It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Each Illegal Immigrant Family Cost Arizona $19,600 per Year

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Law Prof. Kris Koback who drafted the Arizona Immigration Law, said on this morning's Bill Bennett radio show that illegal immigrants cost Arizona $19,600 per family each year. If you choose to listen to the entire interview (12:59) the quote below comes at the 9:20 mark.



"The factor that almost always drives cities and states to act [...] the number one factor is cost. Illegal immigration is not [...] something that brings in lots of productive workers that suddenly makes it possible for our bloated Social Security system to work. On the contrary, if you bring in under-educated people [...] who are net consumers of public goods. It's been calculated that the average illegal alien household consumes $19,600 in goods and public services every year, more than it contributes. As a result it breaks the budget."

Unlike the federal government [...] states have to actually balance their budget. When you're looking for reasons why your budget is going out of control and into the red, illegal immigration ranks right up there at the top of the list.

www.billbennett.com...
(Direct podcast link)


Despite the cries of "racism" that you hear from some groups, the main drive of this is cost. Arizona just can't afford go keep taking in more illegal aliens. The gross cost for providing services to illegal aliens along with the criminal court costs is over $2 billion per year. It's breaking them financially and I suspect that this is one of the main reasons why California is in such a bad financial situation as well. The phrase "Follow the money" gets repeated enough around here that I'm surprised people are actually buying into the line that this is about racism.


The crux of the problem is not illegal immigration, it is paying welfare to the illegal immigrants that is killing the Arizona and California economy.



it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.


And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
-Milton Friedman





[edit on 22-6-2010 by dbates]




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I'll say this yet again, maybe if our governments stop targeting illegals and start targeting the people who hire them, we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place. It's the only viable solution that everyone can agree with. But of course then we wouldn't be so divided like they want us to be, would we?

Isn't anyone else sick of treating the symptoms of our country's problems and not the root causes?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Thats is a LOT of TAXPAYERS money!!

Whats worst is that these illegals, who spend most of their time trying to con the system, while spending the rest of their time making lots of anchor babies, and committing various crimes, are BEING TREATED LIKE ROYALTY compared to VETERANS, and others who sacrificed via one way or another for this country.

That is very sad. THESE ILLEGALS HAVENT SACRIFICE ANYTHING FOR THIS COUNTRY.

Why are tax payers who contribute and fought for this country paying for these CRIMINALS??!!

WHY??



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


You hit the nail on the head! If they couldn't find employment, then they wouldn't come.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


I do belive Arizona has a law or a bill that does in fact target the people who hire illgals.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
This is an insane figure. It will be very interesting to see if the law makes a difference. I'm betting it will but not to the degree that they hope.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Although that is a part of the problem, it is... still only a part of the problem.

Agreed: Go after the companies who hire them. But we also need to realize a lot of the state's costs are due to those NOT working (hence, not any relation to businesses hiring them) but those who come in order to suck up free social services.

So the 'Go after the businesses who hire them!' is starting to become a cop out regurgitate spiel. It's a part of the problem but not the whole problem. Some come here with no intention of finding work but having an anchor baby and then latching onto the government teat.

Get it now? It's not always the businesses who hire them. New material is needed.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 

Arizona was the first state to mandate that all new hires use the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify. Of course people could still be paid under the table. Milton Friedman actually claims that this isn't a bad thing. It's the welfare we pay out to the illegals that is killing the system.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
We have a similar problem here in California.

For years, the politicians turned a blind eye to illegal immigration.

The cost to the state of California is 10 billion per year.

Now, we are broke.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   


Each Illegal Immigrant Family Cost Arizona $19,600 per Year


They want the states bankrupt, it makes them more subservient.

Once their all broke it forces them to accept a regional government. North American Union.

Glad to see AZ standing up, hope more states do the same.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Are illegal aliens actually collecting welfare checks or is this the cost they have come up with for food stamps, education and medical treatment?
I find the 2 billion dollar figure a bit hard to believe, where did that come from?
I'm not saying they aren't expensive but we really need concise figures to help win the argument here. I am totally against illegal immigration, it is draining valuable resources at a time where actual citizens need more help than ever.
The Obama administration seems hell-bent on doing nothing but encouraging more of them to come to the United States.
Sadly, if the government will not act on behalf of the people the people may have to take matters in their own hands. That would be truly ugly and is NOT something I care to see happen.
Help the American people by stopping this invasion Mr. Obama! Kick them out if they aren't here legally and if they can help defray the cost of shipping them back to where they came from, DO IT!

We also need to change the laws about anchor babies so that if neither parent is a citizen then the child is a citizen of the parent's native country. Also make it retroactive.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


This may be true, and I believe I have heard this also, but are they actually focusing on this aspect of the problem or is it just in there for show? What exactly are they doing to seek out and punish these employers for hiring illegals? Again, it is my firm believe that this is what we need to focus on and not "blaming" illegals for taking what is being GIVEN to them on a silver platter.

No jobs for illegals. No illegals coming to America for jobs.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Those that are on welfare are on welfare because they still can't support their family on the "unfair" wages they make at their illegal jobs. Yes, there are those who don't work at all. Yes, there are "anchor babies". There are many, many different sides to this problem and I believe the MAIN one is that they come here to make so much more money than they ever would in their own country and they KNOW they can get these jobs pretty dang easily. It would SERIOUSLY reduce the illegal immigration rates if they knew they couldn't come here if they couldn't get a job to save their life.

This isn't a "regurgitated spiel" any more than yours is, to be frank.

edit to add: being as you are a moderator I am extremely taken back at the tone of your post. "Post unto others as you would have them post unto you". Do you just like this as your signature because it sounds noble?



[edit on 22-6-2010 by nunya13]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by nunya13]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I understand why you say it should be retroactive, but what do you think about those born here but America is the only home they have ever known, such as a 15 year old? What about an 20 year old? Do you think it should only apply to minor's?

Just trying to understand your take on it



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


You took it as hostile- read the post again. I AGREED with you but then pointed out that the focus on that argument is incorrect. But it is the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. It's being said over and over again that the main responsibility or the main cause is the businesses who employ them. Or to focus the crackdown on the businesses.

Once again, I will say that is only part of the problem. And THAT argument is 'regurgitated spiel.' That is not a personal slight against you but the argument that is parroted over and over again.

I was in agreement with you that businesses who employ them DEFINITELY needing to be held responsible, but 'hostile' towards that line of reasoning saying the entirety of the fault is the business. And it's OK to be angry at half correct facts. Not to be rude but please don't direct your misinterpretation at me or my position at staff. No one should be held responsible for other people's differing sensitivity levels or error. I was in partial agreement with you but attacked that line of argument.

And I will be honest in saying 'But you're a mod' is a deflective and unnecessary rebuttal.

My point stands. As I live within hours of the border, I know exactly what I'm talking about and won't retract it because the truth hurts someone's feelings. Not everyone is here for jobs. Not everyone tries to come here for jobs but can't find them or are not paid enough so they resort to social programs. Many come here just to get those programs.

Many also used forged documents and the businesses don't even know they are employing illegals. So don't take the truth as hostility and don't complain about someone else's position on the site when the argument you use is proven to be wrong. Detach yourself from the argument and with all due respect, only enter the kitchen if you can take the heat.

[edit on 6/22/2010 by AshleyD]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I understand why you say it should be retroactive, but what do you think about those born here but America is the only home they have ever known, such as a 15 year old? What about an 20 year old? Do you think it should only apply to minor's?

Just trying to understand your take on it


All of 'em.
It's the only fair way to do it. Spanish is one of the easiest languages to learn and since their parents speak it I don;t see where that would be much of an issue.
Yes, it would be very hard on some children, on the other hand would you prefer that life be harder on the children whose parents are actual citizens?
We really can't have it both ways..



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


(I removed my "hostile" comment before I saw your response only because it was not the right choice of words, I realized)

You most certainly did not hurt my feelings as it is clear you did not "attack" me in any way. Obviously, you know more than me since you live in a state that experiences the problems first hand. I believe a large part of the problem is the jobs the illegals know are readily available to them. To say that I should not use such an argument because it's "regurgitated spiel" and the to ask me if I "get it now" and that I need "new material" is not exactly promoting a healthy dialogue. Your argument is equally used over and over again, is it not? Would it be right for me to tell you that you shouldn't use it anymore because of the number of times it's been used?

So while I say that we need to go after the businesses and you say deport the illegals, how is it that one of us is really any more correct than the other when these are both parts of the problem as you yourself said? Obviously, we do need a multi-faceted approach on how to solve the problem. I did say mine was the most important and after responding to you and taking into consideration what you are saying, I realize that I was most likely wrong about that, but it is no less important than any other solution.

If anything, the main problem is lack of action on the part those who are charged with handling these things. And while Arizona is taking action, I believe the backlash is due to the one-sided solution to target those who might be illegal. Granted it was in the new legislation to also go after businesses who hire illegals, but this has definitely been a very minor aspect of the debate as there seems to be no evidence (that I have seen) that they are equally committed to enforcing this part of the bill as they are to the part about getting the illegals the heck out of the country.

My main point is that this will only be solved if we attack this problem from all angles. I personally haven't seen this as being the case and I have a problem with that I think others should to. The one thing that unites most of us is that we agree there is a problem. How it should be solved is what we disagree on. I guess I am sensitive to the fact that the tone of the mainstream argument is to demonize and denigrate those who are here illegally. And my sensitivity may be unwarranted in the eyes of others, but I am sensitive to it nonetheless because I can't help but see it that way.

edit: finish unfinished sentence





[edit on 22-6-2010 by nunya13]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I guess I'm trying to put myself in their shoes. I'm 29 years old. What if my parents were here illegally and I've never even stepped foot outside of this country (which I haven't). You think I should be deported, sent to their home country, and punished for my parents actions?

edit to remove referrence to specific country.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by nunya13]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I wonder what the total benefit of illegal aliens is, though?

Illegal aliens pay some taxes. While many work under the table, some have withholdings taken from their paychecks. Further more, illegal aliens pay sales taxes.

Illegal aliens also contribute to the tax base in other ways. If illegal alien makes a business profitable, those profits would enrich the tax base. Illegal aliens also provide cheap childcare enabling tax paying mothers to go out and work and contribute to the tax base.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

The gross cost for providing services to illegal aliens along with the criminal court costs is over $2 billion per year.


OK, what would the cost be to set up a system that would actually work to keep illegals out? More than 2 bill? Gotta look at the tally sheet.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join