Hillary's Immigration Stance Will Cost America Billions$$$$$$

I was reading an article in The Washington Times that nearly made me spit out my coffee.

Immigration is a massive drain on the government, with immigrants taking as much as $296 billion more in benefits than they pay in taxes, according to a new authoritative study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, which found the record level of newcomers is straining the country.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Hillary has mentioned that she intends on bringing over 60,000 Syrian refugees into our country if elected POTUS.

Since the shooting in Orlando earlier this month, Trump has been warning Americans that Clinton's immigration plan would open the floodgates to Muslim immigrants, and make the nation even more vulnerable to Orlando-style massacres.

What Trump is referring to is Clinton's plan to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees, an increase from the 10,000 Obama promised to resettle last September. The proposal would require additional funding from the federal government, although far from the "hundreds of billions of dollars" Trump claims it would. In 2014, the government budgeted $582 million to resettle 70,000 refugees; Clinton's proposal to resettle 65,000 refugees would add 55,000 refugees to that 70,000 cap, which amounts to about $450 million in additional funding.

www.vice.com...
According to data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Hillary plans on resettling nearly one million Muslims be the end of her first term if elected POTUS!

Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year, means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as President. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her Presidency, she could potentially resettle as many as 856,000 during her first term alone. Analysis from the Senate Immigration Subcommittee found that Clinton’s plan to expand refugee resettlement could cost U.S. taxpayers over $400 billion.

www.breitbart.com...
Yeah, you read it right, over $400 billion! Oops, I just dribbled some coffee from my mouth again! I hope Trump gets to mention this fact in the 1st presidential debate in Hempstead, NY.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Do you have a link to the actual study from the Academy?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well I don't belive anything a MSM source like the Washington Times says.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well I don't belive anything a MSM source like the Washington Times says.

They quoted a study, and then didn't actually bother to source it.

Typical.

However, nobody ever expected immigration reform to be cheap. Throwing them all out or keeping them will turn out to be expensive regardless.

~Tenth

Going the same way as EU countries, And look at Germany , Cyprus , Greece and others. Loose immigration policies are collapsing their economies. Merkel lost Germany in the recent elections because of this.
Yet Obama and Clinton want to travel down that same road. Are they complete idiots ? At this point....
And I didnt even mention rioting , increased terrorist activity////

All part of the ongoing Cloward-Piven strategy.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well I don't belive anything a MSM source like the Washington Times says.

They quoted a study, and then didn't actually bother to source it.

Typical.

However, nobody ever expected immigration reform to be cheap. Throwing them all out or keeping them will turn out to be expensive regardless.

~Tenth

I'll try to find the source, but I read somewhere that illegal immigrants account for almost a trillion dollars in economic activity each year.

All the numbers have to be looked at as one entire picture, not just nit-picked to fit agendas.

She's a progressive.

Hillary and her democratic legion do not care about spending our money...progressives believe EVERYTHING belongs to them...especially when it involves taxation and control...

Remember this is a war of ideas and autocrats will disallow questions regarding their divine right to rule...the divinity is given their superior intellect...I mean al Gore was a C+ student and the media tried to tell me Gore was "too smart for average Americans".....isn't an average American a C student??
Nevermind....do not apply logic to democratic rule by the progressives...they know what's best...thanks Hillary

-Christosterne

a reply to: introvert

If you read the article, it states that The Washington Post received a final draft from The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. The report comes out tomorrow, Sept. 22.

in a final draft of the report, which The Washington Times obtained.

The report, due to be released Thursday afternoon, challenges many of the assumptions concerning how well the U.S. can handle the current levels of immigration, which run about 1 million a year, including both legal and illegal arrivals.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Here's a link to the Academies web page in case you're interested:
www.nationalacademies.org...

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I love estimates, round down when convenient, round up when convenient.

Hillary's plan is for an additional 65,000 per year. The rest of it is already a done deal, that's the numbers you're talking about. 30% of the total. Like your article says, $450 million per year. Over 4 years that's 1.8 billion (out of about 16,000 billion in spending). For the life of me, I can't figure out how they're getting 400 billion from that. That would mean 100 billion per year, which is 400x what's currently being spent.

a reply to: introvert
Here's a source for you, from a Senator from Alabama:

An analysis by the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest finds the refugee plan of presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

www.sessions.senate.gov...

a reply to: Christosterone

No, they really don't.
And Hillary is hardly a progressive, at best she would be a PINO.
Great strawman tho.

This last part is not directed solely at you but by all means answer if you want.

Why wouldn't the Washington Times be considered a MSM source just pushing an agenda and trying to divide us like so many other outlets are labeled?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Christosterone

No, they really don't.
And Hillary is hardly a progressive, at best she would be a PINO.
Great strawman tho.

This last part is not directed solely at you but by all means answer if you want.

Why wouldn't the Washington Times be considered a MSM source just pushing an agenda and trying to divide us like so many other outlets are labeled?

Jesus...really?

Let me see if a definition works...you can read, right? If so, look at number 2

pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective
1.
happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating; More
2.
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform, liberal ideas.
"a relatively progressive governor"
noun
1.
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian
"he is very much a progressive"
2.
GRAMMAR
a progressive tense or aspect.

The cost doesn't matter, just like the cost doesn't matter with Obamacare. We'll just print more money for entitlements and act like everything is ok.

a reply to: Christosterone

Yes really, she talks the talk but that is just to pander.
Like I said she is at best a progressive in name only and nothing more than an establishment tool.

Looks like hooked on phonics worked for me, I was able to read!
Sad you have to turn to ad homs so fast.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: shawmanfromny

I love estimates, round down when convenient, round up when convenient.

Hillary's plan is for an additional 65,000 per year. The rest of it is already a done deal, that's the numbers you're talking about. 30% of the total. Like your article says, $450 million per year. Over 4 years that's 1.8 billion (out of about 16,000 billion in spending). For the life of me, I can't figure out how they're getting 400 billion from that. That would mean 100 billion per year, which is 400x what's currently being spent.

They neglected to mention the Clinton foundation fees, er, I mean donations. It's been standard practice to pay the CF for access and political appointments for years, I don't think the practice is going to stop, considering Hillary has the FBI and doj in her pocket.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well I don't belive anything a MSM source like the Washington Times says.

They quoted a study, and then didn't actually bother to source it.

Typical.

However, nobody ever expected immigration reform to be cheap. Throwing them all out or keeping them will turn out to be expensive regardless.

~Tenth

I would rather pay a million to prevent cancer than a million fighting cancer.

a reply to: Bluntone22

And that prevention isnt full proof and so there is still the spending treating it.