Immigration

We Need To Talk About Portland…

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

We need to address some serious misconceptions and outright lies that are circulating regarding Portland, OR, and the allegedly embattled Department of Homeland Security. I’ve heard this city referred to as a “War Zone,” “Under siege from attack by ANTIFA, and other Domestic Terrorists.” President Trump claimed he was acting to “protect War Ravaged Portland” when he declared that he would be mobilizing the Oregon National Guard against the wishes of Governor Tina Kotek. Trump’s fictional narrative is so pervasive that right-wing propagandists and Trump supporters are uncritically repeating it left and right, even (and perhaps especially) when provided with evidence that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

If someone (myself included) from Portland shares photos and videos that counter this deluded perspective that the city is a “War Zone,” they’ll be condemned for “Cherry Picking,” and either not sharing evidence of the correct locations, or at the right times. They’ll come back with video clips from FOX News, OAN, Newsmax, or right-wing influencers that selectively focus on moments of conflict, ignoring the context. They also often overlook the fact that several of these videos are from the 2020 BLM protests or from three or four months ago, as is clear from the background, in which one can easily see that the windows of the Portland ICE Facility are not boarded up, as they have been since mid-June of 2025.

I can only assume this disingenuous, bad-faith distribution of selectively edited media is what the President was referencing when he discussed the fires and devastation supposedly in evidence throughout Portland (and especially in proximity to the Portland ICE Facility), because none of that is presently relevant.

Other people will respond by sharing photos and videos of homeless people, tents and litter on the street, graffiti, or people using drugs openly. This, of course, has nothing at all to do with the premise behind President Trump’s deployment of troops and the increase in Federal Law Enforcement in the city. The homeless population, tents on sidewalks, and drug users are not (in any sense) related to the supposed siege of the Portland ICE Facility. It’s the equivalent of an Ad Hominem attack or tossing a Red Herring into the discussion of the city. It’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and it ignores the fact that all American cities (including those much smaller than Portland) have homeless individuals and families, drug use, and graffiti.

No one with any intellectual honesty or integrity will deny that Portland has a problem with homelessness. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone suggesting otherwise. What they will say is that it’s not worse than other large American cities, which is accurate. As of January 2024, Portland didn’t even crack the Top Ten, and as of this year, Portland is the 28th most populous city in the United States. Denver has only 100,000 more people, but has twice as many homeless people, according to the same numbers from January 2024. Seattle has only about 150,000 more people, but had more than twice the homeless population of Portland last year.

But Portland, Denver, and Seattle combined barely reach half the homeless population of Los Angeles, which is roughly half again the homeless population of New York City.

Homelessness is a complicated issue. The contributing factors are manifold, and the solutions (while comparatively simple) aren’t things anyone in a position to do so wants to seriously address.

Are these National Guard troops and Federal Law Enforcement Officers coming to Portland to address issues like homelessness?

No, they are not.

Which means anyone trying to distract from the topic at hand by tossing that into the mix needs to shut the fuck up and let the adults talk. Bad faith bullshit is not welcome.

So, let’s talk about the alleged assault on ICE that Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, Donald Trump, and others want to claim is taking place.

Before we move on, I’d like to dedicate some time to Kristi Noem, though. I have a relatively unique perspective in that I lived in South Dakota while Kristi Noem served as Governor, and previously as a U.S. Representative, before I moved to the Portland Metro. She was much-maligned by even Conservatives I knew in South Dakota, as a corrupt and undemocratic force in State Government. Of course, that didn’t stop them from voting for her, because she happened to be a Republican.

Noem’s histrionic portrayal of the protests in Portland is not novel. She has a long history of opposing the First Amendment right to Speech and Assembly, stretching back to the protests against the Keystone Pipeline. She was also investigated for Corruption regarding the circumstances surrounding her daughter and the Real Estate Appraisal Licensing system in South Dakota.

Perhaps most egregious, when South Dakota voters passed a Ballot Measure to legalize Recreational Cannabis in 2020, she and two members of Law Enforcement filed a lawsuit to overturn the results of the election, which passed by a margin of 54 to 46%. It’s particularly amusing when you compare it to her Gubernatorial Victory in 2018, of only 51%. The courts sided with Noem and the two Law Enforcement officials, claiming the Ballot Measure violated a “single-subject” provision. Never mind that any Ballot Measures in South Dakota undergo a legal review by the Secretary of State to confirm that they conform to state statutes.

I don’t entirely blame Noem. South Dakota has a history of corruption and anti-democratic practices. It was only two years before she was elected Governor when voters approved an Anti-Corruption measure that would have led to an independent ethics commission, campaign finance reform, restrictions on gifts from lobbyists, and increased transparency regarding campaign contributions. The Governor at the time, Dennis Daugaard, and the State Legislature repealed the Initiated Measure only a few months later, with Daugaard suggesting that voters hadn’t really thought things through.

As you can see, Noem comes from an environment where corruption and undemocratic sentiment run rampant. It should have been a warning sign about the Trump Administration that she would be so readily welcomed into the fold. For some of us, it was. Of course, for many of us, there had already been several warnings.

Placing her in charge of Homeland Security has been an unmitigated disaster, as anyone could predict. But it’s not the disaster she might propose. Since Donald Trump returned to office in January, at least 15 people have died while in ICE Custody. This does not include the two detainees who were murdered by the shooter in Dallas last month. That number also doesn’t include individuals who died shortly (or immediately) after they were released from ICE Custody, nor does it include individuals who have died since being deported or falling victim to the Administration’s new take on Extraordinary Rendition.

But, guess what, a total of zero ICE agents have been killed in that same time frame. This, despite President Trump’s wild claim that people have died in Portland. Unless he’s speaking of unrelated deaths (or deaths from years ago), no one has died as a result of protests happening in Portland. The last death of anyone involved with the Department of Homeland Security (not an ICE agent) was a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent who was shot on January 20th, during a traffic stop in Coventry, Vermont.

Most recently, the only injury of note was when an ICE officer was dragged by a car driven by an undocumented immigrant attempting to evade him. The immigrant in question was killed; the ICE officer was not.

Still, all the talk from the Administration has been focused on how ICE agents are under attack. But, it certainly sounds like it’s far less dangerous to work for ICE than it is to be taken into their custody.

Noem and Homan like to talk about large percentages when they discuss the increase in assaults on ICE agents. Of course, those numbers are readily subject to scrutiny, because that percentage reported by DHS has fluctuated dramatically, sometimes within hours: 500%, 700%, 1,000%. It’s almost as if they’re just tossing large numbers in front of a percentage sign to appeal to the average person’s inability to contextualize what a percentage increase actually means. A keen observer might notice they’re loading the statements to make people afraid.

Let’s break down how percentage increases work for those of you who need some assistance.

If there were hypothetically only one ICE agent assaulted between January and September of 2024, it would mean that five, seven, or ten had been attacked during the same time frame this year to reach those previously mentioned percentages of 500, 700, or 1,000%. But to say it was ten agents that had been assaulted over the course of an eight or nine-month interval doesn’t have the same dramatic flair to it. Most recently, they’re claiming it’s a more than 1,000% increase, but without providing any actual numbers to contextualize what that percentage means. The real numbers (according to all official records) were something to the effect of ten assaults in 2024 compared to 79 in 2025. This is also far less dramatic than using a percentage increase to trigger an emotional response. After all, we could refer to it as a 790% increase. Which number sounds scarier to you?

Mind you, only a small percentage of these assaults involved protesters, and an even smaller number had anything at all to do with Portland. These attacks are largely coming from people they are detaining.

And, of course, the numbers have spiked. ICE is more active and aggressive, and is utilizing tactics that are absolutely going to increase violent reactions. When masked men with no official insignia are grabbing people and hauling them into unmarked vehicles, it looks more like a kidnapping than anything official or legal. Never mind that there have been several documented incidents this year of people being assaulted, kidnapped, and raped by people pretending to be ICE agents. There’s even one reported killing by a fake ICE officer. Knowing all of this, would you simply accept that this is a legitimate, state-sanctioned detainment?

There’s also the deeply concerning fact that several of the things that constitute assault in the eyes of DHS have been categorically ludicrous in many instances. The official claim was that the New York City Comptroller, Brad Lander, had assaulted agents when he was detained at an Immigration Court proceeding in June, though the available video evidence shows no assault of any kind. Garbage dumped on an ICE agent’s lawn was also one example of “assault” on DHS, while another was a sign that included an individual ICE agent’s name and a great deal of profanity. There was even an incident here in Portland where an Indigenous woman was charged with Assault because an ICE officer claimed to get a headache because she was blowing a whistle on the sidewalk in front of the Portland ICE Facility. Even if those examples were the only questionable ones, they would present a huge issue when discussing relatively small numbers of incidents.

And, of course, it could be argued just as easily that assaults performed by DHS agents have increased by similarly huge percentages, but Noem and Homan are disregarding that. The very real likelihood, though, is that more people are being assaulted by ICE agents than are assaulting them.

Several of these assaults have been without cause or provocation, unless you claim standing in place, holding a sign with mean words on it, and yelling profanities at these masked men constitutes a clear threat. Based on how fragile and sensitive the Administration seems to want us to believe the people working for ICE happen to be, I guess those things might just be adding to the assault statistics.

Of course, all of this escalation on the part of the Administration is a painfully transparent attempt to trigger a response. The same thing was done in Los Angeles earlier this year. The same tactic was also on display during the BLM protests in 2020. President Trump, Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, and others are gambling on the likelihood that increased Federal Agents and the addition of Military Personnel will be sufficient to push the situation past a tipping point. At that point, they will have the flimsy justification required to impose greater Authoritarian control over Portland, Chicago, and wherever else they decide they want to add pressure.

It’s an absurd truth, and one that got Portland’s Mayor, Keith Wilson, laughed at and mocked, but the best thing protesters can do is to refuse to take the bait, to stay home, and to make the Administration look like the scaremongering force it absolutely is. Of course, that may not solve anything, since right-wing agitators have been masquerading as protesters and journalists already. It would hardly be a stretch to imagine them inciting violence just to ensure it adversely impacts their opponents. Some of them also have a documented history of instigating fights, both within the protest groups and as counter-protesters. They also have a history of fabricating violent altercations and even going so far as to start fights just to selectively capture the retaliation on camera for the purpose of furthering their propaganda objectives.

Either way, what we end up with is a situation wherein protesters are expected to behave in a way that is beyond reproach, or they’re condemned for inciting violence. That may sound painfully familiar to anyone who has dedicated time to studying the Civil Rights Movement. But the uniformed individuals who are supposedly trained to de-escalate situations are deploying pepper spray and gas canisters despite the law clearly stating the use of force must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. They’re intended to adhere to the same standards required for self-defense on the part of the average person.

In fact, on July 25th, Assistant Chief of Operations for Portland Police Bureau, Craig Dobson testified, “It makes it extremely difficult for us to deal with, as the folks that are on the other side of this fence have been, night after night, actually instigating and causing some of the ruckus that’s occurring down there…” and that DHS agents are not following best practices.

It’s also on record that ICE had been witnessed firing pepper balls on the crowd without any apparent warning or provocation on June 12th. Then, it was back on June 14th when protesters shattered the glass of the front door, subsequently leading to the boarding up of all windows. DHS officials panicked and used indiscriminate force against the protesters at that time. The one ICE agent who was hurt had abrasions and nothing worse. The same kind of disproportionate and indiscriminate attack by ICE agents was documented on June 23rd and 24th, when an ambulance had to be called because a protester was hit in the head with a gas canister. It can get dangerous out there, but the vast majority of the danger is directed at the people exercising their Constitutional Right to protest the actions of the Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

If someone intends to protest, they need to understand their rights. But that’s not enough; they also need to know the limited power bestowed upon the people they are protesting against. It’s essential to recognize that Department of Homeland Security officers have significant limitations. No one within ICE has the authority to arrest, detain, or restrain any American Citizens. There are several examples of ICE agents violating this explicit limitation in their purview. There are exceptions regarding Citizens who assault an ICE agent or who actively interfere with ICE performing the duties that are within their scope. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have fewer restrictions. But a Citizen would have to commit a Federal Criminal Offense in the officer’s presence before they can restrain, arrest, or detain someone. Finally, Federal Protective Services has similar authority to Customs and Border Protection, but its scope is focused on Federal Facilities.

It’s imperative to recognize that, unless a protester is actively breaking the law in some way related to the “work” DHS performs, these officers are not permitted to so much as lay a hand on any Citizen. Assuming the protester has not trespassed onto the Federal Property, damaged the same, assaulted an officer, or obstructed them in their lawful duties, no one working for DHS has any authority to use physical force against the protester.

They can (and should) be sued each and every time they violate the limited authority they have. Further, though I want to be clear that I am not encouraging violence, if someone is attacked by an employee of DHS without provocation, they are well within their rights to defend themselves. Even though they may be wearing uniforms, their authority as Law Enforcement ends the moment they violate the restrictions associated with their role. If someone does fight back (and some would suggest they should), I will offer the same recommendation I’ve received from individuals who specialize in self-defense; if they’re threatened to the extent that they have to defend themselves, they need to make sure it’s safe for them to turn their back on the threat to walk away. The threat can no longer be a threat.

If you find yourself in a situation wherein you have to fight back (and I believe you should), that fight doesn’t end in the street. Keep fighting their attempts to prosecute you for assault as well, because if they’ve stepped outside of bounds, they’re just some asshole, not an actual cop. In Oregon, you’re legally entitled to use physical force if you believe it’s necessary to protect yourself, another person, or your property from Unlawful physical force. You are permitted to use whatever force is proportionate to the perceived threat. Just keep in mind that you cannot be the initial aggressor.

Immigrants Aren’t Stealing Your Social Security…But You Are Stealing From Them

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

It’s disturbing that, in the context of discussions regarding Immigration in the U.S., there’s clearly no point in trying to appeal to the humanity, empathy, and compassion of the people who are buying “Alligator Alcatraz” merchandise or cheering on ICE Agents who are breaking the car windows of fathers dropping their children off for school because they refuse to comply with an order to turn themselves in (I mention that because it specifically happened in Portland just a short while ago). It’s a bit of a stretch, but I can hope that breaking everything down to a purely financial consideration will resonate with a small number of those people, though I’m not sure it paints a flattering portrait of them that money speaks louder than morality.

It just so happens that I have an admittedly numbers-heavy argument in opposition to our increasingly draconian Immigration Policy. It happens to correspond with another topic that’s important to me, the failure of our Social Security Program. It dovetails nicely with the conversation surrounding Undocumented Immigrants. I’d like to say this is the last of my long, mind-numbingly tedious, math-intensive arguments, but I would be lying. All I can hope for is that people are learning something from the information I’m taking the time to share.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, as of last November, 77% of all Immigrants in America have Documented (Legal) Status of some kind. Naturally, that means only 23% of the Immigrants here would be what people commonly refer to as being “Illegal.”

A 2023 Congressional Report detailed that a total of 365,714 Noncitizens received Social Security in 2021. This constituted only 4.8% of the total recipients of SSI Payments. More than 76% of the Noncitizen recipients were 65 or older, and more than 60% of them were female.

Historically, the largest number of noncitizen recipients of SSI Payments was in 1995, the year before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed. That number was 785,000 people, just slightly more than twice as many as were receiving SSI Payments in 2021.

Exhaustive studies performed by the Social Security Administration have displayed that increased Immigration leads to a decrease in the Social Security Fund Deficit. The inverse, of course, is also true, that decreased Immigration further increases that Deficit. This means that more Immigrants coming to America means there is more money going into the Social Security Fund.

As Ron Popeil would say, “But wait, there’s more!”

According to an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis, Undocumented Immigrants (those commonly referred to as Illegal) paid an estimated $25.7 Billion into the Social Security Fund in 2022, despite the vast majority of those individuals never obtaining an Immigration Status that would allow them to receive SSI Benefits. To put that in numbers that are easier to digest, it means that more than $2,300 was paid into Social Security for each of the 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants living in America, while only a small percentage of those Immigrants will ever be able to collect on what’s been paid in. We’ll set aside discussions of the immorality and predatory nature of that disparity for now, because that’s a whole different conversation.

This one-way exchange is not new, as actuaries performed a study in 2013 that showed Undocumented Immigrants were responsible for $12 Billion paid into the Social Security Trust in 2010. Some of this, of course, arises from the use of false or stolen Social Security Numbers by Undocumented Workers to obtain employment, which is (as we know) a crime. But how many of us would commit a crime just to work and pay taxes? Most of them are not criminals, though, as it’s estimated that at least half of all Undocumented Immigrant households utilize an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number to file taxes.

Assuming a plateau with no further upward trend since the numbers for 2022 were assessed (as unrealistic as that might be), if we remove all Undocumented Immigrants from America, we will be losing $25.7 Billion every year that would otherwise be paid into the Social Security Trust. This means that it’s likely to lose solvency earlier than the updated 2032 estimate. And that is just from Undocumented Immigrants. Documented (Legal) Immigrants contribute substantially more, but some of them are also eligible to benefit from the program.

Thus, the Trump Administration’s plan to not only remove Undocumented Immigrants, but also strip Documented Immigrants of their legal status to Deport them, is going to cut down on the amount of money going into our Social Security Fund, while only marginally impacting what is paid out.

And, despite what certain people seem to believe, the administration won’t make up that lost revenue by discovering fraud. Despite the literal bullshitting done by Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and all the parrots who couldn’t stop themselves from repeating their claims, there has been no evidence of widespread fraud in the Social Security Administration. In fact, the program has a 99.7% Payment Accuracy Rate. The 0.3% consists not of fraud, but mostly of incorrect payment amounts due to errors or delays in payment. Also, despite the fraudulent nonsense I had to hear from Musk and the people who couldn’t think for themselves if their lives depended on it, only 0.1% of payments go to people 100 and older. This is–as you can probably tell–statistically accurate.

Of course, it’s not just Social Security that’s being financially stripped by these counterproductive policies.

Undocumented Immigrants have contributed close to $100 Billion in Federal, State, and Local Tax Revenue, often paying at higher rates than the Top 1%. Studies have shown that providing Work Authorization to all Undocumented Immigrants would add $40.2 Billion in Tax Revenue. If you care about the conditions for Immigrants living in America, this is what you should be endorsing. Otherwise, hundreds of thousands of people are paying in more than their fair share, while being ineligible to reap the benefits…much the same as it is with Social Security.

Unlike Elon Musk’s fictional claims of Social Security Fraud, none of this is about how I “feel” or some “vibe” I have. Contrary to the talking heads and pundits on Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, I’m taking the time to read the reports and studies on the topic. What I’m sharing here are facts reinforced by studies, research, and years of data. These aren’t opinions. There aren’t two equal sides to this discussion, and it’s not ambiguous or open to debate.

In the simplest terms, and phrased in a way I trust the intended audience would understand, “The facts don’t give a fuck about your feelings.”

Immigrants Are NOT the Problem, and They Never Were

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

There is never a bad time to remind people that being Undocumented in the U.S. is a Civil Offense, not a criminal one. Unless someone has been previously Deported and has returned to the U.S. (which is a Felony) or is caught in the process of (or found Guilty of) Illegal Border Crossing (which is a Misdemeanor), they are not criminals. This should make it obvious that the habit of simply accusing anyone who is here without legal documentation of being a criminal is both legally & factually incorrect.

Unless they’ve committed other crimes while on U.S. soil, they are not criminals and should not be treated as such. And Due Process is required to assert Guilt, which requires honoring the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Of course, none of that matters when the DHS and ICE are allowed to just make up whatever criminal activities, questionable tattoo correlations, supposed gang affiliations, and whatever else they want to claim about any individuals they’ve targeted to pick up off the street, from their homes, from churches, from the classrooms, or in front of the courthouses as they wait for their Immigration Hearings. Because, without Due Process, no one has an opportunity to defend themselves or to prove the lie for what it is.

We currently have more than 46 Million Immigrants living in America, with more than half of that number being Naturalized Citizens. Note that I did not say they were Documented Immigrants, these are Citizens who came here as Immigrants. And that is no simple process. As of last year, it took the average Immigrant seven and a half years as a Permanent Resident to become Naturalized. They undergo a lengthy application process and are tested on their knowledge of the English language as well as their knowledge of U.S. History and Government.

In the 27 years leading up to the moment when President Trump first took office in 2017, a grand total of 305 Denaturalization cases were pursued. It was an exceptionally rare legal process, something reserved for people like War Criminals, Child Predators, and those who Sponsored Terrorists. Obviously, it wasn’t common.

However, one of the first things President Trump did upon taking office in 2017 was to explore options to loosen the standards in place regarding what qualified as a cause for Denaturalization. His Administration’s goal was to expand the rationale and justification required to strip an individual of American Citizenship. There were hurdles he needed to overcome, of course, and questions of constitutionality were involved.

Nevertheless, during Trump’s first year in the White House, 20 Denaturalization cases were filed with the Department Of Justice. By the time he’d been in office for three years, that number had reached 94. The number of Denaturalization cases was only 20 for 2020, but this was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic having a massive impact on our courts. But, during the four-year interval, the first Trump Administration had filed 104 Denaturalization cases, compared to 305 in the 27 years leading up to that point. You’re reading that correctly: 25% of all Denaturalization cases in 31 years happened in just the four years President Trump was in the White House (or 12% of the time frame).

The beginning of President Biden’s Administration was also impacted by pandemic conditions, but during his four-year term, only 24 Denaturalization cases were filed. So, that still leaves the first Trump Administration responsible for 24% of all Denaturalization cases in a 35-year interval. So far, the President is off to a slow start, with only five Denaturalization cases, but it’s just getting started.

Since he returned to the White House, President Trump’s Administration has (in addition to renewing efforts to lower the standards required to justify Denaturalization) also started pushing to strip Citizenship via Civil Litigation.

This may not mean much to most of us, since we aren’t lawyers. But it’s a truly horrific prospect. It’s important to understand that this means a U.S. Citizen could face losing their Citizenship without being entitled to an attorney and with a diminished Burden of Proof involved in the decision. Sure, they can pay for an Attorney (assuming they can afford it) or they can hope for someone to take on their case pro bono, but they’re not afforded legal counsel as they should.

You see, it’s not just the violation of Due Process regarding Undocumented Immigrants that’s an issue (which Obama was guilty of doing as well). Also, why the hell would any Trump supporter point to Obama as a benchmark? That’s just nonsense. The problem now is the clear intent to strip Due Process from U.S. Citizens on top of violating Due Process for Undocumented and Documented Immigrants.

Even if someone wants to argue the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Undocumented Immigrants (which it does), it absolutely applies to Citizens. This policy also flies in the face of the Supreme Court Decision that brought an end to McCarthy era bullshit, of using Denaturalization as a political bludgeon, creating “…two levels of citizenship.”

There is a clear and present trend in the objectives put forth by President Trump and his appointees. The Trump Administration has made attempts to rescind Birthright Citizenship, revoke the Legal Status of various groups of Documented Immigrants, increase the number of Undocumented Immigrants removed without Due Process, and strip Citizenship from Naturalized Citizens at an increased rate and without Due Process. All of this is combined with efforts to make it harder to become a Citizen, more difficult to obtain Documented (Legal) Status, and to refuse Asylum Status for more Asylum Seekers.

By April, we had already Deported three children between the ages of two and seven who were U.S. Citizens. This was done even though family members here were prepared to take them in when their Undocumented mothers were being Deported, and made several legal requests to do so. Attorneys were denied access to the women–as were the family members–and they were provided with no alternatives but to take their children with them as they were Deported.

We’re only six months into this Presidency, and he is attempting to reshape the landscape regarding Immigration to make it inhospitable for anyone but those he thinks should be here, and that seems to exclusively consist of White South African “refugees” and people who can pay $5 Million for the privilege.

Of course, to Deport someone is to return them to their Country Of Origin, or to a country with which the individual has strong ties. That is the definition of Deportation. You can imagine this does not mean we get to send them to wherever we see fit. But, less than a month ago, the Supreme Court decided the Trump Administration could continue sending Immigrants to countries that are not their Country Of Origin.

Sending them somewhere they’ve never been, and where they have no social or familial ties, that’s more akin to Human Trafficking. Of course, this is a violation of both International Law and Human Rights, but no one involved with the Trump Administration is concerned with any of that. This should serve as a suitable reminder that what is Legal does not define what is Moral.

It’s wrong to refer to that activity as Deportation. Thankfully, we already have a term that mostly fits with what we’re doing with those Immigrants, it’s called Extraordinary Rendition. Sure, we can’t be certain that there’s a substantial risk of these individuals being tortured when they arrive at this third-party destination, but it doesn’t seem particularly unlikely. Again, no one involved in making these decisions is concerned. They’re similarly unconcerned with the fact that Extraordinary Rendition is illegal in both the U.S. and internationally. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate back in 1998, explicitly prohibits Extraordinary Rendition.

Anyone who wants to claim any of this is right or acceptable should take a deep breath and spend some time reflecting on how and why they have so much contempt in their hearts for people who (like their own ancestors) came here for a chance at a better life. I also feel that they should take some time to consider the strong likelihood that these people probably had to go through a hell of a lot more trouble to achieve the American Dream than their families did. I know the various branches of my family tree had it a whole lot easier becoming American citizens.

As an amusing little adendum, I have some useful information to share with the pearl-clutching Anti-Immigration folks who are worried about the criminals and gangs that are coming across our borders. The Mexican Mafia originated in California’s prison system in the 1950s & spread to Mexico via deportation. More recently, MS-13 started on the streets of LA in the 1980s, before members were deported to El Salvador, where they became more powerful & dangerous.

Maybe deportation isn’t the solution people think it is. It might be a good time to stop complaining that these Central and South American nations are sending gangs across the border into the U.S., because it seems to me that we’ve been sending the gangs there more than the other way around. And, of course, that doesn’t even factor in the cartels we supplied, funded, and endorsed as rebels and insurgents.

The Truth About Medicaid, Medicare, & Other Fraud: It’s Not What You Think

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

It has always seemed obvious to me that if people want to know where Medicare and Medicaid Fraud come from, they need to stop looking for illegal recipients. It isn’t as simple as some might think to defraud programs like SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by filling out an application with false information.

I don’t know why it bears mentioning, but neither Medicaid nor Medicare provides Beneficiaries with cash. They operate as a substitute for Health Insurance. That might come as a surprise for those of you who have never needed to use one of these programs. So, even if someone successfully applies via Fraud, they aren’t lining their pockets at the expense of Taxpayers.

Even if someone manages to obtain Medicare or Medicaid coverage through fraudulent means, what happens then? In the worst-case scenario, they would obtain medical treatment that they otherwise could not have received. Let’s assume it’s the most expensive surgical procedure from 2024, which is a Heart Transplant. At the most expensive rate, that would cost Medicare or Medicaid $1.3 Million, assuming it would cover the surgery in the first place. It would require more than 38,000 people receiving fraudulently obtained Heart Transplants to equal the $50 Billion House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed was lost to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of Medicaid each year. If that seems absurd to you, you’re absolutely correct.

Just last week, CVS Health’s Omnicare (pharmacy services for long-term care & senior living communities) was found guilty of fraudulently billing the U.S. Government for invalid Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare Prescriptions and ordered to pay $948.8 Million in penalties & damages. A massive $406.8 Million of that was for Damages, which were tripled as per the False Claims Act.

All of this came about because a Whistleblower brought attention to more than three million false claims between 2010 and 2018.

In 2021, the average Medicare Spending per Beneficiary was only a little over $15,000. To put that in perspective, it means the Fraud committed by CVS translated into the equivalent of the total annual spending for just under 9,000 Beneficiaries, or just under 1,000 Beneficiaries each year for which CVS was found Guilty of the illegal billing.

And this is just the Fraud from one Corporation. I can assure you that they are not alone.

One thing that people need to understand is that Improper Medicaid payments are not the same as Fraud. It’s a challenge for some people to wrap their heads around that distinction because certain individuals have played fast and loose with conflating the two things…because it suits their agenda.

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Improper Payments made up only 5.09% of the total payments made by Medicaid in 2024. Of that 5.09%, roughly 80% (or 4.07% of the Total) were caused by missing documentation that would determine whether a payment was correct or incorrect, and payments that went to the right Providers in the right amounts, but that may not have complied with some regulations or statutes. In all of those cases, if the paperwork had been correct, they wouldn’t even factor into these numbers, because the payments wouldn’t have been classified as Improper or because they wouldn’t have been issued in the first place.

It’s the remaining 20% of that 5.09% where we find people who weren’t eligible for Medicaid. But it is also where we locate the individuals who were eligible but received a service that wasn’t covered.

So, while all of these 5.09% of Improper Payments count as Monetary Loss, they do not constitute Fraud. All of the Fraud falls into the minuscule 1.02% of the Total Payments.

Yes, we should be combating Fraud, but it’s not the Beneficiaries of Medicaid and Medicare who are the criminals, guilty of committing the vast majority of Fraud; it’s Ambulance Services, Pharmacies, Nursing Homes, and other Providers who have utilized creative bookkeeping and manipulation of the system. The victims are the Beneficiaries, Legitimate Providers, and Taxpayers alike.

Fighting Fraud doesn’t involve cutting funding for Medicaid, and it won’t have any impact on the rate of Improper Payments, because the Beneficiaries were never the primary Source of them.

What I hate more than anything is that this is ultimately yet another dog whistle for anti-immigration proponents. I’m not going to use Undocumented as a descriptor here, because we’ve all heard the plan, shared far and wide wherever cameras are rolling, that the Trump Administration intends to strip Documented Status from Immigrants, including those who are Citizens. It was never about doing it the right way; it was about being the right ethnic makeup, which is why there was so much support from people who believe in “The Great Replacement” myth.

Across the years 2021, 2022, and 2023, Wyoming and South Carolina were the two states with the highest rates of Improper Medicaid Payments (at 20.7 and 20.5% respectively), with Delaware, Connecticut, and Idaho following close behind. As you might notice, none of these five states are among the most populated, and none of them are near the top of the list of states with the largest immigrant populations.

California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Nevada are the states with the largest immigrant populations, yet they all fell below a rate of 9% during those three years.

So, people need to stop pretending this is even remotely connected with our Border Policy or Immigration Statistics, because there isn’t even a Correlation to mistake for Causality.

House and Senate Republicans upheld their promise not to tamper with Medicare as far as work and age Eligibility Requirements were concerned when drafting the 2025 Congressional Budget Bill. However, Eligibility for certain Immigrant groups will be impacted, as some Non-Citizens who were previously Eligible as Permanent Residents of the U.S. for at least five consecutive years will lose coverage 18 months after the Legislation is passed.

Medicaid, however, was far from off-limits to Congressional Republicans…and where they have tampered with Medicaid and other health coverage through the ACA, it could have dramatic and widespread impacts on healthcare systems across the nation.

Medicaid is funded through a combination of Federal and State Taxes, with roughly 70% of that funding coming from the Federal Budget. States often derive a significant amount of their funding through Provider Taxes, which are taxes paid by Health Care Providers (hospitals, nursing homes, and the like). The House version of the Congressional Budget Bill would have prohibited States from creating new Provider Taxes or increasing the current percentages paid by Providers, which are capped at 6%. The Senate version, however, gradually decreases that percentage to 3.5% by 2031, but only for the 40 States (and the District of Columbia) that employed Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act, leaving exceptions in place for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities.

This will dramatically decrease the amount of matching funds paid by Federal Taxes, creating a bit of a double-whammy on States that are being penalized for adopting Medicaid Expansion.

The concern here is that States will almost certainly have to make dramatic cuts to Medicaid as a result of the lost revenue, further cutting the number of people covered or the amount paid to Providers.

Of course, there’s also the addition of out-of-pocket expenses for Medicaid enrollees, as a $35 co-pay will be required for some services (again, only in States with expanded Medicaid) for individuals with an annual income of more than $15,650 (Federal Poverty Level). The Senate did add allowances for States to charge an even greater co-pay for Emergency Room visits for Non-Emergencies. The silver lining is that the co-pay policy doesn’t apply to primary care, mental health, or substance abuse services.

Access to insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace is about to become more challenging as well. It will also be more expensive as enhanced subsidies are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, which could result in some costs for ACA insurance coverage increasing by an average of 75%. I don’t know how many people can afford to see their Insurance Premiums go up by 75%, but I would be irate if it were happening to me.

Hundreds of thousands of Lawfully Present Immigrants are likely to lose insurance coverage through the ACA, because additional subsidies that keep those costs down will also be expiring.

All of this is devastating at a time when hospitals and medical facilities across the country are already facing massive budget shortfalls. Part of that comes from Medicaid and Medicare payments not being sufficient to keep pace with rising operating costs. Those skyrocketing operating costs are partially derived from administrative expenses produced by Insurance Companies, due to prior authorizations and the appeals associated with denials.

According to a report from the American Hospital Association last September, administrative costs alone accounted for more than 40% of the average hospital’s total expenses. Not only does the Commercial Insurance Industry delay and often deny necessary care for patients, but it also dramatically increases the costs for Providers to operate in the first place, which leads to increased costs for the rest of us. Of course, the Industry is thriving as a whole, with many Insurance Companies seeing record profits year after year.

You may notice some disdain for Insurance Providers, and that’s something I’m entirely conscious of. I’ve experienced frustration regarding the predatory practices of the for-profit Insurance Industry while researching their standards, profit margins, and actions.

What we’re likely to see if the House and Senate Republicans have their way, in addition to fewer people being covered by Medicaid (and health insurance in general), is staffing cuts at Providers or (in the worst case) closures. This is most likely to happen in areas where the population is lowest, impacting rural Providers more than those in urban areas…though the impacts would still be massive there as well.

Because of this, Senators added a $50 Billion fund ($10 Billion annually) to the Congressional Budget Bill, insulating rural hospitals from some of the worst impacts. The House version of the bill would have allowed rural hospitals that closed between 2014 and 2021 to reopen under the Rural Emergency Hospital designation, which allows Medicare to provide them with a potential lifeline. This could have been good, since 146 hospitals in rural counties closed between 2005 and 2023. The Senate, unfortunately, included no provision to reopen those hospitals under the retroactive designation.

So, there are some small bits of good mixed in with the bad aspects of that portion of the new budget, but none of those “good” things would be quite as necessary if it weren’t for all of the “bad” aspects of the Congressional Budget Bill. And altogether too much of that “bad” is tied up in transparent bigotry directed toward Immigrants, and the false claims that they are responsible for Fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare systems, along with the other things people often refer to as “entitlements.” Of course, while focusing on Legislation to further disenfranchise already disenfranchised people, the same Lawmakers are providing additional handouts to Corporations, the actual sources of Fraud, Waste, and Corruption.