Los Angeles County spends $1.4 billion on illegal aliens, plus...

[SociallyRenderedImage]

Amnesty and open borders socialists probably won't like this article:

Los Angeles County spends $1.4 billion on illegal aliens, plus $600 million for their children (http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_15966333)




...Los Angeles County officials said they have actually seen an increase in the costs of providing services to undocumented immigrants and in the number of citizen children of undocumented parents receiving Food Stamps and welfare benefits.

The amount of money the county spends on health, welfare and criminal justice services for undocumented immigrants increased from $1 billion in 2008 to $1.4 billion in 2009, according to figures provided by county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. By including the education costs for the children of undocumented immigrants, Antonovich's spokesman, Tony Bell, said the annual costs now exceed $2 billion.

...From January to July, the number of citizen children of undocumented parents receiving Food Stamps in the county increased 4 percent from 103,238 to 107,504, according to the Department of Public Social Services.


That is just ONE county in California.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Amnesty and open borders socialists probably won't like this article:

Los Angeles County spends $1.4 billion on illegal aliens, plus $600 million for their children (http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_15966333)




That is just ONE county in California.

And stationing thousands and thousands of troops, material, etc. on the border is going to cost any less, and stop immigrants from coming in getting free handouts? You actually believe that? Lets solve government intervention with more government intervention hurrah! (Lets see if you call me a socialist now...:rolleyes: )

[Lord Xar]

And stationing thousands and thousands of troops, material, etc. on the border is going to cost any less, and stop immigrants from coming in getting free handouts? You actually believe that? Lets solve government intervention with more government intervention hurrah! (Lets see if you call me a socialist now...:rolleyes: )

Socialist? I do know that you are an open border apologist who desires a global government and a dissolution of the sovereignty of the United States.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to actual enforce border security? You don't, do you?

Not sure what math class you attended, but I would wager it would cost much much much less to enforce border security than what it currently costs the whole of the United States for this "illegal immigration". Shit, the cost to this one county probably would pay for it all..... You libs really love you some welfare state because you keep preaching for an environment that will just create more.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Socialist? I do know that you are an open border apologist who desires a global government and a dissolution of the sovereignty of the United States.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to actual enforce border security? You don't, do you?

Not sure what math class you attended, but I would wager it would cost much much much less to enforce border security than what it currently costs the whole of the United States for this "illegal immigration". Shit, the cost to this one county probably would pay for it all..... You libs really love you some welfare state because you keep preaching for an environment that will just create more.

I desire a Global Government? Are you kidding me? Yes, I am all for the dissolution of sovereignty of the State -- United States. I am for the sovereignty of the individual, not of the State over the individual.

Why do paleocons despise everyone outside of the borders of the US? While you are at it, to not foster an environment that induces welfarism, lets just deport everyone in all the major urban areas who favor welfarism. If it is welfarism you are against, then just deport everyone who is in favor of it, why just target immigrants? Because it is politically expedient to do so?

Also, it would be ridiculously expensive to guard the borders. 1.4 Billion would pay for maybe 5 hours of watching the borders. The CG annual budget is tens of billions and we interdict maybe 5% of immigrants that come here, where it is our "job" to stop them (and that's just primarily in the south atlantic/Gulf!). I am surprised you think the Government can't do shit every where else, but will magically become this omniscient presence across thousands of miles of beaches, borders, oceans, etc. and will stop everyone who seeks a better life. The East Germans couldn't stop their own people from fleeing for a better life. What makes you think we will have better "border security" than what the East Germans had?


PS: That one county is fucking LA County. One of the most populous areas in the country. -- Los Angeles County (incorporated as the County of Los Angeles)[3] is a county in California and is the most populous county in the United States.

[Kregisen]

The only reason why I'm against illegal immigration is for national security reasons.

I don't believe we should have our borders open and unsecure so terrorists can come in with rpg's or something and start killing people. We have to know who every single person coming through is.

Now obviously to fully secure a border would cost an unimaginable amount. But I imagine if we ended the drug war and got rid of welfare completely, the problem would pretty much already be solved.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The only reason why I'm against illegal immigration is for national security reasons.

I don't believe we should have our borders open and unsecure so terrorists can come in with rpg's or something and start killing people. We have to know who every single person coming through is.

Now obviously to fully secure a border would cost an unimaginable amount. But I imagine if we ended the drug war and got rid of welfare completely, the problem would pretty much already be solved.

Are you aware the 9/11 Hi-jackers were not "illegal" immigrants? This is just paranoia non-sense.

[Kregisen]

Are you aware the 9/11 Hi-jackers were not "illegal" immigrants? This is just paranoia non-sense.

I'm well aware.....irrelevant to my argument though.

Just because there's been more than one way in the past for terrorists to enter into the U.S., doesn't mean we should just give up and say "oh well, there's nothing we can do, let's just let them in"

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am also going to pre-empt everyone who comes into this thread saying we can't have open immigration/travel until Welfare is gone.

"Neither are our middle-class liberals very fond of illegal working-class Mexican immigrants, and so [the ticket] has maintained that illegal Mexican immigration should continue to be restricted until welfare disappears. But then, of course, that has to stay until full employment, etc. So: No Mexicans.

But this is what happens when opportunists begin to sanction the idea of structured destatization, of saying that we can’t repeal Statist Law A until B is repealed, and we can’t repeal B until we get rid of C, etc. To the media, this of course seems very "responsible" and respectable. Sure, it’s respectable; and for the very same reason, it means that we, as libertarians, are advocating the indefinite and hence the permanent freezing in place of the statist structure. The quick victory model turns out, on analysis, to be a quick victory only for the power and income of the opportunists themselves; for the cause of liberty, it means a permanent burial."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm well aware.....irrelevant to my argument though.

Just because there's been more than one way in the past for terrorists to enter into the U.S., doesn't mean we should just give up and say "oh well, there's nothing we can do, let's just let them in"

If they can get into the country legally, what is the point in trying to stop some phantom illegal terrorist menace? It is imminently relevant.

[Kregisen]

If they can get into the country legally, what is the point in trying to stop some phantom illegal terrorist menace? It is imminently relevant.

Well obviously you have to stop them from getting in legally. There's a no-fly list for a reason.

It may still be possible for some to get in legally, but as rare as it may be, I don't see how you can just allow terrorists to walk into the U.S. with AK's and just start massive shootings.

It's entirely possible, even though it hasn't happened....yet.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well obviously you have to stop them from getting in legally. There's a no-fly list for a reason.

It may still be possible for some to get in legally, but as rare as it may be, I don't see how you can just allow terrorists to walk into the U.S. with AK's and just start massive shootings.

It's entirely possible, even though it hasn't happened....yet.

Alright. You have thrown out rationality. I won't be able to convince you, that you are only aggrandizing the State and instituting your own tyranny..so be it.

[JustinTime]

And stationing thousands and thousands of troops, material, etc. on the border is going to cost any less, and stop immigrants from coming in getting free handouts? You actually believe that? Lets solve government intervention with more government intervention hurrah! (Lets see if you call me a socialist now...:rolleyes: )

The best choice would be abolishing the welfare state and having an open border but if we are going to have a welfare state, we have no choice but to guard the border to protect our wallets from (more) moochers.

Sure, border security costs a lot too, but isnt it clear by now that giving in to illegals, allowing them into the country and giving them all sorts of benefits at our expense just encourages more illegal immigration, which in turn encourages more, and so on until the country collapses?

If we are going to spend money, lets do so in a way that doesnt encourage them.

Isnt this just common sense?

[DjLoTi]

Just throwing this out there, but that ONE county in California has about twice as many people as the entire STATE of LA ;)

[romacox]

Amnesty and open borders socialists probably won't like this article:

Los Angeles County spends $1.4 billion on illegal aliens, plus $600 million for their children (http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_15966333)

That is just ONE county in California.

Yes, and that is why business owners can afford to pay them so little. The tax payer subsidizes their slave labor...it ain't cheep to the consumer, only to the employer. The employers who choose to pay a fair wage, and not take advantage of the taxpayer and worker is forced to compete against the ones hiring subsidized low wages.

[Zippyjuan]

If California feels that they are spending too much on illegal aliens they should discontinue to pay them. It is the states (states rights?) which decide to allow or not allow welfare or schooling or drivers licenses for illegal aliens. I would agree with ending such payments. Illegals are not elgible for federal benefits like social securty or medicare. But that is not why most illegals come here anyways. Most are looking for jobs or a better life.

Should we spend more on "securing the borders"? We are already spending three times what we did just ten years ago. It is like healthcare- it can absorb as much money as you are willing to spend on the issue. And still people come here.

But I also believe that the "problem" is being over-hyped for political gain. A couple of facts. One, over the last two years, an average net one million a year have been LEAVING the country. Estimates of those in the country illegally are down two million over that time. Why? Benefit cuts? No. More security? Maybe a little bit. But mostly- the recession has meant fewer jobs. When the economy improves, the numbers will go back up.

In California they have built a wall to keep people out. What has happend? They go over (in one place a removable ramp was found which was big enough to allow a full semi truck to literally drive over the wall), under (hundreds of tunnels have been found) or around it (boats have been spotted on the CA coast abandoned, some found full of aliens taking the sea around).

Secondly, what about crime? Hasn't that been rising too? No, that too is false. Even in Arizona. Crime rates in Arizona are below the national average for comparable sized cities and on top of that has been falling for some six years now.

But we have this "problem" we need polititians to solve for us. Let us create more government jobs. Let us put in more rules where we can check up on people to see if they are citizens or not (this impacts those here legally as well as those here illegally). Raid businesses to check if their employees have the proper "papers". Add the burden to them having to verify the citizenship of would be workers.

My biggest gripe? This sounds so much like the fear of terrorists they used to get the Patriot Act and related legislation passed. How can people be against that and yet favor similar action on the issue if immigration?

[Acala]

My attitude about all this is: If you don't want to give away free stuff, STOP doing it!" Problem solved.

Edit: I also don't give hoot about National Sovereignty. I am concerned with INDIVIDUAL sovereignty and would throw the United States government, tightly wrapped in its flag, under the bus in a second to restore the reign of the individual in this land.

But I want to tease this out a bit:


I am also going to pre-empt everyone who comes into this thread saying we can't have open immigration/travel until Welfare is gone.

"Neither are our middle-class liberals very fond of illegal working-class Mexican immigrants, and so [the ticket] has maintained that illegal Mexican immigration should continue to be restricted until welfare disappears. But then, of course, that has to stay until full employment, etc. So: No Mexicans.

But this is what happens when opportunists begin to sanction the idea of structured destatization, of saying that we can’t repeal Statist Law A until B is repealed, and we can’t repeal B until we get rid of C, etc. To the media, this of course seems very "responsible" and respectable. Sure, it’s respectable; and for the very same reason, it means that we, as libertarians, are advocating the indefinite and hence the permanent freezing in place of the statist structure. The quick victory model turns out, on analysis, to be a quick victory only for the power and income of the opportunists themselves; for the cause of liberty, it means a permanent burial."

Putting aside the strawman argument that anyone who advocates a strategic withdrawal of the state in reality advocates "freezing in place the statist structure", let's see just how consistent you are.

I presume, if you are consistent to the principle implied in your pre-emtive post, that you would support the following:

1. repealing all taxes without cutting any spending;

2. Eliminating all border controls, gun laws, and airline security, but continuing the world empire and the drug war;

3. Eliminating the Fed without legalizing competing currencies;

4. Eliminating all environmental laws but keeping all existing "public" land and water in government hands;

I could really go on and on, but let's see what you say about those.

[james1906]

Sure, border security costs a lot too,

We can just bring our military home, put them on the border, and save money.

[JustinTime]

We can just bring our military home, put them on the border, and save money.

Excellent. Thats what those guys were supposed to be for anyhow.


My attitude about all this is: If you don't want to give away free stuff, STOP doing it!" Problem solved.

Yes of course, but until we actually stop doing it, what choice do we have?

[Acala]

Yes of course, but until we actually stop doing it, what choice do we have?

My point is that the people who are constantly whining about illegal aliens taking all the government giveaways should focus on the REAL problem, which is the giveaways. If you are giving away free stuff, you can't blame people for taking it.

We have as much choice about giveaway policies as we do immigration policies. More so when it is state government controlling the giveaways. So why focus on illegal immigration rather than the policies that make illegal immigration a problem in the first place? Because it is easy to get Americans stirred up into hating foreigners.

[Jace]

If California feels that they are spending too much on illegal aliens they should discontinue to pay them. It is the states (states rights?) which decide to allow or not allow welfare or schooling or drivers licenses for illegal aliens. I would agree with ending such payments. Illegals are not elgible for federal benefits like social securty or medicare. But that is not why most illegals come here anyways. Most are looking for jobs or a better life.

Should we spend more on "securing the borders"? We are already spending three times what we did just ten years ago. It is like healthcare- it can absorb as much money as you are willing to spend on the issue. And still people come here.

But I also believe that the "problem" is being over-hyped for political gain. A couple of facts. One, over the last two years, an average net one million a year have been LEAVING the country. Estimates of those in the country illegally are down two million over that time. Why? Benefit cuts? No. More security? Maybe a little bit. But mostly- the recession has meant fewer jobs. When the economy improves, the numbers will go back up.

In California they have built a wall to keep people out. What has happend? They go over (in one place a removable ramp was found which was big enough to allow a full semi truck to literally drive over the wall), under (hundreds of tunnels have been found) or around it (boats have been spotted on the CA coast abandoned, some found full of aliens taking the sea around).

Secondly, what about crime? Hasn't that been rising too? No, that too is false. Even in Arizona. Crime rates in Arizona are below the national average for comparable sized cities and on top of that has been falling for some six years now.

But we have this "problem" we need polititians to solve for us. Let us create more government jobs. Let us put in more rules where we can check up on people to see if they are citizens or not (this impacts those here legally as well as those here illegally). Raid businesses to check if their employees have the proper "papers". Add the burden to them having to verify the citizenship of would be workers.

My biggest gripe? This sounds so much like the fear of terrorists they used to get the Patriot Act and related legislation passed. How can people be against that and yet favor similar action on the issue if immigration?

Californians overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187 (Save Our State) in 1994, which denied illegal aliens access to welfare benefits, healthcare and public schools.

But Judge Mariana Pfaelzer declared Prop 187 unconstitutional.

"Remember, 187 is the last gasp of a dying white America in California," Democratic Chairman Art Torres said at a rally for Hispanics.

The voters were disregarded and called racists and xenophobes and the proposition died in committee without ever going to the Supreme Court. We didn't want to pay for all these illegal aliens coming here and we had the votes, but the globalists don't care what the voters want. They deny the will of the voters and make us pay anyway.

California had one of the wealthiest and most modern economies in the world with a high standard of living and an educational system widely admired and imitated. Sixteen years after Prop. 187 was passed and subsequently killed, our schools, hospitals and our state budget are in total collapse under the weight of illegal immigration. Our economy is in shambles and we are rapidly devolving into in a Third World society. Property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, fees, fines, etc. keep going up and up for those of us who are still holding on to the old middle class lifestyle that is disappearing here. We are made to pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants, for their food stamps, for their child care, health care, day labor centers, housing, cultural centers, grafitti removal, public defenders, gang task forces, incarceration, etc.

To see our future one only has to look south of the border.

Arizona voters are fighting this devolution, and the Federal government is attacking them to make sure the same thing that has happened to California happens there. It doesn't matter what the voters want. What matters is what the globalists want, and they want mass immigration into this country. We don't want to pay for it but they don't care and they force us to pay anyway. The government loves voters when they support globalism's goals, but ignores the voters we go against them.

[Kregisen]

Alright. You have thrown out rationality. I won't be able to convince you, that you are only aggrandizing the State and instituting your own tyranny..so be it.

I'm just pointing out.....with completely open borders, what's stopping terrorists coming in with weapons/bombs?

If that question is what you think throws out rationality, I'd hate to live in your world.

[JustinTime]

My point is that the people who are constantly whining about illegal aliens taking all the government giveaways should focus on the REAL problem, which is the giveaways.

You havent noticed all the people griping about 'socialism'?


If you are giving away free stuff, you can't blame people for taking it.

You cant blame people for taking it when they are taxed to provide it, if they just got here and havent paid much, yeah, I say we blame them.


We have as much choice about giveaway policies as we do immigration policies. More so when it is state government controlling the giveaways. So why focus on illegal immigration rather than the policies that make illegal immigration a problem in the first place?

We dont have much choice about either, the elite ruling class just does what it wants. We get the worst of both worlds and we night as well point it out.

Besides, are you old enough to remember prop 187 in the 90s? A valliant attempt to deny social services to illegals in California, blasted as 'racist' and overruled by a court.

Attacking the problem in a one dimension way hasnt worked.


Because it is easy to get Americans stirred up into hating foreigners.

No, its easy to dismiss a problem by saying "Day hate furriners" and avoiding any real discussion. Thats the biggest reason why we have 12 million illegals in the country, we cant deal with them rationally, and why this crap seemingly never ends, because if you pull the race card people lose their minds and freeze up.

If what you say was true, if we really got whipped into a foreigner hating frenzy, we'd have anti-immigrant politicians in office now, denying welfare to illegals and building border walls.

[Jace]

You havent noticed all the people griping about 'socialism'?



You cant blame people for taking it when they are taxed to provide it, if they just got here and havent paid much, yeah, I say we blame them.



We dont have much choice about either, the elite ruling class just does what it wants. We get the worst of both worlds and we night as well point it out.

Besides, are you old enough to remember prop 187 in the 90s? A valliant attempt to deny social services to illegals in California, blasted as 'racist' and overruled by a court.

Attacking the problem in a one dimension way hasnt worked.



No, its easy to dismiss a problem by saying "Day hate furriners" and avoiding any real discussion. Thats the biggest reason why we have 12 million illegals in the country, we cant deal with them rationally, and why this crap seemingly never ends, because if you pull the race card people lose their minds and freeze up.

If what you say was true, if we really got whipped into a foreigner hating frenzy, we'd have anti-immigrant politicians in office now, denying welfare to illegals and building border walls.

Good points. The argument always breaks down to accusations of hating foreigners.

If you point out that mass immigration and the sudden huge influx of foreigners into your neighborhood is negatively affecting your life, they say you hate foreigners.

I don't hate Mexicans or Muslims or Indians or anyone else. I just don't want to be invaded by them and have my taxes raised when they demand government assistance for all the upheavals such large population transfers inevitably cause. When I travel to their countries, they put all kinds of rules and restrictions on me. They don't want to be invaded in their homelands either.

[Promontorium]

If an individual has a right to personal property, then a group of individuals have a right to do with their property what they please, hence borders.

If you oppose borders, you implicitly oppose personal property; which makes you a Marx style Communist.