Rank these three in order of actually being a thing...

[Mr. Deez]

So the current and to many most reasonable solution is to have the illegals pay back taxes, pay a fine, learn English and not be criminals. Fine
How do you collect a fine? back taxes?

You make it a condition of gaining legal status. If they don't pay, they don't get legal status. For those who file a tax return, you net the fine and/or taxes against any tax refund they might get (such as EITC).

How long do they have to pay a fine and or back taxes?

That would be a fair point for debate. I would say ten years - the limitations period for the IRS to collect back taxes.

What happens when the illegals do not pay the fine or the back taxes in the allotted time?

They don't get legal status.

Who teaches them English?

Programs exist for this already, but that's their concern and burden.

How long do they have to learn it?What happens if they don't learn English in the allotted time?

Doesn't matter. They shouldn't get legal status until they do, whether it taxes 10 years or 10 days.

How much would all this cost the taxpayer? How large would the bureaucracy have to be to implement this?

Less that it would cost to deport them all. I would dedicate the funds accrued from enforcing employer sanctions to financing any costs.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Contrary to how liberals want to frame this, the point of this isn't deporting every single illegal in the country. That is not the litmus test for success of the policy. The point is, are we a society of laws? Are we enforcing those laws and our right to enforce those laws (sovereignty)?

Of course liberals frame the issue that way. It benefits then to do so. However, conservatives help them do it by labeling any reform effort that grants legal status as "amnesty" and summarily dismissing it. Stop doing that, and the liberals' narrative gets a lot weaker.

And I'm all for enforcing the laws, but there has been a bipartisan conspiracy not to do so. Democrats don't want to enforce the laws, and neither do Republicans. It's not going to happen under the normal mechanism of federal law enforcement officers discharging their duties. The only option that might work is private enforcement.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
I know your suggestions are reasonable but I am not sure they are workable. The cheapest way to deport is the eliminate the ability to work here. But I am not sure a long drawn out plan to force payment and to learn English is likely to succeed.

For instance, they must pay back taxes. Who figures what their earnings are on which to base the back taxes? Honor system? how many agents would we have to hire to monitor the at least 10 million more returns? Who helps these mostly low skill illegals figure out how to fill out an IRS form? There would have to be a new form created. Do they have to make penalty or back tax payments every year or can they wait until the end? Knowing the gov't that alone will cost millions.
Think of the new market that will be created for fake docs to establish they have been here since , say 2010.

10 Years? so for 10 years they get to stay here? Who monitors that? If they don't pay you say they don't get legal status? Who monitors that? Who goes after them and deports them in 10 years? What if they have had 6 anchor babies? do we still depot them after 10 years?
Yes there are some learn English classes now but not nearly enough. Do you really think knowing the way we freely hand out entitlements we would leave it up to the illegal to be responsible to learn English or to file taxes ?
I think we'd create this huge system and hire millions and after 10 years there'd be all sorts of reasons to not deport them.

I agree that if they really want legal status they should take some responsibility but we know that won't happen.

Someone ( and it may have been you) suggested the best way to deport is to go after employers. Start with the largest companies but take it all the way down to the smaller. Penalize them, even imprison a few CEOs.
No jobs, most will self deport.
Then we can expand the quotas but we would know who is coming in. WE don't need to expand the agri quota. That already is unlimited.

 

[WorsterMan]

you have no credibility concerning anything Clinton because you insist on seeing evil in anything they touch. As far as you are concerned, no evidence would exonerate her of any of your pet scandals.

Why would someone choose "Tower Sniper" as a name on a UT board? I am not passing judgment, yet, just asking.

Re: your response, wow, I must have touched a nerve based on your entire post... you want to call me out and say I have no credibility? I make one post about my OPINION of the FBI files issue and it turns into me seeing everything the Clinton's do is evil and more. I am suddenly part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Even though you said you were not a Clinton apologist, to me it seems that you are trying to be based on your attack response, rehashing a bunch of the old scandals and your anger toward anyone on the right or anyone that dared question or investigate the Clinton's.

Sorry, your the one with your mind made up. I am not going to take your bait to get into a pointless argument here about these people.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Of course liberals frame the issue that way. It benefits then to do so. However, conservatives help them do it by labeling any reform effort that grants legal status as "amnesty" and summarily dismissing it. Stop doing that, and the liberals' narrative gets a lot weaker.

And I'm all for enforcing the laws, but there has been a bipartisan conspiracy not to do so. Democrats don't want to enforce the laws, and neither do Republicans. It's not going to happen under the normal mechanism of federal law enforcement officers discharging their duties. The only option that might work is private enforcement.

Deez,

Those hiring illegals needs to be prosecuted. No ifs, ands, or buts. Will that anger some people? Yes. But I think the corrective adjective is "some" and I think the vast majority of folks would see this as a positive.

I don't think there's a bipartisan consipiracy to not go after these people. I think law enforcement feel (wrongly IMHO) there are other higher priority issues, and the debate accordingly has focused on immigration.

I think the problem will be a lot like napster and music piracy. Folks will change behavior for something they thought wasn't a big deal.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hell no. Dropping the discussion is tantamount to giving in. We've got an illegal immigration problem and almost no one wants to talk about it, much less do anything. Trump and Ann Coulter are some of the few with guts enough to address the issue.

I'm not sure where you've been, but the issue has been talked to death. The problem is that there hasn't been any action, and most of the talk/rhetoric has been counter-productive.

I got a kick out of reporters attacking Trump and Bush for using the term "anchor babies" this week. That's the next big thing for the Left, anchor babies equals racism. If you're anti-illegal immigration you're a bigot. Just like if you were anti gay rights you were a bigot. The Left wins all its battles by shaming people into shutting up using political correctness. They out McCarthy McCarthy.

Liberals use the term "racist" so much that they don't know what it means anymore. The term isn't racist. However, it is stupid and offensive - sorta like calling the children of unwed mothers "********." First, it's based on a false premise - that children born to illegal aliens prevent the parents from being deported. That's simply not true. Second, it puts negative connotations on innocent people. Condemn, the illegal immigrants and their choices all you want, but the children born in the United States had no choice in the matter. All they did was be born. Third, they're US citizens and eligible voters. What objective is served by insulting them? Hell, you can call Asian voters "gooks" if you want, but it seems pretty foolish to do so.

 

[Horn6721]

I am betting the number of illegal parents of anchor babies who have been deported in the past 7years is less than 100.
You know the sob angle being used, How could the evil old USA separate a family?

 

[NJlonghorn]

I am betting the number of illegal parents of anchor babies who have been deported in the past 7years is less than 100. You know the sob angle being used, How could the evil old USA separate a family?

According to this report by the US Department of Homeland Security, there were 33,000 removals of aliens who claimed a US-born child in the second half of 2011 alone. This 33,000 figure includes those who were deported, as well as those who voluntarily left in response to a pending deportation case. There are similar reports for other half-year periods, but this was the only one I read in full.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am betting the number of illegal parents of anchor babies who have been deported in the past 7years is less than 100.
You know the sob angle being used, How could the evil old USA separate a family?

As NJ showed, that's not the case. However, let's assume that it was just for the sake of discussion. How would any of that be the fault of the person born in the US or create any cause to call that person a name?

 

[Crockett]

Count me among those bleeding hearts saddened by the forcible separation of children from their parents. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done, but I certainly take no joy in it. Is there somebody that doesn't think that's sad?

 

[Horn6721]

When I have time I will read that link NJ supplied. Thank you for the link If those stats are true that is surprising and shows my thought that we actually forcibly deport very few parents of anchor babies is wrong.

Of course it is sad when a family is separated but it is not the fault of the government anymore than it is the fault of the government who sentence people who are also parents to prison.


edit to note
This report shows the deportation of people who "claimed to have an American born child". In the report it mentions the categories of " claimed" and" verified". In my cursory look at NJ's informative link I didn't see any stats for removal of people with " verified" American born children.
Of course we can believe these people when they " claim" they have American born children.
After all they have been so obedient of our laws so far>

That said I am sure there were some parents of anchor babies who were deported in that group so I admit my thought that we didn't deport more than 100 actual parents is wrong.

And so to make sure families aren't separated I am sure the deported parent took their families with them.

 

[NJlonghorn]

And so to make sure families aren't separated I am sure the deported parent took their families with them.

I can't find statistics, but I remember hearing somewhere that roughly half stay in the US with other family members; most of the rest emigrate to their parents' home country; and a small but significant fraction go into the US foster-care system.

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD
I know your suggestions are reasonable but I am not sure they are workable. The cheapest way to deport is the eliminate the ability to work here.

There's no bigger advocate for that than I am.

For instance, they must pay back taxes. Who figures what their earnings are on which to base the back taxes? Honor system?

The IRS would do it based on documentary evidence, just as they would for other taxpayers.

how many agents would we have to hire to monitor the at least 10 million more returns?

How many would we have to hire if the population expands by 10 million people? I'm sure we'd need to hire more.

Who helps these mostly low skill illegals figure out how to fill out an IRS form? There would have to be a new form created.

That's up to them. They can go to H&R Block if they want to or ask a bilingual person to help them out. Many of them do that already. Either way, it's not our problem.

Do they have to make penalty or back tax payments every year or can they wait until the end?

They can't get legal status until they pay them in full, no matter how long that takes. I could be talked into an installment plan that offers temporary legal status after 50 percent of the debt has been paid, so long as legal status is pulled if they fail to make their payments.

Think of the new market that will be created for fake docs to establish they have been here since , say 2010.

The fake docs only work now because nobody verifies. In fact, most of them look pretty fake. I'd verify.

10 Years? so for 10 years they get to stay here?

No, they don't get to stay for ten years unless they pay. I would make them pay 10 years of back taxes.

If they don't pay you say they don't get legal status? Who monitors that?

The IRS and ICE.

Who goes after them and deports them in 10 years?

Again, they don't get deported in 10 years. They're without legal documents until the amount is paid. They could be deported at any time until then.

What if they have had 6 anchor babies?

The "anchor babies" aren't anchors. They're citizens, and they stay unless their parents take them with them. The illegal immigrants get deported.

Yes there are some learn English classes now but not nearly enough.

There didn't used to be enough gas stations for the number of cars that would be on the road. Now there are. That's what markets are for.

Do you really think knowing the way we freely hand out entitlements we would leave it up to the illegal to be responsible to learn English or to file taxes?

If it's a condition of avoiding deportation, they probably will.

Someone ( and it may have been you) suggested the best way to deport is to go after employers. Start with the largest companies but take it all the way down to the smaller. Penalize them, even imprison a few CEOs. No jobs, most will self deport.

Yes, I do advocate that, but like I've also said, government enforcement isn't going to happen in significant numbers. As little as Obama has cared about enforcement, the Bush Administration cared even less. The federal government isn't going to enforce the law on employers, and the public is too scattered and stupid to hold them accountable. (If they weren't, then we wouldn't have this problem today.) Until we have private enforcement, nothing meaningful is going to happen on this front, and I'm not going to hold my breath on that happening anytime soon.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez,

Those hiring illegals needs to be prosecuted. No ifs, ands, or buts. Will that anger some people? Yes. But I think the corrective adjective is "some" and I think the vast majority of folks would see this as a positive.

It will anger the people who matter. Large majorities of Texans support taking action against illegal immigration at the state level. A handful of lobbyists for the construction, homebuilding, and petrochemical industries walk into the Texas Capitol and slap their schlangs ("schlong" is incorrect) on the table, and they get what they want. The millions who want action taken are told to screw off, but instead of holding the politicians who took orders from big business accountable, they let their attention get diverted by things like gay marriage, whether the State will offer "Choose Life" license plates, etc, Same thing happens in DC. Nothing will happen without private enforcement, and that's not going to happen.

I don't think there's a bipartisan consipiracy to not go after these people. I think law enforcement feel (wrongly IMHO) there are other higher priority issues, and the debate accordingly has focused on immigration.

If there wasn't a bipartisan conspiracy, then action would happen when the anti-illegal immigration party was in power. It doesn't. Both sides are crooked for different reasons. Democrats are crooked because they're done with trying to appeal to religious white people and want more liberal Hispanics to outnumber them and form a coalition with blacks and God-hating single white women. In other words, they want to replicate what they've done in California on a nationwide basis. Republicans are crooked because of greed. Their donors benefit from illegal immigration, and they want the donors' money. It's a scam. Respectfully, you're very naive if you don't see it.

 

[texas_ex2000]

A handful of lobbyists for the construction, homebuilding, and petrochemical industries walk into the Texas Capitol and slap their schlangs ("schlong" is incorrect) on the table, and they get what they want.... Republicans are crooked because of greed. Their donors benefit from illegal immigration, and they want the donors' money. It's a scam. Respectfully, you're very naive if you don't see it.

Not saying that doesn't happen. But I think you're just a little more cynical about the game than I am. The large majorities and millions, who have votes, ultimately matter more than the lobbyist who has money. Money is nice, but it means nothing if you can't get the majority and millions of votes.

The scenario is a bipartisan conspiracy to support a deeply unpopular system or law enforcement with limited resources de-prioritizing enforcement. I think the later is the more likely reason.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not saying that doesn't happen. But I think you're just a little more cynical about the game than I am. The large majorities and millions, who have votes, ultimately matter more than the lobbyist who has money. Money is nice, but it means nothing if you can't get the majority and millions of votes.

Dude, I'm cynical, because I've seen it happen. I worked down there, and I know what happens. The large majorities of the public only matter if they are heavily organized and vote on the issue at hand. There is opposition to illegal immigration, but it is disorganized. scattered on what policy goals it supports, and easily redirected to other issues. Furthermore, the pro-illegal immigration forces have ways to kill reforms without names being readily attached to them. When it happens, the public rarely knows exactly why or who made it happen, and when they do know, it's usually somebody who for whatever reason is politically insulated.

The scenario is a bipartisan conspiracy to support a deeply unpopular system or law enforcement with limited resources de-prioritizing enforcement. I think the later is the more likely reason.

Come on, think about this. Do you think it's accident that immigration law enforcement has "limited resources?" We're spending over $3.5 trillion just at the federal level. How that money is allocated should be based on the public's priorities. If the public really wants something, the political process should direct a lot of money to it. The public wants good education, and sure enough, we dump hundreds of billions on it from all levels of government (regardless of how little that has done to produce results). The public wants a strong military, and we dump hundreds of billions on that. The public wants a generous government-backed retirement system. We spend hundreds of billions on that. It wants the elderly and poor to be covered for medical care. We spend hundreds of billions on that.

The public wants the immigration laws enforced, and the responsible agency gets a paltry $5.4B, while these other priorities basically get a blank check. That's not an accident. Organized interests fight tooth an nail to dump money into those larger priorities. (That's why they're large.) The opposite is occurring on immigration enforcement.

 

[Horn6721]

9MrD
All of your suggestions are sound. But in the world we live in many jut wouldn't happen.
With the mentality of many in this country the gov't would never say to illegals, Hey it is YOUR responsibility to find someone and do you own taxes OR find a way on your own to learn English. We would create this huge agencies or give tax payer dollars to laRaza etc to provide tax help and or learn English. These are primarily low skilled low income people. Do you think they have money to pay H&R block or a private company to teach them English?
Remember they can now vote and conduct most legal and commerical biz in Spanish etc. I can see many objecting to the English requirement,

And we would never have 10 mill new citizens all at once but if we adopt a plan to have 10 million sign up to pay back taxes etc we would need many more gov't employees immediately.
So if the illegal sets up an installment payment they can have up to 10 years to pay off a penalty and back taxes? ( how do we decide what their back taxes are? Believe them ?) all the while living here ?

Ask more questions when hiring? A prospective employee does not have to fill out the I-9 until offed a job
during the interview all you can ask is if they are qualified to work in USA.You can't question the validity of docs provided for the I-9 or ask for others if one looks suspicious.
Everify will get better if everyone will use it.

Yes all your suggestions like many others offered are good ones. I just want to point out the devil is in the details and the details will be enormously expensive for the taxpayer. I don't know if there are better answers but I fall back on your point that FIRST we enforce employment of legal applicants and heavily crack down on employers who violate this.
If we control the border as best we can AND get as many employers as possible to follow the law in hiring we could at least damage the magnet.
One other thing I would do is end chain migration. If there is a way to limit the entitlements for anchor babies that would cut down on that a a magnet.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Dude, I'm cynical, because I've seen it happen. I worked down there, and I know what happens. The large majorities of the public only matter if they are heavily organized and vote on the issue at hand. There is opposition to illegal immigration, but it is disorganized. scattered on what policy goals it supports, and easily redirected to other issues. Furthermore, the pro-illegal immigration forces have ways to kill reforms without names being readily attached to them. When it happens, the public rarely knows exactly why or who made it happen, and when they do know, it's usually somebody who for whatever reason is politically insulated.



Come on, think about this. Do you think it's accident that immigration law enforcement has "limited resources?" We're spending over $3.5 trillion just at the federal level. How that money is allocated should be based on the public's priorities. If the public really wants something, the political process should direct a lot of money to it. The public wants good education, and sure enough, we dump hundreds of billions on it from all levels of government (regardless of how little that has done to produce results). The public wants a strong military, and we dump hundreds of billions on that. The public wants a generous government-backed retirement system. We spend hundreds of billions on that. It wants the elderly and poor to be covered for medical care. We spend hundreds of billions on that.

The public wants the immigration laws enforced, and the responsible agency gets a paltry $5.4B, while these other priorities basically get a blank check. That's not an accident. Organized interests fight tooth an nail to dump money into those larger priorities. (That's why they're large.) The opposite is occurring on immigration enforcement.

Deez,

I know there's some, if not a lot, of influence buying on this specific topic. In deference to your word, I'll even say it plays a major role in the failure to enforce these laws.

But I also think (republican) politicians are dumb, lazy, incompetent, distracted, and have hundreds of other things they think may be more important. And then there's the entire democratic caucus that support things like sancutary cities. This is just speculation on my part, but I'd venture that the businesses that could potentially benefit from this conspiracy are niche and who's influence and money are minor compared to other industries who care about employee health care costs (which will skyrocket if illegals are granted legal status).

You're right about organized interest. In the past, the fight to enforce immigration laws was disorganized. But today, this is a wedge issue and people are pissed off and organized. Maybe Cruz, Bush, Fiorina, Rubio are all blowing smoke on their illegal immigration plan, and they secretly will allow demand for illegal labor to continue, but I think today their bonafides on this issue (in this case action) is everything.

 

[Crockett]

Ex 2000, why do you think legal status would cost medical costs to skyrocket? I honestly think that when employees of slipshod contractors have legal status, they will have more leverage to demand safe and humane working conditions... something that would be very upsetting to the special interests to whom Deez refers.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Ex 2000, why do you think legal status would cost medical costs to skyrocket? I honestly think that when employees of slipshod contractors have legal status, they will have more leverage to demand safe and humane working conditions... something that would be very upsetting to the special interests to whom Deez refers.

Larger insured number -> increased risk and costs diversified away across premiums in both private and public plans.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It seems that we are all aligned on eliminating the magnet for illegal immigration, jobs. So why haven't we seen more movement in this space? My bet is because the average voter doesn't have the sway that the donors have. In the end, it easier to say one thing yet take millions from donors who know it's simply lip service. Additionally, as has been talked about the Democrats and Republicans both benefit from illegal immigration. The former likes it to add to it's base, the latter profits dearly from it. The people that get screwed? The voter and low-income job holder.

I don't see the current estimates of costs on Trump's immigration plan posted here. There are many estimates.
The low end is $166B: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trumps-immigration-tab-166-billion-121500.html
The high end is ~$600B: Can't find the link but this was in a press release from the partisan pro-immigration that the Facebook founder is behind.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Larger insured number -> increases risk and costs diversified away across premiums in both private and public plans.

Aren't these individuals already getting healthcare through Emergency Room visits? If anything, you'd be redistributing the costs rather than net new.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Aren't these individuals already getting healthcare through Emergency Room visits? If anything, you'd be redistributing the costs rather than net new.

Not the amount and frequency of healthcare compared to legal people either with private insurance, medicaid, or Obamacare. Do you think once legal, they'll stick to their ER-only bare minimum strategy?

 

[Horn6721]

To texas ex 2000's point there are stats that show visits to emergency rooms have increased tremendously among people who now have obamacare. The numbers of visits to emergency rooms has increased disproportionately.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But I also think (republican) politicians are dumb, lazy, incompetent, distracted, and have hundreds of other things they think may be more important. And then there's the entire democratic caucus that support things like sancutary cities. This is just speculation on my part, but I'd venture that the businesses that could potentially benefit from this conspiracy are niche and who's influence and money are minor compared to other industries who care about employee health care costs (which will skyrocket if illegals are granted legal status).

Republican politicians hear about illegal immigration from their constituents all the time. When I worked at the Capitol in the late '90s and early 2000s, it was a very common complaint. It's ten times as big of an issue now. They know it's a big priority for the public. However, the people who complain about it aren't writing checks. The businesses that benefit from the conspiracy have enormous influence, and they come from a very broad set of industries. Homebuilders/construction industries, food processing and manufacturing, retailers, and petrochemical companies drive the conspiracy in Texas. Even one of those industries has enormous clout, and combined, they are virtually unstoppable.

For example, when Texas tried to ban sanctuary cities in 2011, a guy named Buddy Jones showed up and killed it. Jones is a lobbyist for Bob Perry and Charles Butt. Those guys write six and seven-figure checks. They get what they want, and sure enough, they did, and they did it without a record vote being taken, so it's hard to nail down which politicians were responsible. That's how this sort of thing goes down, and it happens over and over again.

You're right about organized interest. In the past, the fight to enforce immigration laws was disorganized. But today, this is a wedge issue and people are pissed off and organized. Maybe Cruz, Bush, Fiorina, Rubio are all blowing smoke on their illegal immigration plan, and they secretly will allow demand for illegal labor to continue, but I think today their bonafides on this issue (in this case action) is everything.

Public anger and organization aren't the same things. People are mad, but they aren't organized. In fact, they have no idea what they actually want, so they flounder. The movement was actually more organized in the past, because labor unions used to oppose illegal immigration, and though they've never had the clout of the business lobby that likes illegal immigration, they at least had enough money and lobbying power to have a seat at the table.

 

[chango]

Count me among those bleeding hearts saddened by the forcible separation of children from their parents. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done, but I certainly take no joy in it. Is there somebody that doesn't think that's sad?

Clean and theiioftx must be on vacation

 

[Htown77]

Deez is correct. Nothing gets done on immigration because certain business industries fight tooth and nail to stop anything from happening. They want the status quo. They do not want a left or right solution.

 

[towersniper]

Why would someone choose "Tower Sniper" as a name on a UT board? I am not passing judgment, yet, just asking.

Re: your response, wow, I must have touched a nerve based on your entire post... you want to call me out and say I have no credibility? I make one post about my OPINION of the FBI files issue and it turns into me seeing everything the Clinton's do is evil and more. I am suddenly part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Even though you said you were not a Clinton apologist, to me it seems that you are trying to be based on your attack response, rehashing a bunch of the old scandals and your anger toward anyone on the right or anyone that dared question or investigate the Clinton's.

Sorry, your the one with your mind made up. I am not going to take your bait to get into a pointless argument here about these people.

“you want to call me out and say I have no credibility?”

After you called me out and say that I am a Clinton apologist. You have no credibility because you insist on clinging to your “opinion” in the face of multiple investigations and a court decision that concluded otherwise. My original post merely pointed out that your statement of what had happened with the FBI files was not accurate. You came back and called me a “Clinton apologist” for refusing to don a tin foil hat and reject all evidence and investigations. No, you have no credibility.

“Sorry, your (sic) the one with your mind made up”

Yes, and I deeply apologize that my world view is based upon evidence, and not your “opinion.”

 

[towersniper]

“you want to call me out and say I have no credibility?”

After you called me out and say that I am a Clinton apologist. You have no credibility because you insist on clinging to your “opinion” in the face of multiple investigations and a court decision that concluded otherwise. My original post merely pointed out that your statement of what had happened with the FBI files was not accurate. You came back and called me a “Clinton apologist” for refusing to don a tin foil hat and reject all evidence and investigations. No, you have no credibility.

“Sorry, your (sic) the one with your mind made up”

Yes, and I deeply apologize that my world view is based upon evidence, and not your “opinion.”

And for the record, I have no use for Hillary Clinton. I have less use for politics by investigation.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

WHY would they need FBI files of former White House employees/staffers who were 99.9% Republican?