It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jtma508
Did anyone actually research Crittenton FFA? Oh wait, this is ATS. People just blindly bash everything without knowing jack. Their financial statements are publicly available. They are a well respected, accredited 501(c)3 non-profit agency that started in 1883. Yea, they receive public funds but also raise a substantial amount of money through private grants and donations. Their mission for over 130 years has been providing safe harbor to women and children at risk --- women and children of ALL walks of life. Just for # and giggles why not look past the OP for once.
As for who is paying for all of this? We were told that for normal foster services, the reimbursement is provided by a series of state and local grants but in the case of the “unaccompanied refugee minors”, 100% of the reimbursement will come from the federal government.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963
Think for a second. If people were paid 6K a month to foster children in their homes... there would be no foster children left in group homes. I'll take 20!
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, and found that for those willing to a take in a child under the age of 16, you can receive up to $854.00 tax free per month.
For those taking in a child over 16, the total is $1,008.00 per month in reimbursement.
If you have a 5 bedroom house and can take in as many as 6 children, you can receive reimbursement of up to $6,054.00 per month tax free.
originally posted by: St Udio
Yeah... I told the Old Lady that .... the $6 grand thing....as a valid reason to oust the dead-beat grandson that thinks our mission in life is to provide that pos a good living arrangement
the moron dropped out of HS at 16.... because he 'knew' he had the world-by-the-bolls
and that was almost 8 years ago!
the old lady & the mother...are suckers for BS & will not throw him on the street, where he belongs, and where he has a chance to 'shape-up'
I said it loud & to his A-H face... lose this parasite & get a illegal immigrant kid... you will get paid for the central American but this jerk is a pro-bono, forever money-pit...at least until he gets a long detox program forced on him
hell I rather put up with a MS13 youth that I could Taser if that A-H got testy
originally posted by: kkrattiger
OP shouldhave called the phn number on the ad before posting. Do some intel work. This isjust speculation, because there's no digging.
Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than his predecessors.
And the border seems secure, enough, to catch all these people. Is a "closed" border what some people mean when theysay "secure our border"?
originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: kkrattiger
He has not deported more, he cooked the books by changing the definition of deportation. They now count people that are turned away from entering at the border as deportation.
If you are really interested in how secure the southern border is, look for dennis michael lynch on youtube.
"They come to america" and "They come to america II" are documentaries he did, they are available on torrent sites if you are into that.
I think that was from The Nation. According to that one source, I'm wrong. Should I take yalls word, too, to stand corrected, that Im wrong on the unfounded assertion in my first reply? If people here are fact-finders, and moderates, I have no problem doing so.
In fiscal year 2013, the United States removed 368,644 people who were in the country without authorization. That’s down from a record 419,384 the year before. In 2012 — the last year for which federal statistics for both removals and returns are available — the US deported a total of 649,352 people, down from President Bill Clinton’s all-time high of 1,864,343 in fiscal year 2000.
Changing Demographics of Border Apprehensions In FY 2013, the numbers of removals by ICE following a CBP apprehension increased, in part, due to the rise in the number of individuals apprehended by CBP officers and agents from countries other than Mexico. In FY 2012, 71,257 of the recent border crossers removed by ICE following a CBP apprehension were from countries other than Mexico. In FY 2013, this number rose by 27 percent to 90,461. This shift in the demographics of border apprehensions triggered an increase in ICE's use of its detention and removal resources for recent border crossers as CBP is only able to effectuate the return of individuals to Mexico.
a reply to: ketsuko
The local CBS station in Dallas/Fort Worth reported that "four or five [US Border Patrol] agents have tested positive" for illnesses such as chicken pox or tuberculosis, ostensibly contracted at their border posts. With over 18,500 agents stationed along the Mexican border, the headline probably should have been something like "Border Patrol Agents Unusually Healthy Among Americans". Matt Drudge preferred, as usual, a more pernicious threat: BORDER PATROL AGENTS TEST POSITIVE FOR DISEASE CARRIED BY IMMIGRANTS.