Ran into this article and researched the source. The estimate of $113 BILLION a year being spent for the education, health care and welfare of illegal aliens and their anchor babies seems like a lot for taxpayers in a bad economy.
Evidently, there are about 12,000,000 illegals in the United States holding down about 7,200,000 jobs. This while U. S. employment is at 9.2%.
I will grant you that life in third world countries is really tough, and I sympathize with their lot. As a liberal I question my responsibility here. Not that I do not sympathize, but shouldn’t America’s first concern be to our own citizens?
I did some research $113 BILLION is about the cost of 38 weeks of the War in Afghanistan. This is a lot of money. Illegal aliens and their anchor babies contribute about $9 Billion in taxes in 2005 to the United States. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm I am personally looking for opinions on where America’s moral rudder should be on the issue of illegal aliens and their anchor babies.
[QUOTE=Cyclone;14041154I will grant you that life in third world countries is really tough, and I sympathize with their lot. As a liberal I question my responsibility here. Not that I do not sympathize, but shouldn’t America’s first concern be to our own citizens?[/QUOTE]
Sure, I guess that makes sense.
How much money do we spend every year on American citizens? I guessing it’s a bit more than 113 billion. So it seems to me that our own citizens are already our first concern.
Right here. This is where we liberals get in trouble with independents and Republicans. They write us off as impractical. The United States can not resolve every problem on the planet. According to this CBS News story, there are 17,000,000 American children not knowing where their next meal will come from due to the summer shut down of food programs. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7373707n&tag=mncol;lst;1
We need some practical consideration here who comes first those who entered the country illegally or American citizens? Right here, this is where we liberals fail, making tough decisions, and setting priorities we can afford.
Questionable assertion with arguably biased source ($113 billion) linked with more reasonable number from probably minimally researched source ($9 billion) - check
For what it’s worth, the 65+ crowd in my town take up way more in resources than they have collectively contributed over the years. So, by your reasoning, our national priority should be to deport the elderly, whether or not they are citizens (just like those children you want to deal with).
When you say anchor baby are you refering to children born in the US? if so you are referring to American citizens according to the Constitution. Why do you hate the the constitution?
Are you saying we can all forget about the debt ceiling as it is merely propaganda? When we talk about cutting Medicare of Social Security, this is where President Obama loses me and most of America.
In fact I have stopped donating to the DNC. If Obama sells out Social Security or Medicare with ANY cuts the party loses my vote for the first time in my life. I have never voted Republican.
I have never said a negative word about anchor babies, I thought that was the polite term. I am not challenging the citizenship of anchor babies. Some are probably included in that 17,000,000 American children facing starvation. How you turn this into a Constitutional issue is beyond me.
Who gives a shit? I don’t base my ethical system off a popularity poll.
Are you sure those are all American children, and not just children in America? In other words, how many of those kids are illegal immigrants themselves, or natural born citizens who happen to be the children of illegal immigrants?
You’re creating a false dichotomy. The fact that we spend money on illegal immigrants (at what ever price tag) doesn’t mean we’re putting them before American citizens. 113 billion dollars (if that’s an accurate figure, which I doubt) is less than 3% of the federal budget. Where do you think that other 97% of the budget is going? Do you suppose it’s going to American citizens? If we’re spending 97% of the budget on American citizens, and 3% on illegal immigrants, by what measure can you claim we’re putting illegal immigrants ahead of American citizens?
If you’re not challenging the citizenship of anchor babies (and I have a great deal of trouble believing you thought this was the “polite term” for them), why are you complaining about spending money on them?
You have proof of this, right? Something that shows that if they reinstated the old tax rates and stopped all spending on those two conflicts (they aren’t wars) then the current debt (or is it just the deficit) would be nearly gone?
PS all money is fungible… especially when you’re in debt. This comment has no more or less validity than saying the deficit is due to Medicare payments. Or funding DHS and DOJ. Or whatever.
PPS OP, to answer your question, of course it’s reasonable. Where else will Dems get their voters from in future years?
PPPS If you think that’s crazy, check out the recent Maryland dream act, which gives illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates.
Huh. You did some research and discovered that 113 billion is a lot of money. I’m impressed. I’m less impressed at your ability to read and comprehend, sad to say. That article you cite notes that illegals contribute at least 9 billion * just to social security *, and the same article notes that it’s unlikely that they’ll ever have any means to collect. So in other words, they’re propping up the SS system to the tune of $9,000,000,000/year (that’s 7.9% of a lot of money) for no benefit to themselves. They also presumably are paying federal and state income tax and sales taxes.
In fact, from the article you cited (but apparently didn’t read)
Saying illegals are a net plus to the economy has to be at least somewhat controversial. From one of those articles (from Fox News evidently, so you know it must be true…
Not the debt but the deficit would be drastically reduced. Ignore the wars (I’ll call a spade a spade, thank you very much) and just look at the tax cuts. Or at least the US Treasury thinks so. Note that even if $3.9 trillion is an overestimate, that’s not a small amount of money.
Is this controversial at all? I thought the debate about the Bush tax cuts was ideological - not that they wouldn’t produce government revenue but preserving them would or would not be beneficial to the general economy. Or has the story on the purpose of the cuts also changed?
I will tell you this. I joined this site to specifically ask this question. I know the position of the Democratic Party on this issue. I am personally unclear about my own opinion. Every thread I have seen on this subject makes illegals out to be the worst people on the planet. I believe we know there are good and bad in ALL groups.
However, I do not believe the results of the previous thread here on this subject. The number that support the $113 Billion a year to illegals is extraordinarily high with Americans losing homes, jobs, and Medicare on the chopping block. I am not convinced that I am getting straight answers here. The opinion of middle American liberals is what I am looking for, not political propaganda.
I’ll keep reading as long as folks keep posting. I must say I sense some impractical attitude here that I do not care for. You yourself, silenus, are rushing into name-calling which means to me you are out of rational arguments to support yourself.