project, with contract values in the hundreds of billions. Then today, Trump announced that the project will go forward under his “American energy dominance” agenda, a clear signal that federal policy is being mobilised to push construction ahead.
Why This Matters and Why I Give Credit
At this stage I think the project has moved from “potential” to “probable.” The formal private‑sector alliance and the funding signals shift the risk profiles. Where earlier the project waited for major take‑off, we’re now seeing trigger events.
Here’s why I believe credit goes to the leadership and policy direction that put active gears behind the project:
The earlier approvals cleared the regulatory path, but the final investment decisions and major partner alignment didn’t happen until now. That bold commercial activation deserves recognition.
The announcement frames the project under a strategy of “American energy dominance,” with federal officials publicly celebrating the project and aligning it with national strategy.
The shift from a dormant approval to an active build path underlines the role of policy clarity, regulatory certainty, commercial alignment, and political will.
So yes—though the project’s roots go back several administrations, and though the Biden era provided regulatory approvals, it is under the current push that the Alaska LNG Project is being brought to fruition. In my view, the leadership now is deserving of credit for making the deal real.
What Risks Remain
I’m realistic: even with this progress, I see remaining hurdles:
Final investment decisions (FID) still need to be publicly committed for all phases; timelines beyond the pipeline still hold uncertainty.
Market risk remains: global LNG prices, competition, and demand from Asia will all matter. If the economics change, the project could be delayed again.
Construction risk: building through Alaska’s remote terrain, permafrost, and the vast pipeline will pose major engineering, logistical, and environmental challenges.
Environmental and community concerns will not vanish simply because we’re in “build mode.” They’ll still need to be managed.
My Take
I believe the Alaska LNG Project is now entering a phase where it may reasonably be expected to deliver. What was historically stalled under long regulatory and investment inertia is now being pushed ahead. The framing today is different—it’s not just “we might build” but “we are building,” and that’s what makes all the difference in infrastructure of this scale.
I think we should watch the next 12‑24 months closely: partner agreements, financing documents, ground‑breaking of construction, and offtake contracts from Asia will all tell whether the promise will fully become reality. If it does, this will stand as a strong example of turning long‑term energy vision into execution—and yes, I believe it will reflect well on the leadership that made it happen.
Would you like me to pull together major milestone dates in a chart (with approvals, partner deals, expected construction, etc.) so you have a ready timeline for sharing or publication?A new AP-NORC poll shows Trump -34 on the economy (33% approve, 67% disapprove). A bold agenda to reclaim America?
In case you haven't heard, we will no longer have the pleasure of yelling at each other - Hubpages is closing.
Dear HubPages authors,
HubPages has been a fantastic ride and accomplishment among all of us over the past almost 20 years. We wanted to take a moment to thank you for your contributions to the site, whether you just joined us or have been a long-time HubPages author.
We regret to inform you that due to the changing internet media landscape, HubPages is being wound down as described below. Here is what is ahead for your existing accounts and content.
Account:
In approximately one week (on or around November 19, 2025), the system will no longer accept new content submissions, content edits or new accounts. You will still be able to access your account and view your earnings balance.
Earnings Program:
In January, the Earnings Program will be discontinued for all users. On or around January 15, 2026 will be the last day to generate earnings. Over the next month or two thereafter, final Earnings Program balances will be calculated, with final balances of $5.00 or greater to be paid out to users.
Your Content:
Access to your existing account will remain active until at least the end of February 2026. At this time, we encourage authors to make copies of your content.
You may leave your content up on hubpages.com for users to continue to read.
Starting in March 2026, all outstanding account matters that previously may have been handled within your account itself will need to be addressed directly via email to team@hubpages.com.
We would once again like to thank you for your contributions to HubPages.
Moving forward, please contact team@hubpages.com directly with any questions.The lies that are being told. Just brazen .
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated on CNN that most grocery prices have decreased since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. However, Bureau of Labor Statistics data reveals the food-at-home Consumer Price Index increased 2.7 percent over the past year, with rises in meats, beverages, and staples outweighing declines in items like eggs and milk.
Strange. They seem to believe that regular people don't shop for their own groceries.One of the requirements to work for Donald "the sexual predator" Trump is to LIE as much as he does, even about things it is child's play to debunk - such as falling grocery prices. They must be sick to their stomachs to know they have sold their soul to the devil.
This should make our Trump defenders proud of their idol.
"Trump administration drops plan to require passenger compensation for delayed flights"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/15/us/trump … ptions-hnkBest part of HP going away: It's taking all these endless words with it. I'm sure the toxic nature of these discussion boards is a big part of the HP demise.
Kathleen, I have to be honest: comments like yours say far more about your bitterness than they do about the community you’re attacking. Many of us actually enjoyed this space. We talked, debated, disagreed, learned from one another, and, believe it or not, built friendships across those disagreements. That’s the very opposite of toxicity. That’s what a healthy forum looks like.
You didn’t participate much, yet even you stopped in occasionally to share your views, which means the space couldn’t have been as awful as you’re now pretending it was. If it were truly “toxic,” you wouldn’t have been here at all.
And the idea that HP is shutting down because of “endless words” or because people dared to debate? That’s simply not serious. HP’s issues were financial and structural. Blaming the users is just an easy way to avoid admitting you never appreciated the value of real dialogue.
The truth is that open conversation, messy, passionate, sometimes sharp-edged, was the best part of this place. It meant people cared. It meant people were thinking. It meant people were alive, not silent.
If you personally didn’t like strong opinions, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite history and pretend the community died because people were talking. It was the talking that kept it alive as long as it was.
So no, the “best part” isn’t HP going away. The best part was the conversations, the connections, the disagreements that forced us to think. And if you couldn’t see that, that’s on you, not on the rest of us who showed up.**HubPages is not shutting down immediately, but it is undergoing major changes that signal a decline in its traditional revenue-sharing model.** Writers are reporting reduced earnings, lower visibility, and the end of payments for content on several of HubPages’ niche sites. While the platform itself still exists, many see these moves as steps toward winding down its role as a viable publishing and income source.
What’s Happening at HubPages
- **Revenue-sharing cuts:** As of April 14, 2025, HubPages (under The Arena Group) stopped paying for content hosted on niche sites like *Delishably, Hobbylark, Owlcation, WanderWisdom, LetterPile,* and *WeHaveKids*. Only content moved back to *Discover.HubPages* continues to earn revenue.
- **Declining earnings:** Writers report that article views and scores have dropped significantly, making it harder to earn money. Many long-time contributors are considering migrating to platforms like Substack or Medium.
- **Community sentiment:** Some users believe HubPages is “on track for shutting down revenue share completely,” urging writers to archive or move their work before further changes.
- **Mixed reviews:** HubPages still operates as a publishing platform, but reviews highlight declining revenue, poor communication, and heavy moderation. Many writers feel the site no longer supports sustainable income.
What This Means
- **Not a full shutdown yet:** HubPages remains online, and Discover.HubPages still pays writers.
- **Strategic retreat:** The end of payments on niche sites suggests HubPages is consolidating and possibly phasing out its broader publishing ecosystem.
- **Future uncertainty:** If revenue sharing is eliminated entirely, HubPages may survive only as a non-paying publishing community, which would push serious writers elsewhere.
Key Takeaway
HubPages is *not closing its doors right now*, but the platform is shrinking in scope and profitability. For writers who rely on it for income, this is a warning sign to diversify and prepare for a possible full shutdown of its revenue model in the near future.
Would you like me to map out **alternative platforms for publishing and monetization** (like Substack, Medium, or WordPress) so you can see which might best fit your writing goals?Thank you for your kindness. I’ll take a look at everything you shared. I’ve actually been putting off finishing a book I’m writing about my mom’s life story. I made it more than halfway (200 pages) through and then stalled because the emotions were just too much at the time. Maybe it’s finally time to face all of that and finish it. And who knows, maybe completing the book will send me on a whole new journey. A Netflix movie someday, right? LOL
I will miss our back and forths, I think we came to know each other.Has anyone asked the forum administrator's if and when the forums would be closing down?
In the letter they sent out, they stated they are stopping new content, edits, and new accounts on Nov 19th, which could mean the platform is entering maintenance mode. When a site stops allowing uploads or changes, it’s often a sign that they’re preparing for a shutdown of some functions.
This is from the HuhPages Community Forum.
https://hubpages.com/community/forum/36 … f-hubpages
One of the Bold Initiatives Trump had in mind was to force Red States to redraw their congressional maps to squeeze more Republican districts out of them. For example, the Texas legislator carved things up to generate 5 MORE Republican seats.
Well, as many expected a TRUMP JUDGE found that Texas illegally racially gerrymandered and ordered TX to use their old map in November.
Meanwhile, in retaliation to Trump's attempt to cheat, the VOTERS of California chose to redraw their map to generate 5 Democratic seats. Because the voters did it, that should past muster.
https://apnews.com/article/redistrictin … 6c9f26d899
Boy did THAT backfire on Trump!!!
As to an appeal, it was good to see that a TRUMP JUDGE wrote the majority opinion.
OH, and one of the things they found wrong was that the redistricting was at Trump's order.Fox News Poll: Voters say White House is doing more harm than good on economy
Unhappy with the economy. Pain with prices. Unsure about Trump administration policies. It adds up to high disapproval among the president’s loyal constituencies.
Here are six takeaways from the latest Fox News national survey.
— Some 76% of voters view the economy negatively. That’s worse than the 67% who felt that way in July and the 70% who said the same at the end of former President Biden’s term.
— Large numbers, overall and among Republicans, say their costs for groceries, utilities, healthcare and housing have gone up this year.
— Voters blame the president. About twice as many say President Donald Trump, rather than Biden, is responsible for the current economy. And three times as many say Trump’s economic policies have hurt them (they said the same about Biden’s last year). Plus, approval of how Trump is handling the economy hit a new low, and disapproval of his overall job performance hit record highs among core supporters.
Trump’s job performance drew career-high disapproval among men, White voters and those without a college degree.
Eighty-six percent of Republicans approve, down from 92% in March.
Among all voters, 41% approve of the job Trump is doing, while 58% disapprove. Only once have his ratings been lower and that was during his first term, 38-57% in October 2017. Two months ago, it was 46-54%.
Compared to a year ago, voters say costs have increased for utilities (78%), healthcare (67%), housing (66%) and gasoline (54%). And 85% their grocery prices went up this year, including 60% who say costs increased "a lot." Majorities of Republicans agree with majorities of Democrats and independents that costs have gone up on each of these items except gas.
At the end of Biden’s term, voters said by a wide 30-point margin that his economic policies had done more to hurt than help their families, driven by three-quarters of Republicans saying they had been harmed. The new survey shows almost identical results, as voters say by a 31-point margin that Trump’s economic policies have hurt rather than helped them, driven by the three-quarters of Democrats saying they have been harmed. In December 2018, during his first term, only 21% overall said they had been hurt by Trump’s policies, including just one-third of Democrats.Those numbers tell me that even a lot of Trump's vaunted MAUGA base hate him for his economic policies.
Funny... I just read you bad-mouthing America on another thread (which was supposed to be a positive and uplifting thread, incidentally) You spoke of U.S. division, labels and politics which you just don't understand... on your happy, perfect little island, so what's it to you?
Boy, the claws and insults are out to get you I see.
I think is funny how triggered they are over some poll. Maybe because is FOXNEWS so they cant say is fake news. LOL
It has nothing to do with the poll, but you already know that.
Take care IB.Try to keep up, Little One. Fox News is no longer Maga. NewsMax is the new Maga. ;-)
GA
Apparently for you it has some appeal. Curious?
Sharlee, again you assume the worst about someone who disagrees with you, which is why I avoid engaging with you.
Lately I have avoided involvement here because there is so much questionable information being reported as fact. But I can only stand by for so long without challenging it.
And I responded this time because there are many people on this site that I respect and would rather my reputation not be sullied - especially because we will soon go our separate ways.First, you’ve never quite mastered the art of replying directly to the comment you intend to address. That leaves the rest of us either guessing what you mean or taking the time to search for the comment you might be referencing. So, I’m assuming you mean the comment I’ve copied and pasted below, one of your comments to which I already replied.
Now, if this isn’t the comment you’re referring to, you’ll need to provide the specific comment that has clearly offended you.
Kathleen Cochran wrote:
Best part of HP going away: It's taking all these endless words with it. I'm sure the toxic nature of these discussion boards is a big part of the HP demise.
MY REPLY: And just to be clear, this is my honest view: free speech goes both ways. I think it’s only fair to share the full conversation for complete context—your comment and my reply. It simply provides the full exchange that led to your latest comment, which otherwise seemed to hang in midair, leaving everyone wondering what it was about.
"Kathleen, I have to be honest: comments like yours say far more about your bitterness than they do about the community you’re attacking. Many of us actually enjoyed this space. We talked, debated, disagreed, learned from one another, and, believe it or not, built friendships across those disagreements. That’s the very opposite of toxicity. That’s what a healthy forum looks like.
You didn’t participate much, yet even you stopped in occasionally to share your views, which means the space couldn’t have been as awful as you’re now pretending it was. If it were truly “toxic,” you wouldn’t have been here at all.
And the idea that HP is shutting down because of “endless words” or because people dared to debate? That’s simply not serious. HP’s issues were financial and structural. Blaming the users is just an easy way to avoid admitting you never appreciated the value of real dialogue.
The truth is that open conversation, messy, passionate, sometimes sharp-edged, was the best part of this place. It meant people cared. It meant people were thinking. It meant people were alive, not silent.
If you personally didn’t like strong opinions, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite history and pretend the community died because people were talking. It was the talking that kept it alive as long as it was.
So no, the “best part” isn’t HP going away. The best part was the conversations, the connections, the disagreements that forced us to think. And if you couldn’t see that, that’s on you, not on the rest of us who showed up. " Sharlee
I really enjoyed this forum, made a few friends, and it’s genuinely sad to see it fold. Sure, I could share my thoughts on your latest comment, but to be honest, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have to laugh at myself; I spent more time trying to decode your one-liners and track down the comment you might have been replying to than anything else.
I think it’s time to accept that I just really annoy you. But then again… What was the famous last line in Gone With The Wind?"I rest my case." Kathleen
Thank you, I think you should. I think the conversation speaks for itself. So I will copy/paste the conversation, so it is not lost to anyone whose curiosity is piqued.
Full conversation --
Sharlee01 wrote:
First, you’ve never quite mastered the art of replying directly to the comment you intend to address. That leaves the rest of us either guessing what you mean or taking the time to search for the comment you might be referencing. So, I’m assuming you mean the comment I’ve copied and pasted below, one of your comments to which I already replied.
Now, if this isn’t the comment you’re referring to, you’ll need to provide the specific comment that has clearly offended you.
Kathleen Cochran wrote:
Best part of HP going away: It's taking all these endless words with it. I'm sure the toxic nature of these discussion boards is a big part of the HP demise.
MY REPLY: And just to be clear, this is my honest view: free speech goes both ways. I think it’s only fair to share the full conversation for complete context—your comment and my reply. It simply provides the full exchange that led to your latest comment, which otherwise seemed to hang in midair, leaving everyone wondering what it was about.
"Kathleen, I have to be honest: comments like yours say far more about your bitterness than they do about the community you’re attacking. Many of us actually enjoyed this space. We talked, debated, disagreed, learned from one another, and, believe it or not, built friendships across those disagreements. That’s the very opposite of toxicity. That’s what a healthy forum looks like.
You didn’t participate much, yet even you stopped in occasionally to share your views, which means the space couldn’t have been as awful as you’re now pretending it was. If it were truly “toxic,” you wouldn’t have been here at all.
And the idea that HP is shutting down because of “endless words” or because people dared to debate? That’s simply not serious. HP’s issues were financial and structural. Blaming the users is just an easy way to avoid admitting you never appreciated the value of real dialogue.
The truth is that open conversation, messy, passionate, sometimes sharp-edged, was the best part of this place. It meant people cared. It meant people were thinking. It meant people were alive, not silent.
If you personally didn’t like strong opinions, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite history and pretend the community died because people were talking. It was the talking that kept it alive as long as it was.
So no, the “best part” isn’t HP going away. The best part was the conversations, the connections, the disagreements that forced us to think. And if you couldn’t see that, that’s on you, not on the rest of us who showed up. " Sharlee
I really enjoyed this forum, made a few friends, and it’s genuinely sad to see it fold. Sure, I could share my thoughts on your latest comment, but to be honest, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have to laugh at myself; I spent more time trying to decode your one-liners and track down the comment you might have been replying to than anything else.
I think it’s time to accept that I just really annoy you. But then again… What was the famous last line in Gone With The WindYes, I do use a lot of words. When I’m in a conversation, I make the effort to express my thoughts fully and stay focused on the actual topic. I try to address the point directly and appropriately.
You, on the other hand, seem far more interested in critiquing me personally than in discussing the subject at hand. That kind of behavior adds nothing to the conversation; it only shows that you didn’t like what was said — or who said it.
You seem to think you have the right to insult me, yet you accuse me of, and your words--- “assuming the worst about someone who disagrees with you.” And still, you never offer a single example of when I supposedly did that. You just throw out vague complaints that mean very little without specifics.
You opened this door. And given how freely you disregarded my feelings, I feel entirely within my bounds to be honest with you in return.
Let us just return to the comment that started this ongoing conversation--- I will simply respond to it directly, and open up sharing my view. My truth.
"Kathleen Cochran profile image73Kathleen Cochranposted 44 hours ago
Sharlee, again you assume the worst about someone who disagrees with you, which is why I avoid engaging with you.
Lately I have avoided involvement here because there is so much questionable information being reported as fact. But I can only stand by for so long without challenging it.
And I responded this time because there are many people on this site that I respect and would rather my reputation not be sullied - especially because we will soon go our separate ways." Kathleen
I’ll keep this reply brief. I don’t care what you think of me personally. If you have an issue with the information I’ve shared, the smarter approach is to identify the specific point and debate that, not debate what you think of me. That's called getting personal.
As for your claim that I somehow damaged your reputation, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about — other than the fact that you addressed your comment to me personally and used my name. The truth is, over the years, I’ve mostly ignored your posts, and it’s pretty evident that very few people here engage with you at all.
What I have noticed is that you’re consistently rude, replying with one-liners that aren’t on topic, but make me the topic. I could say more, but I don’t need to insult you. Two wrongs won't make this right.
Part of Donald "the sex offender" Trump Bold Agenda was to deny food to countless millions of food deprived or starving people in the world; it is estimated that 10 to 20 million will die as a direct result of him closing down USAID.
Smart people who study this stuff estimate that in the 10 months Trump has been in office, he is responsible for an estimated 600,000 deaths worldwide.
AND NOW, Trump is directly responsible for the spread of ISIS in areas he personally took funding away that kept people fed. Now ISIS is doing it.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/title-2573517Donald "the enemy of the people" Trump's sick attempt to stop cities from, among other things, hire first responders by cutting off DHS grants was stopped temporarily by two different federal judges.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/22/politics … unties-hnk"A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America"
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DgA1M8CXU/A perfect example of right-wing propaganda. Thank you for exposing it.
What is finally being "exposed", Eso... are the real threats to the United States of America, and U.S. citizens seeing them properly dealt with, in real time!
How Interesting.
Trump took aim at you, Sharlee. You are no longer considered working as a "Professional" as a nurse and therefore qualify for much less student loan money. Fortunately for you, you already have your now "non-professional" license.
"A coalition of nursing and other health care organizations are angry over a Trump administration plan that could limit access to student loans in some cases.
Students pursuing graduate degrees in nursing, physical therapy, public health and some other fields would face tighter federal student loan limits under the plan because it doesn’t consider them professional programs.
The revamp is part of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress.
While graduate students could previously borrow loans up to the cost of their degree, the new rules would set caps depending on whether the degree is considered a graduate or professional program.
The Education Department is defining the following fields as professional programs: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology.
Left out are nursing, physical therapy, dental hygiene, occupational therapy and social work as well as fields outside of health care such as architecture, education, and accounting.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/25/health/n … oans-trump
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 5 months ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 2 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
- 112
True or false: America has improved under Biden/Harris.
by Kathryn L Hill 11 months ago
What are the the improvements we want to see going forward. Of course, Kamala says she is her own person and will implement her own agenda.What will that agenda be? She has stated she wants to bring down grocery prices and help new home owners pay for their down payments, but government has pretty...