I don’t need to google it; all the things I named are social services.
What I find troubling are the people who have amnesia or are ignorant concerning the history of the US and Mexico which clearly shows which country does the best overlording and dominating.
Mexicans and Mexican Americans can divide our history on this land into pre-Columbian, colonial, and contemporary periods with people, lands, and trade routes between the regions south and north, until recently in history.
The US, in the spirit of westward expansion and manifest destiny, took a dominant and unsympathetic approach to obtain Mexico’s gold and Mexico’s land. And even if you do consider the border a symbol of US greatness and exclusivity, many of us have our own perspective about who belongs here.
The new policy maybe a drop in the bucket, but many will see it as a positive statement for now, and in good faith vote for President Obama.
I don’t know that an actual accurate number is possible. It seems like they’re always fudged one way or another, but you could read this from the LA Times, or take a look at The FAIR Report.
It might not provide an exact figure, but you’d get the idea.
You just linked to an “analysis” that doesn’t even attempt to account for the economic benefit of cheap labor or the indirect tax benefits from it.
That’s not so much a starting place for a discussion but rather an obviously fallacious and deceptive bit of propaganda cooked up to serve an obvious purpose.
Nope. I did the work for you. If you Google “social services include” you will not find Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Child Protective Services or Public education. Although CPS is a pretty close call.
Just like Farmer Jane’s definition of welfare, I don’t believe your definition is the most widely accepted.
To quote the President, “Not true.”
Look at the very first page of the FAIR report. It shows tax receipts.
A late addition: Holy shit, I just noticed that the biggest layout cited in this “report” is education, and it includes education for U.S. citizens in its numbers! Hence the outrageous-seeming, obviously ridiculous numbers they came up with.
Jesus, these numbers aren’t just fudged, they’re completely fucking made up. Of course, obviously we shouldn’t expect the truth from the national anti-immigration crowd any more than we can expect the truth in their postings right here. Just like the lies the anti-immigration crowd were telling about the law earlier in this thread, now they’re citing lies about the costs of immigration.
Nope. It doesn’t even attempt to account for the indirect tax receipts resulting from a more robust economy. It does, however, total up the costs of education of US citizens under the costs of “illegal immigration”.
So this reply to my post was either the result of you being too confused and uninformed to read what I posted and respond accurately to it, or else a lie that you hoped would escape scrutiny. Just like the lies in the report you linked.
It’s Linda Richman, and I’m giving you a warning because this is totally inappropriate for Great Debates. If you want to attack people and call them names, do it in The BBQ Pit. You’ve been around long enough to know this.
The I-134 affidavit of support filed as a part of the immigration process specifically references “Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families”.
The sponsor of the immigrant must attest that the immigrant “will not become a public charge during his or her stay in the United States…”
In theory the government could hold the sponsor liable for the value of benefits received by the immigrant under those programs. “How long my income and assets may be attributed to the [immigrant applicant] is determined under the statues and rules governing each specific program.”
So… I think the legal immigrant is less likely than a member of the public at large to be a financial burden on the public purse. And so long as illegal immigrants are not eligible for benefits under those programs then the whole social services argument is pretty much nonsense.
Oh, there are more options than that. But, anyway, do you dispute the LA Times article as well?
You know what? I don’t care. It’s late, I’m tired, and this isn’t how I want to spend a weekend. It doesn’t matter what you or I think about this presidential fiat anyway. I’m not going to put any more energy into it.
That’s a good choice when you’ve been caught citing nakedly fallacious statistics.
The point was that we may know these percentages when looking at the whole, but when you talk about any one specific case, we don’t know anything about it. Each one has to be reviewed for its unique circumstances despite ‘knowing’ that 55% entered illegally or any other factoid there is no way to classify which is which without due process which is very slow and very expensive.
Why does someone let anything expire or forget to pay a bill or keep an appointment? Who knows? Some may have been traveling to the side of a dying relative and others might have just slopped up and forgot, and yet others might have deliberately avoided it because they had no qualifying reason to be granted a renewal.
When we’re dealing with 12 or 15 million people even a small percentage is ‘many’ people, so there will be many who just didn’t for whatever reason even though they could have. Many who wanted to avoid being declined if they tried to renew, many may wind up on a list to be deported and many may be offered work or resident visas. There is no way to know until each case is heard.
I had to come back to say this…
I had never heard of FAIR before today. I just looked into it. The Southern Poverty Law Center provided me with some interesting information about the founders of FAIR, and some quotes attributed to those founders.
I hereby withdraw any cite to or mention of FAIR as a reputable source, and I offer my apologies.
Cool.
The other FAIR, OTOH, has some credibility.
As a lot of others have said up-thread, it is the president’s job to set administrative priorities and his resources are not unlimited. Not making kids brought here by their parents a priority is really a very obvious policy decision. It seems like the immigration law equivalent of turning a blind eye to jaywalkers. But the president made it a big announcement in order to draw the attention of Latino voters, as well as (hopefully) independent voters to whom the new policy just seems sensible and humane.
So rather than manipulating the system to bypass congress, really he’s manipulating the system to produce a good election year spectacle. Personally I think it’s kind of genius.
You MUST be kidding. I didn’t call him “a name”. I compared what he did—and does often—to another person, a character known for throwing out subjects and instead of offering an analysis, simply says “discuss”. This is not the first time he’s done that nor been compared to Ms. Richman.
A warning?! I’ve been here long enough to know that this is a bullshit call and ask you to reconsider.
But is that what he is doing? The news article linked in the OP states that the new policy will allow certain undocumented aliens to apply for work visas. Does the relevant statute expressly forbid that (in which case you’ve got an argument), or is it worded generally enough to permit work visas to be issued to undocumented aliens? if the latter, then the President is working within the law as passed by Congress.
Operation Wetback. Some U.S. citizens were deported illegally; though I don’t know the numbers, and many of them were probably children born in the U.S.