Schwarzenegger backs state services to immigrants

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Ricechex]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.[/quote]

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.

[Arraya]

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.

[Arraya]

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.

[Arraya]

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.

[Arraya]

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.

[Arraya]

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.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

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.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

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.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

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.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

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.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

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.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Arraya]
We obviously can’t afford to get rid of illegals now. It would not be good business.
[/quote]
That’s exactly it. Bad for business to stop them. It would cost more not to have them (or push the cost onto the consumer).

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.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Arraya]
We obviously can’t afford to get rid of illegals now. It would not be good business.
[/quote]
That’s exactly it. Bad for business to stop them. It would cost more not to have them (or push the cost onto the consumer).

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.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Arraya]
We obviously can’t afford to get rid of illegals now. It would not be good business.
[/quote]
That’s exactly it. Bad for business to stop them. It would cost more not to have them (or push the cost onto the consumer).

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.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Arraya]
We obviously can’t afford to get rid of illegals now. It would not be good business.
[/quote]
That’s exactly it. Bad for business to stop them. It would cost more not to have them (or push the cost onto the consumer).

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.

[Author]

Posts