Trump effect: Study finds 1 million illegal immigrants have left U.S. since January
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 12:10
VIEWED: 2869
PAGE 2 of 7
The article you cite, JAYNZE, compares deportations in Trump's FIRST term to Obama's, and it's not even clear to me that they're comparing Trump's first term to Obama's first term.
A fair, CURRENT comparison would be Trumps second term by July 1 v Bidens* term by July 1, or Obama's first or second term by July 1. I haven't seen that comparison and too busy to investigate. I do have to say that it ssems Trump's deportation program is having a hard time getting its feet under itself. Seems more intent on raising issues than actual deportation.
But maybe that's the point: If Trump can get Supreme Court rulings - asylum claims, hearing process, and the big one of anchor babies- in his favor, then further deportations by any other admin would be a helluvalot easier.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Recall back in January 2024 we first asked how is it not the biggest political talking point that since 2019, the US had only added foreign-born workers (which as we subsequently showed were primarily illegal aliens) while native workers remained flat or declined.
Less than a year later, illegal immigration in general, and its impact on the labor market indeed had become the biggest political talking point and one which one can argue got Trump elected.
So in retrospect, we can report today that Trump has certainly been working hard to resolve the situation and according to today's job report, the number of native-born workers has taken a decisive step higher, rising to a new all time high while foreign-born workers have been plunging ever since the election.
Caveat: jobs were NOT in manufacturing.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Jobs Report released today did not show any correction or decline the the census calculation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently, that first million was from March to June.
Currently, it is almost 2 million. From March to July.
www.cis.org/Arthur/about-july-bureau-labor-statistics-jobs-data
Some interesting data in there.
He refers to both BLS data, and FRED. But doesn't seem to reference which data pieces from which. I haven't delved into where each piece is coming from.
But the BLS Jobs Report is not reflecting a loss of population, or workforce. They historically add a couple hundred K each month (of Civ Pop, over 16 institutionalized), and the report keeps chugging along with that same metric since March.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Alright, so I took a look at some of this.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:I agree.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Interesting.
The Employment Situation report, which gives the unemployment rate, gets it's population data from Census.
On the first friday of July, I wonder if this correction will show up.
Normally almost 200K additional people are added per month, and 1.5-2.5 million per year.
Correction of 1 million for the last 6 months should be evident.
Should be interesting to see.
Please keep this thread in mind and keep us up to date on this one.
Any solid correlation provided would be excellent news.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
Turns out, the BLS Jobs Report actually does publish the raw numbers, sort of. The data referred to is in Table A-7 each month. The A-series of Tables are from the survey which is performed by Census, but the census population figures each month are not correlated, not aligned with this A-7 data.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t07.htm
The Census (Dept of Commerce) does not seem to actually publish or report the data. But they do compile the surveys and data, provided to BLS - yet also provide BLS with Population data which they refuse to correct/align until January. And then BLS publishes this data provided by Census.
I have not used, watched, or kept track of these figures - because they do not directly control the numbers used to relate Unemployment.
I think I'll try to list some of this data, but due to BLS revisions, I won't be able to ensure continuity of data. The Unemployment data I post and update is from was is initially published, and not retroactively revised, changed, altered. But the available data now will obviously be whatever BLS has archived.
Table B-1 gives Total nonfarm employees, Private, Government, Federal Government, State Government, Local Government.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.
Legend:
1st data column is Civilian Population.
2nd is Labor Force.
3rd is Foreign Born Population.
4th is the increase since same month last year.
5th is the increase since January.
6th is the count below the preceding peak count.
7th is Foreign Born Labor Force.
8th is LF increase since January.
9th is LF drop since the preceding peak count.
10th is Foreign Born Employed.
11th is Foreign Born Unemployed.
12th is Total nonfarm employees, of the total employed Labor Force.
13th is Government Employees. Then are Federal, State, and Local..
Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Pcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Prcnt CivPop LbrFrc Prtc% U-6
Mo/Yr CivPop LbrFrc FBPop >LYr > Jan < Pk FB LF > Jan < Pk FBEmp Unem | Ttl nf Govrn Fed State Local
Jan98 204238 135951
Jan99 206719 137943
Jan00 208782 139621
Jan01 210889 141049
Jan02 213089 141074
Jan02 216506 143228
Jan03 219897 145301
Jan04 222161 146068
Jan05 224837 147125
Jan06 227553 149090
Jan07 230650 151924
Jan08 232616 152828
Jan09 234739 153445
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Any chances that with some time and keeping up with this that you feel there would be enough data for us to draw from without the need of the "experts" telling us what is true now that it's on your radar?
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is generally my intent, to reveal the raw facts and data, and if somebody differs in their viewpoint, they can draw their own conclusions instead of relying upon Libtard Lying Fake News.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Any chances that with some time and keeping up with this that you feel there would be enough data for us to draw from without the need of the "experts" telling us what is true now that it's on your radar?
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
Caveat: if you have read the source articles, the analysts are essentially assuming that decreases in Foreign Born population is due to net negative migration. There is really no guarantee that it is not reflecting a death plague of U.S. Citizens who were born in another country, or any other explanation for the decrease. But the assumption is plausible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A couple things about this.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:That is generally my intent, to reveal the raw facts and data, and if somebody differs in their viewpoint, they can draw their own conclusions instead of relying upon Libtard Lying Fake News.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Any chances that with some time and keeping up with this that you feel there would be enough data for us to draw from without the need of the "experts" telling us what is true now that it's on your radar?
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
Caveat: if you have read the source articles, the analysts are essentially assuming that decreases in Foreign Born population is due to net negative migration. There is really no guarantee that it is not reflecting a death plague of U.S. Citizens who were born in another country, or any other explanation for the decrease. But the assumption is plausible.
I am not certain I was clear enough about the numbers. I can list the provided raw numbers which are published. Some of the figures which are analyzed can actually show up in the tables. However, not all will. They explain that their calculations include formulas and conversions not available to us. Such as "undercount margin" - who could predict or duplicate this magic conversion without the formula - if there even is any. They use a number of these tricky, opaque phrases to avoid transparency.
The numbers will still show the trends, but not the exact matching digits which they announce.
Secondly, while populating the data on the table, I have learned something I did not know about.
This is focusing on data comparison from Jan 2020 to Jan 2022.
Jan 2020 was the last full month before Libtard Lockdowns, the economy was chugging along, unemployment was at record lows.
Jan 2022 was after the worst of the Libtard Lockdowns, and Obiden/Bama 3.0 was still strangling the economy.
According to BLS published data, during these 24 months:
Civilian Uninstitutionalized Population (16+) increased by 3.700 million.
Labor Force (Employed + Unemployed) decreased by 0.672 million.
Foreign Born Population (16+ years old) increased by 2.262 million.
Foreign Born Labor Force increased by 1.066 million.
Foreign Born Employed increased by 0.912 million.
Foreign Born Unemployed increased by 0.153 million.
Total nonfarm Employees decreased by 2.123 million.
Therefore, Native Born Population increased by 1.438 million.
Native Born Labor Force decreased by 1.738 million.
FB Labor Force increased by 2.804 million more than Native Born. Foreign Born Participation Rate stays consistently, around 2/3 (Labor Force / Population).
That is a big boost to the Population and Employment margin, of FB over NB. One might think this was transitory, that eventually Karens would get back to work and reassert their position in the workforce. But no, checking Jan 2023, 2024, and 2025 shows that FB have never given up this gain, they just keep it, and the Native Born Labor Force just shrunk.
The numbers do help hide this development.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting observation.
I posted about this before, but I don't know if you saw it or caught it on your own if you didn't see it here...
Major US companies gave 94% of new jobs to people of color in 2021, report says
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/major-us-companies-gave-94-of-
new-jobs-to-people-of-color-in-2021-report-says-diversity-hiring-employees-apple-nike-microsoft-wells-fargo
Quote:
WASHINGTON (TND) — Of the more than 323,000 jobs added to the U.S. workforce by major companies in 2021, 94% went to people of color, according to Bloomberg.
The data stems from an analysis of 88 workforce demographic reports submitted to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by S&P 100 companies. The companies include industry giants Apple, Wells Fargo and Walmart.
Of the 88 companies, which employ a combined 9 million people, 74 saw an increase in the number of workers of color from 2020 to 2021.
White workers accounted for 20,524 jobs or just 6%, while people of color accounted for 300,000 jobs. Hispanic individuals accounted for the most hires with 40%, followed by Black and Asian people with 23% and 22% respectively.
The shift followed public commitments by several of these companies in 2020 to hire more people of color, according to Bloomberg. Microsoft promised to double its number of Black managers and senior leaders in the U.S. by 2025, while Amazon said it would double its number of Black vice presidents and directors.
They kicked nearly 20% of the workforce out of work practically overnight, told them it would only be for 2 weeks to "flatten the curve" but in some states this went on for YEARS, they poured salt in the wounds every day by calling them all non-essential every opportunity that they could, and then when they started hiring people back, 94% of the jobs went to minorities at Fortune 500 companies.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trumptards, i.e. angry poor white trash, are being harmed. I feel an Executive Order from Trump is necessary to correct the persecution of his people. The President should force companies to hire worthless white assholes who vote, or else Trump will place an emergency tariff on their sales.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
. . . when they started hiring people back, 94% of the jobs went to minorities at Fortune 500 companies.
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+percent+of+each+race+employed+vers
us+percent+of+U.S.+population
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME