Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good Lord, you are getting all excited because we are 'only' spending $36 BILLION on illegals for welfare and social services? We should not have to be spending anything because they should not be here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknight04
A few years ago there was a set of factoids supposedly from the Los Angeles Times. The factoids were spread via email and were posted on various blogs and websites to the extent that the LA Times itself put on its own website a statement that said factoids did NOT originate from the LA Times. In addition, the LA Times refuted the content of the factoids. Many of the factoids were found to be lies or unsubstantiated claims.
In 2006, an email was circulating that included similar factoids. It claimed that said factoids came from an INS/FBI report. The fact that the INS hadn’t existed for years didn’t stop people from spreading the email as if it were factual. Many of the factoids were copies of the LA Times factoids. Some new ones were added. Most of the factoids were found to be lies or unsubstantiated claims.
A columnist by the name of Frosty Woolridge came up with the series of lies for 2007. As expected, most of the factoids are untrue. Some are outright lies, but others are based on actual facts but exaggerated to make the effect of illegal aliens to seem more severe. Some of the factoids seem to have an actual basis.
Below are the factoids presented by Woolridge along with the actual data.
How Much Further Into This Nightmare?By Frosty Wooldridge1-22-7
Quote
1. $11 billion to $22 billion spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd 8
The link provided leads to a FAIR report. The report states that each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants. A reference is made to footnote 2. Footnote 2 refers to a report by Center for Immigration Studies CIS “Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform”. The CIS report contains no documentation to support the claim that FAIR made.
A chart in the CIS report finds that 24.3% of illegal immigrant households used some welfare program. The average payment was $1,040. The report says there were about 8 million illegal immigrants in the country in 2002. Estimate 3 persons per household. The result is less than $1 billion. The FAIR report does not state how they arrived at the $11 billion to $22 billion figure from the CIS report.
Conclusion: This number should be zero dollars.
Quote:
2. $2.2 billion dollars a year spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
The report linked to states that food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches imposed a cost of $1.9 billion. However, the figure is only an estimate.
Conclusion:This number should be zero dollars.
Quote:
3. $2.5 billion dollars a year spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The report linked to does state that Medicaid for illegal aliens cost $2.5 billion. However, the figure is only an estimate.
Conclusion:This number should be zero dollars.
Quote:
4. $12 billion dollars a year spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
The link refers to the April 1, 2006 transcript of Lou Dobbs Tonight. In the transcript, reporter Christine Romans states that The Federation for American Immigration Reform says taxpayers spend $12 billion a year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally.
A report by FAIR from 2005 entitled “Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red” provides the basis for these claims. What the FAIR report blatantly fails to include are the taxes paid by the immigrants and the return on the investment of education.
A family with two children in school pays property taxes of $3,000 per year. The cost to the school district is $16,000 resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of $13,000 per year. However, before and after the children are in school, the family pays real estate taxes. In addition, after the children graduate, their education will result in increased earnings potential. Some studies have found that merely graduating high school increases a student’s lifetime earnings potential by as much as 40%. The result is a net benefit to society as a whole.
Conclusion: When there are 4 families living in a one family home, these people are not paying their fair share of property taxes. This also assumes the adults have been in the US paying property taxes for all of the children's lives. Nor does it take into consideration the high HS dropout rate of hispanics in general.
6. $3 million dollars a day spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
The link refers to the April 1, 2006 transcript of Lou Dobbs Tonight. In the transcript, reporter Christine Romans states that according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, taxpayers spend more than $3 million every day to house non-U.S. citizen in our federal prisons. Read the statement carefully. Christine Romans refers to non-U.S. citizens.
Conclusion: This number should be zero.
Quote:
7. 29 percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
The link refers to the April 1, 2006 transcript of Lou Dobbs Tonight. In the transcript, reporter Christine Romans states that according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 percent of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that 73.6 % of inmates are U.S. citizens thereby 26.4% are not U.S. citizens. http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#1 The number who are illegal aliens would therefore be much lower.
Conclusion: This number should be zero percent.
Quote:
8. $90 billion dollars a year spent on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
The link refers to the October 29, 2006 transcript of Lou Dobbs Tonight. The transcript quotes Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation as saying, “the total cost of services and benefits provided to them, education, welfare, general social services would be about $90 billion a year.”
Rector has conducted an extensive study that estimated the costs of illegal immigrant households on taxpayers. The study concluded that, in 2004, there were 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households with an average net fiscal deficit of $19,588 per household, the total annual fiscal deficit for all of these households together equaled $89.1 billion. Notice that Rector uses the term "immigrant" households. In his analysis only 40% of these households are headed by illegal immigrants. The other 60% are headed by legal immigrants. So only 40% of the $90 billion can be attributed to illegal immigrants, i.e. $36 billion. Because illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive some government services, the actual estimate would have to be even below that figure.
Over and over again we are seeing misstatement of facts. Every misstatement makes the effects of illegal immigration seem worse than it actually is. Woolridge is intentionally manipulating the wording in order to create a false impression.
Conclusion: This number should be zero dollars.
Quote:
9. $200 billion Dollars a year in lost-suppressed American wages caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
The link refers to the April 1, 2006 transcript of Lou Dobbs Tonight. In this transcript, host Lou Dobbs states, “That economy, we know the estimates by the most authoritative and recent study put the suppressed wages at $200 billion a year, as a result of immigration, both legal and illegal.”
The report Dobbs was referring to was an estimate by Dr. George Borjas, a Harvard University professor. Dr. Borjas considered the effects of immigration from 1980 through 2000. Had the study considered the effects of immigration after the year 2000, a higher calculation may have resulted. In this case Woolridge cites a fact.
Conclusion: This number should be zero dollars.[/quote]
Last edited by andreabeth; 01-03-2008 at 08:04 AM..
At one time we had a number of drug dealers near our neighborhood. The facts were that they...
*Brought new commerce into the area. Many outsiders got to come here and see the area, who might otherwise never have known it,,,
*They provided employment for many young men,who in turn supplied jobs for OTHER young men. These jobs benefited those who, for whatever reason, had chosen not to use the public school system. Yet many of them were able to make a good income.
*The situation got citizens involved in city government. Many who had until then been apathetic found themselves attending city council meetings. Some even talked to police officers..
*These young entrepreneurs provided a product much in demand. Some of their clients were quite affluent, and were willing to go 'out of their way' to obtain what they wanted.
*The income generated by these young men benefitted local business--particularly electronics dealers, shoe stores, clothiers, and jewelers. These businesses all enjoyed a real 'boom' when these young men spent their income.
*Public Schools benefitted too, as some of the most restless, hard-to-reach students simply stayed away from school in order to take "street jobs'.
Nevertheless, despite ALL these benefits, the consensus among the neighbors was that the drug trade was, overall, a NEGATIVE force in the community. They took steps to work with the authorities, and the business was brought to an end (or moved elsewhere).
Some things which are called "beneficial", really are not.....Drug trafficking is one. Illegal immigration is another.
Well, $1 spent on illegals is too much, if you ask me. Unless that $1 is spent to deport them. Then I say spend however many billions it takes.
Yeah, I don't get the argument that "these illegals are not costing us any money - they give back, bladdy, blah, blah". Even if they DID, what difference does it make? They're illegal!!
What is it about "illegal" that at least 20% of the population cannot understand?
The problem with today's fanaticisim over the illegals in America is that it is masking a fundamental question by continually harping that what these people are doing is illegal. That fundamental question is should Freedom of Movement be considered a Human Right? In other words, should people have the freedom to live in whatever geographical area they choose provided they live the laws and pay the taxes of that area? If Arizona were to close it's borders and not allow Californians or other US Citizens from any other state to move there and setup residence, it would cause quite a stir among all slices of political thought. The assumption is it is a RIGHT of every American citizen to choose where they want to live in America. If this is true, then cannot this be also applied to every human on this planet? Is it not a human right for anyone to live where they want provided they live the laws of the land and pay the taxes?
No single person on this planet chose the country they were born in. Without this human right, what freedom can their really be? Must someone accept the fate that they were born with? Is their no recourse that allows a person to change their place of residence? You may say yes... only through a legal application. However, it is common fact that most people's applications for legal immigration are turned down because they are not educated enough or rich enough which is a blatent form prejudice.
In 100 years from now, people will wonder how people in our generation could be so predujiced, so short sighted. They will wonder how life was like traveling everywhere with a passport always having to worry about getting a visa just to visit a country. They will not comprehend the fact that we, the land of the free, purposely prohibited people from moving and living where they wanted. They will wonder how we could be so intollerant, much in the same way we wonder this about our own ancestors that were prejudiced against the africans and the native americans. Will we ever learn that this world belongs to everyone?
The problem with today's fanaticisim over the illegals in America is that it is masking a fundamental question by continually harping that what these people are doing is illegal. That fundamental question is should Freedom of Movement be considered a Human Right? In other words, should people have the freedom to live in whatever geographical area they choose provided they live the laws and pay the taxes of that area? If Arizona were to close it's borders and not allow Californians or other US Citizens from any other state to move there and setup residence, it would cause quite a stir among all slices of political thought. The assumption is it is a RIGHT of every American citizen to choose where they want to live in America. If this is true, then cannot this be also applied to every human on this planet? Is it not a human right for anyone to live where they want provided they live the laws of the land and pay the taxes?
No single person on this planet chose the country they were born in. Without this human right, what freedom can their really be? Must someone accept the fate that they were born with? Is their no recourse that allows a person to change their place of residence? You may say yes... only through a legal application. However, it is common fact that most people's applications for legal immigration are turned down because they are not educated enough or rich enough which is a blatent form prejudice.
In 100 years from now, people will wonder how people in our generation could be so predujiced, so short sighted. They will wonder how life was like traveling everywhere with a passport always having to worry about getting a visa just to visit a country. They will not comprehend the fact that we, the land of the free, purposely prohibited people from moving and living where they wanted. They will wonder how we could be so intollerant, much in the same way we wonder this about our own ancestors that were prejudiced against the africans and the native americans. Will we ever learn that this world belongs to everyone?
The only thing in this post that rings true is the 'confused' emoticon at the end of it. You are certainly confused. Freedom of movement is NOT a fundamental human right. While it is true that Americans have the right to live wherever they choose IN America, we do NOT have the right to take up residence anywhere ELSE. Neither does anyONE else.
Living the laws of the land and paying for it (taxes) is a major bone of contention in the illegal immigration debate. The people you are advocating for have ALREADY disqualified themselves by refusing to do just that.
A sovereign nation has the RIGHT to limit immigration and pick and choose WHO it allows in. What you suggest DENIES that right. Are the rights of a free people to be decided so capriciously? I think not. There is no prejudice involved in that decision, it is based on the 'common good' of the receiving country.
Finally, this world may 'belong to everyone' in a collective sense, but that does not give ANYONE the right to take from others in order to benefit themselves. That's called 'STEALING'.
The problem with today's fanaticisim over the illegals in America is that it is masking a fundamental question by continually harping that what these people are doing is illegal. That fundamental question is should Freedom of Movement be considered a Human Right?
Let me ask you a very basic question:
Name one country, on the face of this planet, just ONE, that does not have laws regarding permanent immigration and permanent residency in that country?
The problem with today's fanaticisim over the illegals in America is that it is masking a fundamental question by continually harping that what these people are doing is illegal. That fundamental question is should Freedom of Movement be considered a Human Right? In other words, should people have the freedom to live in whatever geographical area they choose provided they live the laws and pay the taxes of that area? If Arizona were to close it's borders and not allow Californians or other US Citizens from any other state to move there and setup residence, it would cause quite a stir among all slices of political thought. The assumption is it is a RIGHT of every American citizen to choose where they want to live in America. If this is true, then cannot this be also applied to every human on this planet? Is it not a human right for anyone to live where they want provided they live the laws of the land and pay the taxes?
No single person on this planet chose the country they were born in. Without this human right, what freedom can their really be? Must someone accept the fate that they were born with? Is their no recourse that allows a person to change their place of residence? You may say yes... only through a legal application. However, it is common fact that most people's applications for legal immigration are turned down because they are not educated enough or rich enough which is a blatent form prejudice.
In 100 years from now, people will wonder how people in our generation could be so predujiced, so short sighted. They will wonder how life was like traveling everywhere with a passport always having to worry about getting a visa just to visit a country. They will not comprehend the fact that we, the land of the free, purposely prohibited people from moving and living where they wanted. They will wonder how we could be so intollerant, much in the same way we wonder this about our own ancestors that were prejudiced against the africans and the native americans. Will we ever learn that this world belongs to everyone?
Would you see any problem with 500 million Chinese who decided to move to the US?
Do you support the Iraq war? I mean, using your logic, there is nothing to prevent an invading army from entering a country. Before you respond with, "That's different," or "Anyone except invading armies enjoy the 'right' of movement," realize that by responding in this manner you are imposing restrictions on what you claim should be a right. As such, whose right is it to set restrictions? Certainly not yours alone. Could it be perhaps...just maybe...the right of the host citizenry to set and apply restrictions to immigration?
Don't be prejudiced against the citizens of the US. It's our country. We decide. Just because your views are in the minority and oppose current law does not lend them any weight (well, duh!)
Must someone accept the fate he was born with? Is this a serious question? Please think this through.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are human rights truly illegal?
