The willfulness is astounding…lmao
well I made one comment and took shots for it, so be it. since then this thread has gone all over. i will put some facts in before the lock and the wave of these costs are still building, expect for americans to be hit with these from illegals for decades even if the border is closed tomorrow.
Denver immigrants have cost city up to $340 million, according to estimates
Map Shows How Much Undocumented Immigrants Cost in Each State
from the article: " Texas, currently caught in a maelstrom with the federal government and President administration, has endured the second-highest cost, totaling about $9.94 billion and $13.36 billion, respectively."
How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Cost the U.S.?
from the article: “The FAIR study, released in March last year, documented the financial toll of illegal immigration on the U.S., taking into account factors like emergency medical care, incarcerating illegal aliens in local jails, and federal budgets that pay out billions in welfare every year, pegging the net annual cost at $150.7 billion.”
and in your home state of Texas:
AG Paxton: Illegal Immigration Costs Texas Taxpayers Over $850 Million Each Year
from the article:
Texans pay between $579 million and $717 million each year for public hospital districts to provide uncompensated care for illegal aliens.
Texans paid $152 million to house illegal criminal aliens for just one year
Texans pay between $62 million and $90 million to include illegal aliens in the state Emergency Medicaid program.
Texans pay between $31 million and $63 million to educate unaccompanied alien children each year.
1 Like
So let’s shoot up kids because of it.
1 Like
FAIR has been discussed at length on here and their “studies” aren’t credible to any rational or rigorous analysis. Citing their flawed findings isn’t for serious sober discussion.
3 Likes
Ahhh yes, because all of that justifies a guy shooting his hispanic neighbors (including children).
4 Likes
Totally justifies shooting at kids. Totally.
3 Likes
Lee isn’t saying that justifies the shooting, but he’s giving context for what (in part, along with media messaging) fuels those who decide to get violent. Unbalanced people are unduly influenced by what they choose to hear.
2 Likes
Maybe. But when your first reaction to something like this is, I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more, you’re going to get questioned.
Especially when everyone knows your past posts. He has a history in this space.
2 Likes
Info on the source you used. No wonder you have such views, if that’s what you read and
take as gospel.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Anti-Immigration Propaganda, Conspiracy Theories, Misleading Claims
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
If you dare, read the full report about FAIR. Even the right leaning Cato Institute hammers it.
According to the right-leaning Cato Institute, FAIR has published questionable research that is “fatally flawed.” Cato reports: “Its recent report, ‘The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017)’ by Matthew O’Brien, Spencer Raley, and Jack Martin, estimates that the net fiscal costs of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is $116 billion. FAIR’s report reaches that conclusion by vastly overstating the costs of illegal immigration, undercounting the tax revenue they generate, inflating the number of illegal immigrants, counting millions of U.S. citizens as illegal immigrants, and by concocting a method of estimating the financial costs that are rejected by all economists who work on this subject.
3 Likes
So back to if dems don’t want open borders then why endorse sanctuary cities bc such cities are a draw. They know once in the USA they simply make it to a sanctuary city then safe. If the dems were serious they would shut down sanctuary cities.
The republicans suck bc they refuse to do e verify.
I believe the post above with the costs to cities is correct. If not why did New York mention millions spent and they wanted Abbott to stop busing bc of costs, social problems etc.
As far as costs of illegals you are lying to yourself if you honestly believe there is no cost to cities, the tax base , police departments etc. Why don’t other countries allow what we’re doing if it’s really ok overall.
Are most good people and work hard, yes. Does it justify the mess and costs overall, no and other countries realize this.
Solution is like I said, have no sanctuary cities , no financial support and e verify with fines then after done then allow quotas for workers are true asylum seekers. E verify and no sanctuary cities would solve most of it.
I’m a good person yet does Italy or Spain allow me to simply visit, stay and work illegally? No.
They do. You have complaints in UK and France for similar issues.
1 Like
And no one is saying there is no cost. That’s a straw man. Of course there is a cost. People are questioning how big it is.
You also have to weigh that against the benefits, which there clearly are.
The logic above isn’t great, but it’s even worse when based on false assumptions.
3 Likes
NYC to spend millions on new round of pre-paid debit cards for migrants.
Why aren’t other countries lining up to accept illegals? Reason bc overall the cons outweigh the pros so they have borders, don’t higher people , don’t help financially etc.
Again, they deal with it too. And Mexico creates a very different dynamic.
The fact that you refer to the as illegals means you’ve checked out on them as humans.
Other countries are experiencing their own issues with immigration, so it is completely wrong to say they don’t accept them. They just don’t have a huge incentive to take Central American migrants.
Abbott and DeSantis did their bus tricks for political hay, not problem solving.
2 Likes
Illegal immigration is against the law so the correct term is illegals. Yes they are human and most are good people but just bc someone is human doesn’t mean they can break the law. We need legal immigration following the proper rules.
I’m for reform done the right way which is what I described above.
Other countries control their borders better than us. They also don’t hire people if they don’t have proper papers and immigrated thru the proper channels. Italy for ex simply won’t hire like many other countries won’t which stops most of the problem. We have a mess in that republicans want cheap under the table labor and the dems do sanctuary cities etc so both sides are bs.
Most people think it’s a mess and that we lack the political will power to ever solve it so they have grown tired of expecting it to ever get solved like me. I somply refuse to vote on it as an issue. I’ll look at other issues then vote accordingly.
As far as human, is it ok to steal bread or food ? No bc it’s the law. So the argument of humanness doesn’t hold water. If they change the law to just have open borders then the term illegals goes away bc it’s then legal immigration but until then…
Do you call people that break other laws illegals? Why not? They are breaking the law.
6 Likes
If someone crosses the border and turns himself into INS officers, and asks for asylum,
at that point they are asylum seeking immigrants and following our laws. That is what
our immigration laws allow for. To continue to use a negative term to describe the person
is your choice. Just be aware you are doing that.
If you want to change those laws, great ! Who is proposing legislation to change those laws ?
Have those bills been passed by the house ?
Both parties also don’t want the issue solved or refuse to take the right measures that most citizens want. Politicians want it to be a political football forever to get votes on either side. Most issues are solvable like this one but if you solve soc sec, the border etc then political parties lose important issues to get us to vote their way.
Does it help your rationalization by dehumanizing immigrants and calling them illegals?
You never answered my question. Why did Republicans walk away from the biggest immigration reform since the 80s?