This needs to come to a screeching halt.


This week, the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to count self-identified illegal immigrants in the 2020 census. Cities worry adding the citizenship question could undercount 6.5 million people. Their argument, however, isn't just about political power but billions of dollars in federal funds states expect.

The case underscores what experts say is a growing cost to taxpayers from the surge of Central American families and unaccompanied minors.


"We're talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer benefits over the next few years," said Dan Stein, director of the right-leaning think tank, Federation for American Immigration Reform. "The payout for the taxpayer is enormous and income to the Treasury is miniscule."

A FAIR study in 2017 found illegal immigrants are a net consumer of taxpayer benefits worth more than $100 billion a year, not including the cost of enforcing the border.

While federal benefits are supposed to be off limits, in practice many are not. More than 25,000 undocumented workers receive subsidized housing, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Children receive free education and most qualify for English lessons and free school breakfast and lunch.

Illegal immigrants do not qualify for Obamacare but under federal law, hospitals and clinics are required to provide urgent medical care without regard to legal status. Pregnant women are entitled to prenatal and postpartum care under the Women, Infants and Children program. Infant delivery costs are paid for by Medicaid. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a federal-state immigrant insurance program cost $2 billion a year in emergency treatment, not including the $1.24 billion in infant delivery expenses.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to food stamps, but families with U.S.-born children are. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 31% of such families use the SNAP program and more than 50% of Central American families in the U.S. use at least one welfare program.

This is especially true of asylum seekers said Art Arthur, a former immigration judge now with the Center for Immigration Studies, an immigration think tank. Arthur said because there is a three to five year lag time between apprehension and court appearance, young asylum seekers put down roots, allowing many to access programs they are initially unaware or afraid to use.

"You're going to buy a house, get a job, have kids," he said. "So their entire life changes, and that means their claim changes. Because of a lack of a bright line for immigration judges, appeals are endless and people don't leave."

Recognizing that many illegal workers fill jobs communities need, 26 states offer them *state-funded* benefits. New York state offers up to $300 a month in cash assistance. Eleven states offer free or subsidized medical and hospital care. California offers food stamps, legal services and benefits for those over 65 or disabled. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently asked for an extra $50 million from lawmakers to serve the state's illegal immigrant population.

Such sanctuary states and immigrant-friendly cities are an obvious draw, but others say it is all about finding work not using benefits.

The Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2018 found Central American families may struggle financially in the U.S. but they work (76%) at high rates than native-born Americans (73%).

"At the end of the day people are going to go where their jobs are, not necessarily where the services are," said Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum. "So yes, 26 states may provide state-funded access to public benefits. But if those states don't have a growing economy and don't have jobs that are open immigrants, much as anybody else, they're not going to see them."

Up to 70% of immigrants apprehended at the border this fiscal year are families or unaccompanied minors claiming asylum. Unlike other border crossers, after six months asylum seekers qualify for work permits and most taxpayer subsidies. But because most are unskilled and uneducated, they earn minimum wage or less.

Almost half, according to the census survey, never finished high school. They earn 40% less than U.S.-born workers and about 50% of families live in poverty, requiring community support for food and cash for necessities. Some have sponsors, but most are usually immediate families that are not much better off.

"There is a cost for communities for sure," Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., said last week outside a Salvation Army shelter in Yuma. "Whether it is in uncompensated care in hospitals or the education system in different ways. It has never really been measured, but it is very real."

Advocates for illegal immigrants argue most studies are flawed because they do not account for their economic contribution to the economy as a whole. Not just because they perform jobs Americans won't, but studies don't account for their lower wage differential that produces cost savings to U.S. consumers.

"We need an immigration system that treats the American taxpayer fairly," Noorani said. "Right now, our immigration system doesn't treat the American taxpayer fairly and I would argue it really treats nobody fairly. At the federal level, what the Congress and the president need to do is work together to create an immigration system that is fair to the taxpayer and 10 or 11 million people who are undocumented."

U.S. officials expect a million additional illegal immigrants this fiscal year, as the Border Patrol is currently apprehending up to 4,000 a day. Most will claim asylum, entitling them to government benefits.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/the...yers-billions-a-year

I saw this earlier and wanted to post it, but I couldn't figure out how to post it with out a million explicatives.

If I "lost" my passport and showed up at the border, could I claim to be a refuge, claim asylum, and get benefits?

Nah, I'm a working man, and that's just the way it is. Wouldn't feel right.

You guys are just racists and xenophobes. Free shit for all. That's the future. Get over it.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
You guys are just racists and xenophobes. Free shit for all. That's the future. Get over it.

Hahahahaha. Seriously though, that’s what it’s coming to.

This doesn't really surprise anybody, does it?

I’m shocked I tell you, shocked!

I wish these denying Yankees would spend a few days on the southern border; it would open their eyes.

This is one of the incentives to come here. Get in. Get free stuff. We could stop the whole deal if we cut off the free stuff, tax remittances at confiscatory rates and sent to prison anyone hiring illegal immigrants. Wouldn't take but a few high profile perp walks before the hiring came to a screeching stop. Wanna work here? Get documented. With those incentives removed and a big beautiful wall, this problem would be over. Make me king.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
This is one of the incentives to come here. Get in. Get free stuff. We could stop the whole deal if we cut off the free stuff, tax remittances at confiscatory rates and sent to prison anyone hiring illegal immigrants. Wouldn't take but a few high profile perp walks before the hiring came to a screeching stop. Wanna work here? Get documented. With those incentives removed and a big beautiful wall, this problem would be over. Make me king.

Couldn't agree more.

With all due respect to Sappersteel who disagreed with me on this on numerous occasions (for obvious reasons), we need to start prosecuting those who hire illegals. Once we do that we'll dwindle that population substantially. Then, eliminate any "benefits"(other than perhaps a ride back to the border) for them and they'll essentially go away. Add a wall and we're done.

Like most things, it ain't rocket surgery.

Yeah the system is something else.

Many Vets have to fight like hell for the VA et all to live up to their promises and provide benefits but illegals get expedited "ala carte" bennies of all sorts without the red tape and obfuscation.

Makes all sorts of sense to the jackass liberal progressive socialist deep state anti-American demoncrap pieces of shit and their sycophants. Ask me how I really feel!

The real change for the border would be to stop ‘incentivizing’ those coming illegally. The biggies would be ‘anchor babies’ and then zero Gov freebies to anyone illegal, ANYWHERE in the USA.

That is a very tough fight, in this and any Congress. The most one can hope for is improvement around the margins, even that is painfully slow.

Keep in mind we are borrowing $$ at an unsustainable rate to pay for many expenditures. Of course, no one wants to hear that. Back to my coffee.

quote:

This needs to come to a screeching halt.

Yes/
You cannot have both a welfare state and open borders...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

quote:

Keep in mind we are borrowing $$ at an unsustainable rate to pay for many expenditures. Of course, no one wants to hear that. Back to my coffee.

Yes.

Rome collapsed for many of the same reasons that Western Civilization is now in a slow collapse.
Eventually, it's the crushing debt that cannot be paid.

If we can't keep them out...
At least send them to sanctuary cities...


Why Relocating Illegal Aliens To Sanctuary Cities Is A Brilliant, Win-Win Idea

Trump’s law-and-order supporters seemed stunned. His critics suspected a vengeful trap. Few saw it as what could become the most magnanimous gesture of his presidency.

April 22, 2019

Until the border wall with Mexico is built, what do we do with the illegal immigrants already in federal detention, and the million more expected to cross into our country this year? Nobody had any idea what to do.

In making an amnesty deal with Democrats, as rumors say his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are brokering, Trump risks angering his base by allowing tens of millions of foreign law-breakers to move ahead of those who respected our country’s laws and people by applying for citizenship lawfully.

Then, out of the blue on April 12, President Trump tweeted a win-win solution: Relocate foreign trespassers to states and communities that have already voted to welcome them. “We are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities only,” he tweeted.

His law-and-order supporters seemed stunned. His critics suspected a vengeful trap. Few saw it as what could become the most magnanimous gesture of his presidency.

The president’s controversial move offers a political jackpot to liberals and socialists from coast to coast. Within a matter of months, Trump would expand leftists’ constituencies in states and towns that voted to become “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants. Even better, this idea would grant sanctuary to countless foreign citizens from the frigid clutches of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. No sanctuary area is known to have placed a cap on the number of people it would welcome, so the opportunities are endless.

Trump has taken “winning” to a new level. Under his plan, everybody wins. Legal and constitutional hurdles stand in the way, to be sure. But the nation needs an interim solution, and Trump has found it.
What This Grand Compromise Would Accomplish

First, the illegal immigrants would be sent only to progressive locales that celebrate diversity and inclusion with official sanctuary policies. This is means the poor, huddled masses wouldn’t be trucked to hurtful, bigoted, and racist communities in red states and other places with more respect for the nation’s laws. And they can stay as long as they like.

Many of those sanctuaries are among the nicest places in America. Foreign law-breakers can relocate to the posh and overwhelmingly white Nassau County, New York, or the Washington, DC suburb of Montgomery County, Maryland. Or much of the Pacific Northwest.

Trump’s political opponents would win bigly, too. The president’s plan would instantly expand his top opponents’ base of minorities to cultivate and aggrieve. Trump would instantly make sanctuary cities and states more ethnically, linguistically, and socially diverse.

Like Nassau and Montgomery counties on the east coast, the median income in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s sanctuary San Francisco district is in the six figures. Moving in thousands of illegals will lower the median income level to something more in line with the rest of the world’s. How about that equality.

Trump’s plan doesn’t neglect rural America. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ sanctuary state of Vermont is a shocking 95 percent white. By receiving thousands of new illegal immigrants every year, the Green Mountain state’s pale-faced population would quickly become browner and more diverse. And, because Vermont’s population growth rate is just one-quarter the national average, the sanctuary relocation plan would provide more workers to strengthen the state economy.

The Trump plan miraculously caters to special interests that oppose one another. California’s besieged agriculture industry, about to be wrecked by a $15-an-hour minimum wage, will receive new influxes of illegal immigrant laborers they can pay under the table, and the feds won’t be able to do a thing. Meanwhile the dying United Farm Workers union, whose members keep leaving in droves, could get a fresh injection of dues-payers.

The compromise would help Democrat political machines keep control in cities and states, but, because the sanctuary states themselves are already progressive, the population increase would have no effect on the Electoral College. Win-win again.
Let’s Have an Equitable Distribution of Law-Breakers

The Center for Immigration Studies has compiled a list and interactive map that could guide where the illegal immigrants can live. According to CIS, eight entire states have become sanctuaries: California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.

Let’s presume that, without a wall on the Mexican border, 1 million illegal aliens will cross into the United States in 2019 and every year thereafter. That’s what the trendlines suggest right now. The above eight states total about 81,130,000 residents. For equitable distribution, each state will receive 8,113 illegal immigrants for every million current residents. Here’s how an equitable relocation formula can work:

California, with 39,776,830 residents, would receive 322,709 illegal immigrants in 2019;
Colorado, with 5,684,023 residents, would receive 46,114;
Illinois, population 12,768,320, receives 103,589;
Massachusetts, with 6,895,917 people, takes 55,947 illegal immigrants;
New Jersey, population 9,032,872, gets 73,284;
New Mexico: sparsely populated with 2,090,708, houses 16,962;
Oregon, with 4,256,350 residents, takes in 34,532; and
Vermont, population 623,960, absorbs 5,062 illegal immigrants in 2019.

Of course, cities, counties, and towns in many of the other 42 states have declared themselves sanctuary zones. Targeted distribution to sanctuary cities, towns, and counties would spread the wealth beyond entire sanctuary states. So we would recalculate the distribution of illegal immigrants to all sanctuary jurisdictions.

Baltimore has almost the same population as the state of Vermont, so including sanctuary cities in addition to the eight states lowers the distribution ratio below 8,113 illegal immigrants per million citizens. Major population centers like New York City (population 8.5 million) and nearby Nassau County (1.7 million), plus Albany, Ithaca, and four other counties have declared themselves sanctuaries, but the rest of New York has not.

Those jurisdictions alone add another 11 million-plus people to the 81 million in the eight sanctuary states, So the per-capita distribution would go even lower.
How to Pay for Everything

ICE can use current taxpayer funds to move the illegal immigrants to sanctuary localities, in a makeshift compromise between enforcing federal law (to detain and deport) and respecting state and local law (jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement), and deliver the immigrants directly to those states and communities.
It’s a curious twist that allows big-government progressives to enjoy federalism, too.

The sanctuary states and communities would develop their own policies to cover the costs of settlement and welfare. Sanctuary state and local taxpayers would bear sole responsibility for funding what they voted to enact.

As with federal funding of state and local highways and schools, recipient communities are obligated to abide by federal laws and regulations to receive federal funding. They are not forced to accept federal money, but if they do accept, they must observe federal laws and regulations. For example, states must enforce the federal alcohol drinking age of 21 to receive federal tax dollars for roads, or Department of Education provisions to receive federal school funds. Those practices, in place for decades, are no longer controversial.

Since sanctuary locales, by definition, violate or refuse to observe federal laws, such jurisdictions logically forego federal taxpayer funding. This is fair to the taxpayers in jurisdictions that did not vote for ignoring federal laws.

This Trump compromise, if one accepts the gravity of what’s becoming a national crisis, is both consistent with the founding principles of states’ rights and local self-government. That should appeal to federalists. And it prevents federal intrusion into sanctuary states and localities should they wish not to obey federal law, a curious twist that allows big-government progressives to enjoy federalism, too. So it’s win-win.
C’Mon, Democrats, Don’t Be Bigots Now

There are, of course, occasional mean-spirited people who oppose the Trump compromise.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced it as “vengeful.” She sounded as if, in her heart, she doesn’t really find illegal immigration an enrichment of the diverse social fabric of America. Indeed, some critics sound like they find the very thought of illegal immigrants being relocated to their own communities repulsive.

“I understand helping struggling immigrants but my city (Los Angeles) isn’t taking care of its own,” clucked Cher the entertainer two days after Trump raised his plan. “What about the 50,000+ citizens who live on the streets?” she tweeted (edited for clarity). “People who live below poverty line & hungry? If my state can’t take care of its own (many are vets), how can it take care of more?”

Trump knew he’d bridged the political gap. He had achieved the impossible by finding common ground. The president tweeted back, “I finally agree with Cher!”


https://thefederalist.com/2019...lliant-win-win-idea/