Image 01 Image 03

Report: Mayorkas Admits Over 85% of Illegal Immigrants are Released Into U.S.

Report: Mayorkas Admits Over 85% of Illegal Immigrants are Released Into U.S.

The House of Representatives begins its impeachment hearings against Mayorkas tomorrow. Numerous state AGs will testify about the impact of illegal immigration.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told border patrol agents in Eagle Pass, TX, that the government releases over 85% of the illegal immigrants into the country, sources told Fox News.

Is anyone shocked? I’m not. Mayorkas basically admitted as much to Bret Baier last week:

Mayorkas made the remarks when meeting privately with agents in Eagle Pass, Texas, according to three Border Patrol sources who were in the room and heard the remarks themselves.

The conversation happened during the muster for agents in the busy border area. Fox is told Mayorkas was asked directly about comments he made on “Special Report” last week when he was asked by anchor Bret Baier about reporting that over 70% of migrants are released into the U.S. each day.

“It would not surprise me at all. I know the data,” Mayorkas said. “And I will tell you that when individuals are released, they are released into immigration enforcement proceedings. They are on alternatives to detention. And we have returned or removed a record number of individuals. We are enforcing the laws that Congress has passed.”

The House begins its impeachment hearings against Mayorkas tomorrow. Numerous state attorney generals will testify about how illegal immigration has impacted their states.

The Department of Justice is suing Texas over the state’s new immigration law. The law doesn’t even go into effect until March.

Senate Bill 4 allows “state officials to arrest and seek the deportation of migrants who have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without legal authorization.”

Texas passed the law because the federal government is not doing anything about immigration.

The border patrol has estimated over 302,000 migrant encounters in December, setting an all-time monthly record.

The fiscal year 2024 began on October 1. Since then, the border patrol has encountered over 785,000.

Three months and we’re almost to a million encounters.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


TY Mary…

Personally, I consider migrants as legal immigrants. I know, I know, you can argue semantics till the cows come home. So, in my book, an immigrant is a person who has followed the legal path, an illegal alien is a person who has snuck into (invaded) the country, or overstayed a visa. By calling these invaders immigrants, they are being normalized. This push on benign terminology is part of the mass brainwashing that is going on.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to amwick. | January 9, 2024 at 7:35 am

    Under federal immigration law anyone that enters the country outside of a federally established point of entry is an illegal alien and therefore are not eligible for asylum and should be immediately deported. No exceptions.

    Milhouse in reply to amwick. | January 9, 2024 at 7:52 am

    Well your book is bullshit that you made up yourself. As Rush Limbaugh used to say, words mean things, and you are not entitled to make up your own private definitions that do not match any dictionary or actual usage in any part of the English-speaking world.

    According to you there were no immigrants at all in the USA until the 1870s when for the first time there were laws regulating it!

      Virginia42 in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2024 at 11:05 am

      It’s a question of classification and there is a deliberate policy of making ILLEGALS appear to be law abiding immigrants. My mom came here in the late 50s and followed the freaking rules.

      None of these people are doing so but I’m supposed to just accept that they are “migrants.”

      No sale.

        Milhouse in reply to Virginia42. | January 10, 2024 at 8:06 am

        Yes, you are supposed to accept that they are migrants, simply because they have migrated. They are immigrants to the USA, because they have moved here. They are emigrants from their old country, because they have moved away from it. Whether they were legally entitled to do so is irrelevant. You can condemn them all you like, and you can call for their expulsion all you like, but you cannot deny that they have immigrated because it’s a fact, and facts don’t change because you don’t like them.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2024 at 12:49 pm

      I don’t have problem with people that like to use migrants because they are stupid and PC. Where I have a problem is when those same people tell me I can and should be cancelled for using the factual term: “illegal”

      As you said, words mean something and the left should not be able to police speech. Amwick has a right to his opinion, but Mary has a right to her words in her piece.

      Hope that’s middle ground enough to piss everyone off.

        Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 10, 2024 at 8:14 am

        Of course they’re illegal immigrants. That is precisely the term that we are discussing. People who have immigrated illegally are illegal immigrants, just as someone who shoots another illegally is an illegal shooter. Nobody would claim that he isn’t a shooter, because “shooter” must only be used of those who do so legally!

        I haven’t even heard much in the way of criticism of “illegal immigrant”. I have heard criticism of calling them “illegals”, because “illegal” is an adjective, not a noun. Using it of people without a noun implies that they are inherently illegal, i.e. illegal persons. And the objectors quite correctly say that “no person is illegal”. At least not in this country. In the Third Reich there were illegal persons, people whose very existence was illegal, but not here. An illegal immigrant is still a legal person, with legal rights that must be respected. You don’t call illegal shooters “illegals”, you don’t call illegal drivers or illegal plumbers “illegals”, so why do you use that term for illegal immigrants?

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2024 at 6:22 pm

      “According to you there were no immigrants at all in the USA until the 1870s when for the first time there were laws regulating it!”

      The point is, there were no laws FORBIDDING it.
      Now there are.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | January 10, 2024 at 8:02 am

        That doesn’t change the meaning of the word “immigrant”. A person who immigrates somewhere is an immigrant to that place; it has absolutely nothing to do with laws.

        You have missed amwick’s point, which is that he claims “immigration” is not an action but a legal process, like “naturalization”, or like being licensed to drive. Just as it’s impossible to illegally naturalized or illegally licensed, so too, he claims, it’s impossible to immigrate somewhere illegally. But if that were true then it would have been impossible to immigrate before there were immigration laws, just as it was impossible to get a driver’s license before the government started issuing them, and it was impossible to become naturalized as a US citizen until Congress passed the first law providing for that. And that’s obviously not the case. The pilgrims were immigrants to the New World, without any formalities, laws, or countries. So were the Indians’ ancestors who walked over the Bering Strait before it flooded.

        Consider the closely related word, “emigrant”. To this day most countries, including the USA, have no laws at all regulating emigration. Everyone is free to emigrate anywhere they like, without even filing any paperwork, let alone complying with any regulations. Just pack your bags, get on a plane, and go. Your destination will probably want papers, but the USA doesn’t care. Does that mean there are no emigrants from the USA?! Of course not. Anyone who leaves is an emigrant, so how can you deny that anyone who arrives is an immigrant?

      puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | January 10, 2024 at 12:20 am


The federal government refuses to enforce a border.

The states make laws to enforce their border.

The federal government sues the states.

It is sabotage. It needs to end.

Lucifer Morningstar | January 9, 2024 at 7:41 am

yes, just as I’ve said before. There really aren’t any “got aways” when it comes to federal immigration under the Biden regime but the vast majority are simply “let ’em goes” with the vague promise that they’ll show up for their immigration hearing five or six years in the future.

The Republic is dead. Long live the Banana Republic!

A population almost the size of Ohio has been let in!
Close the border and let deportations begin.
Truly this is dereliction of duty. Sadly, I realize not much is going to change at this point. God help our country.

Mayorkas should be tried for treason.

If the GOP fails to win the WH and hold the House, the Democrats will nuke the filibuster and enact Amnesty within months, maybe weeks, of Biden’s 2nd Inauguration. By 2030 at the very latest, these 7-million+ illegals plus the 20M or more that are already here will be voting. What happens then? The same thing that happened to California 6-years after Reagan signed the last Amnesty Act: The country turns reliably blue. Democrats will have a death-grip on Texas, Florida, Georgia (I don’t think most people outside of GA realize how many illegals live there). Democrats will enjoy permanent governing majorities in the House & Senate and will flip no less than four state houses, maybe more. All the while, ‘conservatives’ on TV pretend to not understand why Biden is doing what he’s doing.

If Trump should happen to win, the Illegals who have been entered into the Asylum Process (apparently 85% or more of those who have entered), won’t be ELIGIBLE for deportation for YEARS from now. Those who are entering the country today are being given initial asylum hearings later than 2030. Even if Trump is replaced by another Republican in 2028, most of these illegals still won’t be eligible for deportation. The only small chance to fix this is for Congress to amend the asylum process to make those who have been granted entry eligible for deportation immediately and hope that such a change can survive an ex post facto challenge.

If nothing else the incredibly arrogant attitude of the Biden WH and the rest of the coalition who want open borders has just about maxed out the number of entries. Finally these illegal aliens are becoming a burden for the ‘oh so virtuous’ Sanctuary Cities, the political leaders who made the policies and the holier than thou electorate who demanded these policies be put in place.

Y’all know the types, the folks with those condescending ‘in this house we believe…’ signs next to their BLM and rainbow flags are figuring out that their Northern suburban community is gonna have to pay up to support the arrival of illegals. Virtue signaling is finally imposing a direct cost on the purveyors of open borders policies. Suddenly these sanctuary Cities and open borders supporters ain’t feeling nearly as supportive as they were when illegals (and their costs) were largely confined to Red States, rural communities and border communities.

E Howard Hunt | January 9, 2024 at 12:08 pm

He’s the kind of guy I dread standing behind me at urinal.

Can the next president make the asylum court appointments mandatory? So when the illegals don’t show up the judge could issue a warrant for their arrest and expulsion..

    TargaGTS in reply to ConradCA. | January 9, 2024 at 3:14 pm

    It’s complicated. But, under existing law, those hearing dates are already mandatory. If a migrant misses a hearing, the judge can immediately issue a removal or deportation or exclusion order in absentia. The migrant then has 120-days (could be 180-days, I can’t remember for certain), to apply to reopen their case. But, if they get pinched before their case is reopened, they can be removed…which is one reason ‘sanctuary’ cities don’t cooperate with the CPS.

    Until now, the immigration courts have generally refrained from issuing any kind of removal/deportation order (absent pending criminal case/conviction) and the migrants are given TREMENDOUS latitude in reopening their cases. Since immigration courts are NOT Article III courts and instead, are part of the Executive Branch, it’s conceivable that a president, if so inclined, could force the immigration judges to apply the laws firmly.

    The problem – and I mention this in another comment – is for more than a year now, these aliens have been receiving FIRST appearance dates several years away. They’re now getting dates as late as 2032+.

      Milhouse in reply to TargaGTS. | January 10, 2024 at 8:23 am

      The problem – and I mention this in another comment – is for more than a year now, these aliens have been receiving FIRST appearance dates several years away. They’re now getting dates as late as 2032+.

      Not a problem. Hire a bunch of new ALJs and clear the backlog, then send them notices that their court date has been moved up.

      henrybowman in reply to TargaGTS. | January 12, 2024 at 3:45 pm

      It’s not like the federal justice system doesn’t have a gimmick on their utility belt to handle this. They just hold the hearing on an entirely different date than they gave the subject (maybe even next week). When he doesn’t show up, they can dispatch marksmen to take out his dog, his son, and his wife, then use the “oops, my bad” defense. Ask Randy Weaver how it’s done.

Hopefully they take fingerprints before releasing the asylum seekers?

Its the plan. This is not due to incompetence this is the plan.

This hideous debacle of humanity needs to be converted to Islam in the mud of the Rio Grande.

That’s 85% of those they catch, the other half just walked through.

And he’s lying about the 85% number also, “Virtually all are released into the US” would be a more honest answer.

Even that doesn’t really capture how horrifically bad the federal govt is here, because they aren’t “released” they are, in fact, TRANSPORTED by the federal govt, at taxpayer expense, by plane and bus, to unsuspecting towns all across the country.

The very agencies that are paid to enforce our immigration laws are actively assisting these criminals in entering the country and getting to the interior. And then they put them up in hotels and give them debit cards, regularly refilled.

He’s doing exactly what obama (biden?) wants. open borders and massive illegal immigration.

It seems that a lot of this is not mentioning the fact that many of the illegal immigrated are single males from many countries that don’t like America and are here to cause havoc.

In a number of ways, the present administration and those of recent past are a flat disgrace.