San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

If you hadn't provided a link, I don't know if I would have believed it. Especially since he says the 4 to 5 billion (25% of the shortfall) is only a "small" portion of the deficit.

This from the mouth of the same guy who wants to so easily cut services to Legal Citizens!

It really is unbelievable he said this! It is one of the stupidest and thoughtless things he has said lately.

It may be true that the Feds require Ca. to provide these services but instead of playing down the amount he should be talking about he is going to sue the Federal Government for reimbursement.

I know that the reality is not likely to change, but what surprised me most about the article is how he made such a clear statement about the status quo as a Republican governor.

Blaming immigrants is easy and fun, lets do it some more! Oh wait its a depression, thats guaranteed. I for one would love to see an end to illegal immigration, but it won't solve our near or long term problems, nor even push them off on our neighbors.

The sad reality is that no force on earth could stop the tidal wave of humans trekking north stemming from the collapse of Mexico/Central American economies should the millions of people here illegally be forced out.

Lets have a real discussion without demagoguery, about immigration. Its costs and its benefits are horribly unevenly distributed, except at the grocery checkout line!

Josh

Barnaby, I find your comments short sighted as well as illogical.

(1) At no point during this post was any blame assigned to illegal immigrants.

(2) "No force on earth could stop the tidal wave of humans trekking north..." That is a pretty absolute statement.

(4) "Its costs and its benefits are horribly unevenly distributed, except at the grocery checkout line!" What on earth does this mean?

(5) Can you look above your post and find a specific statement which was used demagoguery?

Since you are so passionate about this topic can you think of another way for the state of recoup the 4 to 5 billion dollar cost of illegal immigration? If you do I would like to hear it rather then your comments which amount to nothing more then an personal attack against me for posting a statement made by the governor on this very topic. His words not mine.

It sounds like Arnold is saying that as a percentage of the budget, services to illegal immigrants is not causing the impact on the deficit worthy of the scapegoating that immigrants gets given their contribution to our infrastructure and agriculture.

It just sounds like he is making reasonable statements about illegal immigrants. Why should they face the brunt of the suffering to correct the deficit when they have contributed so much by doing some much of the shitwork, for subsistence wages during the good times?

Bashing illegals is like bashing welfare recipients. Or like bashing the Fire Chief that has a good pension and other government workers. Not saying it is right or wrong, BUT, this is small potatoes and takes a very little slice of the pie. The biggest chunk of money is spent on Defense. Yeah, and many of us make our bread and butter in this City because of Defense spending, so perhaps we do not wish to look at this matter. OH, and I am not talking about spending on our sailors, those guys make a pittance unfortunately.

How much does the STATE of Ca spend on defence? I kinda thought that was a federal thing. :)

Russel,

Can you provide some empirical data on how illegal immigrants contribute to our infrastructure and agriculture to the tune of 4 to 5 billion dollars.

The agricultural argument is a fallacy of false cause argument. Look at the large numbers of illegals in California cities and prisons. Are these the employees California's agricultural sector are relying upon?

Why try and justify the state expenditure of funds on illegal immigrants by tying it to the federal expenditure of funds for national defense? Your argument is baseless. Federal funds are recycled through the economy when used for defense for the most part (I am aware of the bottomless pit which is the middle east). Illegal immigrants by in large and economic free riders.

Why can't the 4 to 5 billion of state funds being used to "service" the illegal population be debated in an upfront and honest manner as a question of state spending rather then a social issue or a moral issue to provide for those in which we are not obligated to provide for.

Though, I have no empirical evidence and don't really spend too much time thinking about illegal immigrants cost to society that much. I would think they are here for cheap labor for the businesses that employ them.

From a quick google search:
Yet all the while, farms, hotels, restaurants, small manufacturers, and other employers have continued to hire the undocumented with little regard to the federal laws intended to stop them.

At the same time, though, the fast-growing undocumented population is coming to be seen as an untapped engine of growth. In the past several years, big U.S. consumer companies -- banks, insurers, mortgage lenders, credit-card outfits, phone carriers, and others -- have decided that a market of 11 million or so potential customers is simply too big to ignore. It may be against the law for the Valenzuelas to be in the U.S. or for an employer to hire them, but there's nothing illegal about selling to them.

I would assume the amount saved by hiring illegals plus being a new consumers base is a magnitude larger than a measly 4 billion.

We obviously can't afford to get rid of illegals now. It would not be good business.

If greedy americans were not so picky about living wages it probably would not be a problem.

Russel,

Can you provide some empirical data on how illegal immigrants contribute to our infrastructure and agriculture to the tune of 4 to 5 billion dollars.

Jim,
What I can prove is that they and the "anchor children" do work that we don't and do it quite cheaply. While doing so they have the children that we don't to provide the future low paid working class base. Much of the work is funded from tax dollars so the savings is direct. I can't prove that it would cost more to spray toxic chemical anti-fouling compounds on the bottom of Navy ships in dry dock, for eight hours a day, if it were not being done by a green card holder who was recently an illegal alien, or his not quite educated enough or enfranchised enough "anchor child". I am pretty sure it is cheaper than if you did it.Ditto for many of the shit jobs in this state that affect the cost to the government, the price the end user pays, and profitabiity of the boss man.

I know two recent green card holders who just became U.S Army combat engineers.Should we save those two slots for your kids? Maybe reinstitute the draft? How much is that worth?

There is a plan here for the useful implementaion of immigrants into this society.Not a very healthy or generous one for them. If you want to scapegoat the individual in prison go ahead. However, if you want to take away the saftey net and in my opinion due respect for working men and their families,for whatever reason,in other words scapegoat them I find that out of line.

Schwarzenegger created this problem when he got into office by repealing the car tax. All that lost money totals up to (or damn close to) our deficit. Did we cut anything during the good years? I can't remember much except camping fees going up a bit. Maybe they cut a few bucks from Parks and Recreation. Sure seems like voters want everything and don't want to pay for it.

The math on the budget is really simple.

Is there 20% fat in the Prison system? that's a yes or no.

Is there 20% fat in the State Health Care system? That's a yes or no?

Is there 20% fat in the State Employee compensation and retirement? that's a yes or no?

Is there 20% fat in the Education system? That's a yes or no.

If ALL are yes, then cuts can close the budget gap without impacts.

If they aren't all yes, then it's cuts with impacts and or additional revenue.

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's "happy" illegal immigrants get state services"

Great, so Arny won't mind cutting a nice fat check to the state treasury then.

Actions, girlie man, not words. Let's see you back that statement with a nice donation of let's say 200 million dollars of your movie profits to the CA general fund.

Yeah, I didn't think so. Girlie man.

That's right.
Illegals and their "anchor children" comprise a complimentary not a supplemental role in our society. Even in bad times more enfranchised people still would want them to do the grueling and low paying hazardous jobs. It is the whiners who want all the benefits and not to give back what they themselves would require to perform the roles illegals, green card holders and new citizens born of this system do. This is especially true when we are all feeling a little threat of being supplemental.

To quote CArenter:"If it is so great for them why don't the whiners go do their work"(without the services and saftey net you wish to deny them). Toughen up girlie-men learn to live with less for yourself, or the threat of less, or get a second job picking tomatoes or scraping anti-fouling chemicals off U.S Navy ships and similiar jobs. Many of these people work two such jobs in a given day.

If you want to hold up your standard of living and get rid of low paid laborers and semi- skilled workers. I am sure you can handle your cush job and one immigrants job at the same time and also wash your own car, paint your own house and pay higher prices for everything or go without, all the while bringing up first class little gringos.

While none of this may apply to any Piggingtons, it is what is left out of the arguments of many who feel compelled to slander and undermine many of our working men and women. Or should we legitimize, perhaps unionize all the work these people do and abolish the unfair stigma of "illegal"?

This is not to say some of these services can't be on the table for cuts. It is just obvious that a high percentage of people don't even want to be reasonably circumspect about the topic.

Go Arnie!

I won't comment on illegals because I have not walked a mile in their shoes.

I can't help but wonder about the logic of stating $5 billion spent giving freebies to people who are not citizens is peanuts YET laying off school teachers who are WORKING (not getting freebies) for the money they cost the state and who educate our children, is sound cost cutting???...?

Wow, its hard to wrap your head around that kind of logic.

The hiring of illegal workers is the free market at work. Of course, most free marketers won't admit to that. Quite the pickle, i'nnit?

illegally dumping toxic waste is the free market at work too...

Both examples suffer from the same illegal taking of property rights by the profiteers. The detriments of their actions are borne by others not compensated in their deal.

I was speaking with a friend who's kid with special edecuational needs is in 11th grade and needs to get signed-up with the Regional Center for help in early adulthood. The director of their school district says that the SD Regional Center is refusing every new applicant due to budget woes.

$5 billion for illegal freebies has got to stay.

Painful cuts in needed services to disabled CITIZENS = reasonable cuts?

Politician and business people realize that in order to keep the scam going, they need population growth. Locals arent making enough new people. So they conclude we need to bring more in. America's been doing this for a couple of hundred years. Irish, Italian, Asian and now Central American/Mexican.

Trouble is, the USA didnt have nearly the social welfare programs and taxation back in the day compared to now. So when the business cycle dips, it cost lots-o-money.

Teachers are not the most fragile element of our society and are also not the sole source of our children's sustenance in a recession.We can pick up the slack and it is known that we will. I am the last to want to see teachers kicked to the curb and programs cut.

It is nuts however, to think that immigrants workers are not a large and fragile complementary component of our society. Kicking them too hard sends them right past the curb and into the gutter and we will not have such a complimentary experience with the consequences of that.

If changes are to be made with this number of vulnerable people, they should be made gradually and in good measure to possible economic,public health, crime, and humanitarian consequences. Despite how messed up everything seems, I believe that behind the limited view we have into politics and business there is serious consideration of these complex issues.

My mistake, it is federal spending on Defense.

Well said Russell.

You are correct, its hard to imagine taking needed services away from those who had the bad luck to be born on the wrong side of the border.

Still, we are going to take state money away from people who work for that state money, and take it from disabled citizens, so we can keep giving it to illegals for freebies? From a black and white stand point it seems easy, but from the humanitarian standpoint we should demand none of these get cut.

I think we should handle this with trade. Instead of making poor illegal children go without medicine we should make it very difficult to buy a foriegn built car until the economy turns around. I see trade as the only answer, we need to keep more money here and we need to stop jobs heading over-seas. More US made goods gives us and new imigrants more jobs.

We are finding out what happens when you ship your moeny and jobs to other countries right now, and the folks on the bottom are feeling it first and worst.

Does $4 to $5B figure include the positive impact of illegal immigrants on state revenue (sales tax, ...)?

Racing Backwards - The Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigration in California, Revisited
By Philip J. Romero

http://tinyurl.com/nmhzko

One could argue that if you are going to impose trade restrictions to save US jobs that you ought to also save US jobs for US citizens and not illegal 'squatters'.

Do you know how much money illegal immigrants send back home? They aren't spending all that money HERE, it is being spent back in Mexico...So much for all the illegal immigrants 'helping' our economy.

Whenever politicians talk about the budget, the notion of proportion goes out the window.

Schwarzenegger wants to close the state parks as well. Their cost is negligible, and there is evidence that shows they actually generate more revenue than they cost:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

Arnold's recommended closings and selling of State real estate are bullying and scare tactics. We are being punished for not passing the tax increase. As for the illegal issue: I consider it all about demographics. Most citizens do not have families as large as the new immigrants. Social security will go bust without new tax payers being added to shore up the bloated government spending. I do not think any of the politicians really care so much for the plight of the illegals as they care for the money they will contribute either directly or indirectly to keep the government printing presses and their jobs safe. It is less about ideology than pragmatism. Color me cynical.

Could that be offset by the money that is saved by the businesses who hire illegals? I'd bet that corporations save more money by hiring illegals than what the illegals themselves make and send back to their homeland. Surely these savings are cycled back into the economy by the businesses.

The business may save money, but the taxpayers pay in the long run because of the higher taxes, higher cost of health care, etc. Stores that have a high loss due to shop lifters pass the cost onto the consumers. The insured pay for the uninsured drivers, health care, etc. There really is no free lunch and it is about time government figured that out. Many retirees will find States who will not tax them into poverty one way or the other. The boomers are not about to adjust their life style to pay for someone else. Arnold should quit running his mouth bring out the Conan sword and really use it to cut the programs he has threatened to cut. Let's see what happens to the State then. He is turning out to be all bark and no bite.