Should California include funding earmarked to defend those facing deportation? (cost of, work)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Yes, exactly. It's become a monster problem because it wasn't taken care of years ago. Now it's a politician platform and keeps us divided.

Thanks for sharing your story. I have a similar one. Back in the early 70's, my late husband and I signed for a man who wanted to attain citizenship. He was working under a visa at the place where my husband worked. A very nice man from (what was still referred to as ) Czechoslovakia. He was/is a good man, too. He told us he would send letters (with a little money) to his parents who were still living in his homeland. When he could speak with them, he asked if they received his letters and the money. They told him they got the letters but no money inside. He wanted to get them out of there but they were stubborn and old and set in their ways, so to speak. We were shocked that they were living under such oppression. I learned at an early age that America, with all its warts, is still a pretty great place to live and not surprised that so many want to come here.

Just wish everyone could get their act together and do it properly.

One of the many problems is that illegals are hurting in many ways since allowed here illegally. The claim is they are being helped. OK actually help them become citizens, not hide in the shadows as illegals. Wait it keeps their children who are now adults voting for the ones who ignore Federal law and inf act conspire against it. All to the harm of the illegals. Try having them all register, indicate who they work for and what they make and watch how quick a law like that would be shot down by the Left and Right since it would expose their political contributors who hire them and pay them illegally, over work them and such. They don't really care about them at all.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

You ignored this:

Even a pro illegal immigration group noted the problem with the illegals as in 1st generation, as 2nd generation are ... birthers and thus are legal.

For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost to state and local budgets of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each. In contrast, second and third-plus generation adults create a net positive of about $1,700 and $1,300 each, respectively, to state and local budgets. These estimates imply that the total annual fiscal impact of first generation adults and their dependents, averaged across 2011-13, is a cost of $57.4 billion, while second and third-plus generation adults create a benefit of $30.5 billion and $223.8 billion, respectively.

Illegals damage it and legal residents add to it. The offspring, if legal immigrants would contribute just as much if not more as the 2nd etc generation from illegal parents, so illegals are NOT needed and cost a LOT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/o...t-us.html?_r=0

There is debate about this, but we mainly see "so and so" disagrees and with no supporting documentation. Here a pro report acknowledges the problem and tries to cover it with 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation figures. The 1st generation is the illegal group and a problem. The other are all citizens due to birther law.

The data came from solid sources and Wiki is an OK source that I use at times, but not that solid. In this case we see pro arguments, "estimates" with no evidence. When a pro and anti source arrive at similar figures it tells us something. Please note no one dealt with that article in Wiki at all.

Didnt "ignore" anything. Didnt argue any position, pro or con, other than that your sourcing was in serious doubt. Pointed out that there was a lot of qualified dispute to the Heritage Foundation and similar data, analysis, and conclusions. Which is also the case with the NY times piece. Wiki is a variable source. It can be superficial and lousy with errors ... it can be spot on precise ... depends on who submits the data / information. In the case linked for your review, the data / information was a very well spread submission with excellent sources identified. The point of providing that one was exactly that. It demonstrates that the accounting / analysis required to arrive at any firm conclusion such as you opined as absolute proof - is pretty much impossible. Too many variables.

[Harpaint]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

Illegal aliens vote for Democrats and that is why this state is so screwed. They have the power to do things like this to make sure they stay in power foreaver.

How do illegal aliens vote?

[Harpaint]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

you quoted they pay prop taxes so they must have bought houses. im asking if the banks lend to them? if not, then they mush have paid in cash (WOW) just like those rich Chinese parking their wealth here

Banks do lend to them.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Running a solid 92% no. That's good.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Harpaint

Banks do lend to them.

they must be high earners to get loans. I remember federal govt doesn't want anything to do with them so forget about HUD insuring their mortgages. so they must have 20%DP

[thelopez2]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

they must be high earners to get loans. I remember federal govt doesn't want anything to do with them so forget about HUD insuring their mortgages. so they must have 20%DP

Banks were loaning to them and keeping them in their portfolio. Some of those rates were 6%. When the bailout helped others with HARP dropping their rates to under 4% , if the loans were owned by Fannie and Freddie, those borrowers were SOL and couldn't refinance if they were distressed.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

You'll note - if you bother to read - that there is a wealth of information from quality sources that legitimately challenges your Heritage Foundation conclusion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econ..._United_States

"Everything in Wikipedia is true." -- Abraham Lincoln

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

"Everything in Wikipedia is true." -- Abraham Lincoln

Perhaps you missed the earlier commentary half dozen posts back regarding this very point. You should go back and read before knee-jerking. Wiki can be terrible - to - spot-on depending on sourcing documentation provided. To find out which this reference was, go back and look.

In any case, Wiki isnt editorializing. Merely presented citations for sources. Thesources challenging the Heritage report are many and various .... including analysis and objections to the Heritage methodologies and conclusions, "from conservative think tanks and studies."

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

"Everything in Wikipedia is true." -- Abraham Lincoln

This is why I added the in a previous post: Last week, as soon as the National Academy of Sciences issued “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration,” its 509-page report, interest groups on the left and right immediately claimed vindication.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/o...t-us.html?_r=1

It is a left leaning group, and a source beyond the heritage Foundation, but the facts presented show the problem as you can see in a previous post and its info was not challenged. The cost is HIGH for the illegals and their minor children/dependents but not for their children once they enter the work force as ... citizens.

"first generation adults and their dependents, averaged across 2011-13, is a cost of $57.4 billion"