California has budget problems because California has artificially held down market-based increases in property tax assessments. If you can find a more reputable cite than FAIR, I’ll be happy to look at it.
I cited the cost up thread of over 10 billion in California. They’re looking at over a 10 billion dollar budget deficit.
What happens to a $10 billion dollar deficit when you take out $10 billion dollars in costs for illegal aliens?
That’s the only precedent I could find that specifically states that being an illegal immigrant, in and of itself, isn’t a crime. And, you know full well that that doesn’t even remotely equate to renewing a registration. What does equate is if you continued to drive even after you knew that you had failed to renew your license plates. “But I’ve had them for sooooooo long.”
Okay. I’m not a lawyer. Show me, specifically, where it explicitly states in federal law that being in the United States illegally is not a crime in and of itself.
Yeah, that wasn’t a proper phrasing on my part. I know what executive privilege is. It doesn’t apply to this discussion.
I didn’t say “welfare.” You did. What are some other “social services?”
Fair enough. The Kansas court you referenced cited the law in their own decision:
If you want a federal statute that says, “being in the United States illegally is not a crime in and of itself”, I can’t give you that. Criminal statutes, as a general rule, don’t tell you what you can’t do. They tell you what you can do.
So you’re now claiming that California loses a net $10 billion a year due to illegal immigrants – $10 billion every year lost, even after the taxes those immigrants pay.
Sorry, fella. That one doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Maybe this will help. From Post 75:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
It wasn’t worth their time for those wages. There are plenty of difficult jobs that people won’t do for minimum wage or so. As I’ve pointed out before on these boards. Back in the 60s or 70s, NYC had a dearth of garbage collectors. It was a tough and unpleasant job. When they raised they recruited with substantially raised wages, all the jobs were filled. With a waiting list to boot. Do you really think that if those agricultural jobs in Alabama paid $100 per hour there wouldn’t be a waiting list. Noaturally, I’m not arguing for raising the wages to that, just making the point that whether people will do a job is dependent on two factors: how difficult/unpleasant/dangerous the job is and what it pays. The problem is that due to a steady stream of illegal workers, people have come to accept that the amount that they we’re wiling to accept to to a job is THE fair wage. But that’s use fantasy. It may be fair. It may not be fair. The only way to know is to force the employers to enter into a relationship where the fair wage will be set by the market, without illegals artificially surprising the wage.
[/QUOTE]
D’oh! That should be the other way around (that is, they tell you what you can’t do).
The more benefits illegals get for themselves and their families the more you incentivize illegals to come here. Do you not agree with that statement?
The difference is that without the illegals here we (the hospitals) would have to cover the cost of X number of poor people. With the illegals here, that number is X + n. N should be zero or as close to it as possible.
I don’t necessarily disagree with it, but they come here to work, not because they want to send their kids to UCSB. That’s not the only consideration, though; the simple fact is that even illegal immigrants are entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment.
I find the two to be synonymous. You said, *
See if you can come up with anything that might fall under the umbrella of “social services” that isn’t welfare.
*
Anything falling under social services is welfare. So when you said that they used our social services, I assumed you meant welfare that you apply for.
It doesn’t matter. Kids aren’t illegally enjoying the benefits of a U.S. education.
Unfortunately, yes. But they needn’t get that protection plus some extra goodies, like in-state tuition. We should be crafting policy to reduce illegal immigration, not encourage it.
While I don’t doubt that work is a major draw for them coming here, don’t you think that the improved lives for their children is also a HUGE draw?
Or are you of the mind that people about to be illegal immigrants don’t love their children as mush as others and don’t consider their welfare and education of paramount importance? That’s really not intended to be snark, though I see it can be read that way. I’d really like you to respond to it.
That’s what I want. Federal law. With regard to “the importance of specificity.”
Hell, I’d even like to see where being an illegal immigrant is listed as a civil offense.
That could be done but we refuse to because we depend on it. So the best idea is to help fix our immigration laws that make it easier for kids who turn 18 to participate in the process legally. I don’t know why you think sending an immigrant from the Philippines back to his home country after he becomes of age is in any way humane, especially if the child has no connections to his home country and couldn’t survive a lick there.
I have kids from Juarez who came here when they were six or seven. I’d hide them myself before I let them get deported.
I don’t.
Granted. Plyler, etc.
Oddly enough, that could result in you going to jail while they walked free.
Those are problems of the parents’ making. There are people who go to jail and their kids have to go into orphanages and foster care. Do you take these kids into your home? If you’re the big-hearted type to do that, I commend you. But I’d point out that if it was for people coming here illegally you’d be able to devote your care to other kids that are already here who dream of being in a good foster care home or, dream of dreams, being adopted by some nice person such as yourself.
And the fact is that the more we go out of our way to help their kids, innocent that may be, the more we encourage more of the same behavior. Do you deny that?
In-state tuition discounts aren’t an “extra goody”. What do you think the Equal Protection Clause does, exactly?
I don’t think it’s a huge draw, necessarily, but I don’t know any illegal immigrants very well.
You know that appellate decisions are federal law, right? Since you ask, though:
That’s exactly what the Ninth Circuit did in the Rincon case cited above: noted that Congress had explicitly made violations of a different section of the same Act a crime, and not the section in question.
Do you have stats on how often it happens? Because I’ve yet to see a student without papers who was in that situation. It’s only 200 kids or so that I’ve known, but still.
And yes, I’d 100 per cent take in one of those kids and support their citizenship. (Per immigration law, you have to take them in very young and I only teach high school.)
It’s almost impossible, though, since the parent would have to give up their rights.
Wondering what you think about these situations, where kids are put in foster care because their parents were deported.
What we’re doing is creating a class (or sustaining a class) of second-class citizens. I’d rather tell my students they have options to WORK and they should get good grades so they can graduate instead of sympathize with them when they turn to gangs or drop out of school because there’s no point.
I can see how you would be upset, but is it not possible* that “their” applications are being put on the bottom of the pile, while your family’s applications are still in the same part of the line as always?
*For all I know, what you say will happen could indeed be correct.