Do you think it is reasonable for taxpayers to pay $113 BILLION a year for Illegals/Anchor Babies?

[PigArcher]

@Cyclone

This is the third time I have stated this in this thread that I joined The Straight Dope on the recommendation of someone in another board because I wanted to ask questions about illegal immigration to fellow liberals. So far, I am not impressed.

If you want to have a serious discussion about illegal immigration one suggestion would be to not ask the question in such a deliberately inflammatory way. For example:

[ol]
[li]Don’t use pejorative terms like “illegals” and “anchor babies”[/li][li]Don’t post questionable data from a clearly biased source[/li][li]Don’t frame the discussion as a false dilemma[/li][/ol]

As it stands, there’s nothing in your OP that a reasonable liberal with a viewpoint on illegal immigration could respond to.

[Implicit]

@Cyclone

Please provide an alternative term to “anchor babies,” this is the term mainstream media uses.

People already have suggested alternatives.

As to research on the subject, how many fact links have you provided in this thread? It goes to your lack of credibility.

Your link is not credible. I’m sure you can find actual facts if you want to, but since you asked so nicely, try this pdf: CBO Paper on The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments from December 2007.

Since I doubt you’ll actually read it, I’ll summarize for you:

The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants. Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest.

Modest in this context means the revenues cover considerably more than half the expenditures (there are examples from a few states in the paper). This doesn’t include any other benefits that the economy derives from this cheap labour source, which would reduce the net cost even further.

[PigArcher]

@Finagle

I’m sure that illegal immigrants are putting a huge burden on social services, but I suspect the reason that they are doing so is that employers are delighted to hire employees that don’t get health insurance or benefits or livable wages. So they are effectively shunting the legitimate costs of doing business onto the public sector. So let’s assume that we replace (somehow) all these illegal workers with native born Americans doing the same scut labor for the same pay and benefits. The government will probably still be paying out the same sums because * those * people won’t be able to pay for social services and medical bills.

Yes, this. Think of that $113B as a subsidy to the agricultural, construction, custodial, and manufacturing sectors, to name a few. Also, how much of that is law enforcement, court, and bureaucratic costs?

[BrainGlutton]

@Mosier

I stopped reading at “I thought ‘anchor babies’ was the polite term”

It is, for when you use a baby as an anchor. Sometimes sailors have to improvise, dammit! You don’t know what the sea is like!

[Miller]

@Cyclone

I base my opinion on votes, and who can win an election, Duh. The liberal agenda will go nowhere if Michele Bachmann becomes POTUS.

The liberal agenda also goes nowhere if we abandon it to court right-wing voters.

Gee, I don’t know. Do you think an illegal alien child will experience starvation differently than than a black or anglo child? I watched a special on starvation in Somalia, evidently the feeling of starvation is a lot like what you would experience if you drank a quart of bleach. Sounds like a good time for all? :mad:

… I thought you were arguing that we shouldn’t help people who aren’t American. This sure as fuck sounds like an argument in exactly the opposite direction. Maybe you should take some time to figure out exactly what position you’re trying to argue, here.

I do not recall who said this, but it works for me. If your are going to have house guests, the first thing you do is clean up your own house. This is a practical thought Americans should be considering. America is a mess.

Try as I might, I can’t figure out any way to apply this metaphor to immigration in a way that makes any kind of sense, or adds any sort of insight into the issue.

Less than half our people voted in the last election. And last week U. S. House Republicans attacked legislation on energy saving light bulbs, that their own party turned into law under George W. You think we might have a little problem with priorities?

Yes, I certainly do. In fact, I’d say that’s my chief problem with your OP.

I am the kind of guy who says the “n” word instead of the word itself. I would prefer not use the extremely insulting words used used frequently and publicly for anchor babies in the southwestern United States. I would call the use of those three words bigoted.

I have no clue at all what this is supposed to mean. What “three words” are you talking about? What does the word “nigger” have to do with anything? If you’re so committed to not using insulting terms, why are you still throwing around “anchor baby” left and right?

Incidentally, on what basis do you identify as a liberal?

[Czarcasm]

@Cyclone

This is the third time I have stated this in this thread that I joined The Straight Dope on the recommendation of someone in another board because I wanted to ask questions about illegal immigration to fellow liberals. So far, I am not impressed.

Looks to me like the real question here is can BrainGlutton actually read a post before he runs his keyboard.

You keep popping up with this “fellow liberals” phrase as if that would be enough to distract us from your constant use of far right wing buzzwords. Can you name three popular liberals alive today that you admire and agree with for the most part?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Czarcasm

You keep popping up with this “fellow liberals” phrase as if that would be enough to distract us from your constant use of far right wing buzzwords. Can you name three popular liberals alive today that you admire and agree with for the most part?

I too got the sense that, for a self proclaimed liberal, the OP is really good with GOP talking points.

[I_Know_Nothing]

@Cyclone

I have never said a negative word about anchor babies, I thought that was the polite term.

Now that’s funny.

@cyclone

I am the kind of guy who says the “n” word instead of the word itself. I would prefer not use the extremely insulting words used used frequently and publicly for anchor babies in the southwestern United States.

Then I propose the PC term, “A-baby.”

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Cyclone

I have never said a negative word about anchor babies, I thought that was the polite term.

Polite?

Maybe for a tea-bagger, or some other troglodyte, dude! But you and me, brother-mine, being the liberal Democrats that we are, we endeavor to be juuuuuuuust a tad bit politererer, right?

“Citizens” seems like the best term for a sensitive guy like you—it really fits your liberal style. But let me play Devil’s Advocate for just a moment. “Citizens” would be seen as a loaded term by Tightie-Righties. After all, they would say—how many other American citizens does somebody refer to as “citizen”, rather than simply “man”, “woman”, “boy”, “girl”, “baby”, etc.? The Wingnuts would never call them “citizens”; indeed we’ve noticed that fact in this thread.

To hell with them, dammit! We’re liberals, right?* These children are our brethren. Fellow human-beings that need to be nurtured and cared for. Fellow CITIZENS. Let’s show them the respect that every living creature on this beautiful, blue, planet Earth—from Snail Darter to Mexicano—deserves.

Let’s call a spade a spade (I know you got my back on this one, my leftist homey) and just tell it like it is—these precious little brown bundles of joy should be called “Citizens” and nothing less. It doesn’t matter if Maria keeps dropping mewling litter after litter, eh Amigo? Citizens they are, and citizens they shall always be… you with me, compadre?

I feel your liberal love, man. Don’t let the doubters here be a buzzkill. You and me, man? We’re gonna make this a more beautiful world one citizen at a time!!

War Is Not Good for Children and Other Living Things! Flower Power! Live Simply That Others May Simply Live! Make Love Not War! Love thy Neighbor! Yes We Can! Drill Baby, Drill!!

Tell these guys I’m right about this,* Cyclone**. I mean—I believe you and all, my liberal, lefty, brother—but I have the sense that some other folks are doubting on ya. Like that Czarcasm dude, with his almost mocking query in post #66!!! Some nerve, that guy!! I say, answer his question and make him eat his words!

I’m betting that your three favorite liberals are Paul Wellstone, Al Franken, and Hubert Humphrey. Your profile says California, but I’m getting a sensible Minnesotan kinda vibe from you.

But maybe you’re more of a Classics guy? Maybe you’d go for FDR, JFK, and LBJ?? Hmmm… wait… surely those three are a little too moderate for your tastes, right?

Gosh darn it, I give up trying to guess. Why don’t you just tell us and end the suspense? I’m dying here!! No matter who you choose, Mr. Czarcasm-Guy is sure to have huervo on his face, Comrade!!!

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

After the edit window closed, I noticed that Czarcasm asked for three liberals alive today. Only one liberal I mentioned is still breathing. My bad, but I think my liberal friend Cyclone will have no problem answering the question.

[Miller]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

After the edit window closed, I noticed that Czarcasm asked for three liberals alive today. Only one liberal I mentioned is still breathing. My bad, but I think my liberal friend Cyclone will have no problem answering the question.

Well, two, if you count Cyber-LBJ.

[BrainGlutton]

@askeptic

He is a liberal in the randian sense in other words he is a teabagger. But then you knew that.. But others might not

Actually, that would leave him with a bit of cognitive dissonance on this point. Libertarians seem to be split on immigration, where their ideology provides no clear guide – some regard free passage across borders as an instance of “freedom” – I’ve even heard of one group proposing a constitutional amendment reading only, “There shall be open borders.” Others believe national borders still mean something, and who ever said Libertarianism was an internationalist movement anyway?

As for the Tea Partiers, the whole issue appears to be either toxic to them or unimportant to them. For some reason, I’ve never seen immigration mentioned on any of their signs. Nor are there any immigration-related planks in the Contract from America.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Which is true in many cases.

No, it is not. Take it from one with experience in this area because my SO will more than likely be deported August 16th or soon after. My 6 year old daughter (which is, what some people refer to as an “anchor baby” because one of her parents is not living in the US legally) is not in any way helping my SO stay in the country.

It just doesn’t work that way anymore. Even being disabled doesn’t help her keep him in the country. She can file when she becomes an adult . . .maybe, in 14 years if they allow an adult with autism apply to sponsor. I don’t know how that works, but I know there’s nothing about her “anchoring” him to the U.S. now. And also there is no EIC for us. When he files his taxes with his ITN he does not qualify for EIC. We get nothing from the government and I don’t know any other UI families who do, although I only know a few. Now the children do qualify for Tenncare (state medicaid) and for that I’m grateful, but it’s because they are poor children under the age of 18, not because her father is an illegal immigrant.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Cyclone

I base my opinion on votes, and who can win an election, Duh. The liberal agenda will go nowhere if Michele Bachmann becomes POTUS.

Gee, I don’t know. Do you think an illegal alien child will experience starvation differently than than a black or anglo child? I watched a special on starvation in Somalia, evidently the feeling of starvation is a lot like what you would experience if you drank a quart of bleach. Sounds like a good time for all? :mad:

I do not recall who said this, but it works for me. If your are going to have house guests, the first thing you do is clean up your own house. This is a practical thought Americans should be considering. America is a mess.

Less than half our people voted in the last election. And last week U. S. House Republicans attacked legislation on energy saving light bulbs, that their own party turned into law under George W. You think we might have a little problem with priorities?

I am the kind of guy who says the “n” word instead of the word itself. I would prefer not use the extremely insulting words used used frequently and publicly for anchor babies in the southwestern United States. I would call the use of those three words bigoted.

I don’t live in the SW, just the S, but I can’t imagine an even more insulting term than “anchor baby”.

And saying “the n word” is just silly if you find the need to use the word “nigger”. It’s just as insulting if it’s meant as derogatory.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cyclone

I base my opinion on votes, and who can win an election, Duh. The liberal agenda will go nowhere if Michele Bachmann becomes POTUS.

I disagree. I think people will rediscover their liberal ideals if Bachmann becomes President.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Cyclone

I am the kind of guy who says the “n” word instead of the word itself.

That’s mighty white of you.

[Bricker]

@tomndebb

The (scare tactic) notion behind “anchor baby” is that a mother dropping a kid on U.S. soil immediately begins to use that child’s citizenship to bring her parents and grandparents and all her cousins and in-laws into the U.S. as “family.” In fact, this does not happen and, as already noted, an illegal immigrant who gives birth to a U.S. citizen based on location of birth is still subject to deportation.

True.

But.

What does happen is that the presence of an illegal immigrant adult that has a US citizen baby creates a situation in which people say it’s immoral to deport the adult when the baby has a right to be here. It’s true that this position is not grounded in law, but it has some effect nonetheless.

[RickJay]

Let’s just pretend that the $113 billion number is accurate. t’s not - you can shoot holes it in with almost preposterous ease - but forget whether or not it is for a moment; let’s just work with it.

The rather obvious problem with pretending that this is a fixable part of the U.S. federal deficit is that it isn’t fixable. You cannot simply decide on Monday that you’re going to stop illegal immigration and thereby save $113 billion, the way you’d save some money by cancelling cable.

Preventing illegal immigration would require a rather massive outlay of money - physical barriers, patrolling, domestic law enforcement, electronic surveillance. You’d have to vastly increase the size of DHS in terms of manpower and the extent to which they interfered with legal travel - remember that many, many illegal immigrants do NOT come in through the Mexican border, but enter by simply arriving via airplane and not leaving.

The cost to actually cut off illegal immigration, or any significant percentage of it, would be billions and billions. Completely cutting it off is totally impossible but even cutting off a significant amount would be an absolutely gigantic undertaking.

In other words, you’d have an outstanding chance of the cost of enforcement being as high as the savings.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Rushgeekgirl

No, it is not. Take it from one with experience in this area because my SO will more than likely be deported August 16th or soon after. My 6 year old daughter (which is, what some people refer to as an “anchor baby” because one of her parents is not living in the US legally) is not in any way helping my SO stay in the country.

It just doesn’t work that way anymore. Even being disabled doesn’t help her keep him in the country. She can file when she becomes an adult . . .maybe, in 14 years if they allow an adult with autism apply to sponsor. I don’t know how that works, but I know there’s nothing about her “anchoring” him to the U.S. now. And also there is no EIC for us. When he files his taxes with his ITN he does not qualify for EIC. We get nothing from the government and I don’t know any other UI families who do, although I only know a few. Now the children do qualify for Tenncare (state medicaid) and for that I’m grateful, but it’s because they are poor children under the age of 18, not because her father is an illegal immigrant.

If you were living here legally when your daughter was born then she is not an anchor baby. And why wait until she is an adult to try to sponsor your SO? Why don’t you do it?

[Cyclone]

@Implicit

You’ve been told that anchor babies is a loaded term, yet you keep using it.

You’ve been told that Fairus.org is a racist website, yet you keep linking it.

Your “research” on this topic is biased and you dismissed the poll from your earlier identical thread because it didn’t conform to this bias, so there isn’t any point in this thread.

OK, give me a link to a better term for those who became U. S. Citizens only because they came out of a womb in the United States. What would you have me call this group of individuals?

If you think FAIR is a racist website please provide me with a** link** to a reputable source of information to pick up this information. I will not accept La Raza, The Southern Poverty Law Center or the ACLU, The Wall Street Journal, or Fox News - these are extremist propagandists. I want CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post,* Newsweek*, Time, or* U. S. News and World Reports* or something at that level.

You make a lot of noise, but are short on substantiation with supporting facts.