$113 Billion Annually

[Gipper]

Illegal immigration costs $113 BILLION per year according to this study. No kinding? I mean really?

Who wants to bet the lib networks report this today???

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

By Ed Barnes

Published July 06, 2010
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

 

[dogtowner]

and to make a ve4ry significant point

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]budget[/COLOR][/COLOR] deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

 

[PLC1]

Illegal immigration costs $113 BILLION per year according to this study. No kinding? I mean really?

Who wants to bet the lib networks report this today???

From FAIR's website:

With more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative

That makes a lot of sense, as illegal immigration is not a liberal vs. conservative issue at all, but one of a failure of several administrations to address the issue.

 

[MichaelH]

Arizona IS addressing the issue...and the Obama administration wishes to undo their approach. My understanding is that the huge majority of American citizens (not of the illegal variety) believe Arizona is absolutely correct.

That said, why do liberals seem so focused on killing Arizona's efforts? Don't insult us with "it's racist", when it obviously isn't at all.

 

[Gipper]

Arizona IS addressing the issue...and the Obama administration wishes to undo their approach. My understanding is that the huge majority of American citizens (not of the illegal variety) believe Arizona is absolutely correct.

That said, why do liberals seem so focused on killing Arizona's efforts? Don't insult us with "it's racist", when it obviously isn't at all.

Go Arizona Go. Many other states may follow their lead.

I agree with THC...how about that??? Illegal immigration is not a cons versus libs issue. I know a number of libs who are as disgusted with the Feds failure to stop illegal immigration.

So, if the libs aren't behind open borders and amnesty, then who is? We do know the BO administration is pushing amnesty and so are many in the Dem party.

 

[MichaelH]

Go Arizona Go. Many other states may follow their lead.

I agree with THC...how about that??? Illegal immigration is not a cons versus libs issue. I know a number of libs who are as disgusted with the Feds failure to stop illegal immigration.

So, if the libs aren't behind open borders and amnesty, then who is? We do know the BO administration is pushing amnesty and so are many in the Dem party.

Yep.
Just a quick question (maybe unanswerable)...or two

1. I keep getting these requests for money to fight this or that...Kagan's nomination...the Obama administration's suit against Arizona...etal...when -- down deep -- I know there's no stopping -- say -- the Kagan nomination. Why should anyone part with good money for issues that are lost at the outset?

2. Since so many of us (a huge majority) are FOR the Arizona initiative, why the hell are we being bulldozed by Congress and the Whitehouse the way we are?

As I said above, probably unanswerable...

PS your avatar image bears a striking resemblance to Benito Mussolini making a speech.

 

[chestnut]

By legalizing the illegals here, it will ensure democrats power in washington for years to come.

This whole con by Obama agains Arizona is simply about showing the illegals that the democrats care about them.

Power, power and more power. That's all Washington is about.

 

[top gun]

From FAIR's website:

That makes a lot of sense, as illegal immigration is not a liberal vs. conservative issue at all, but one of a failure of several administrations to address the issue.

Exactly... and that's the massively hypocritical thing when Republicans rail against illegal immigrants.

They just had at least 6 out of Bush's 8 years in office when they could of done whatever they wanted to stop it.

And they had time to fix it under the First Bush and Ronald Reagan actually just did amnesty.

The fact is the Democrats may not push hard on this issue because being a minority the Latino vote breaks their way. But the Republicans wouldn't fix it for much more nefarious reasons... they wanted to keep their own Fat Cat big business donors stocked with cheap labor.

And that's the rest of the story Republicans don't talk about.

Both sides should come together to put into effect a unforgeable national ID Card much like the new US Passports. Illegal immigration would slow to very manageable numbers if American jobs were unobtainable, and neither side would take blame. It would simply be the ID of the land.

 

[dogtowner]

Go Arizona Go. Many other states may follow their lead.

I agree with THC...how about that??? Illegal immigration is not a cons versus libs issue. I know a number of libs who are as disgusted with the Feds failure to stop illegal immigration.

So, if the libs aren't behind open borders and amnesty, then who is? We do know the BO administration is pushing amnesty and so are many in the Dem party.

The difference between this administration and the preceding ones is that this one is suing to enforce it's opinion.

 

[PLC1]

So the Democrats like illegal immigration, according to the Republicans, because illegals eventually get to vote, and vote Democrat. The Republicans like illegals, according to Democrats, because their fatcat donors like the cheap labor.

OK, that may be. Personally, I think both parties are afraid to tackle illegal immigration because their fatcat donors like cheap labor, and because they're afraid of being painted as anti Latino.

However, I do agree that both Republicans and Democrats have a dismal history of addressing this issue, for whatever reasons.

And it's clearly not a "liberal" = pro illegal vs "conservative" = anti illegal issue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Exactly... and that's the massively hypocritical thing when Republicans rail against illegal immigrants.

They just had at least 6 out of Bush's 8 years in office when they could of done whatever they wanted to stop it.

And they had time to fix it under the First Bush and Ronald Reagan actually just did amnesty.

The fact is the Democrats may not push hard on this issue because being a minority the Latino vote breaks their way. But the Republicans wouldn't fix it for much more nefarious reasons... they wanted to keep their own Fat Cat big business donors stocked with cheap labor.

And that's the rest of the story Republicans don't talk about.

Both sides should come together to put into effect a unforgeable national ID Card much like the new US Passports. Illegal immigration would slow to very manageable numbers if American jobs were unobtainable, and neither side would take blame. It would simply be the ID of the land.

Also if you fix the problem, you can't use it anymore politically...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The difference between this administration and the preceding ones is that this one is suing to enforce it's opinion.

its sueing to enforce the law...the constitution...

but of course those facts are not convenient to you, so you ignore them.

Unless your in favor of states make there own Immigration laws now for the US, not the Federal government whos job it it....actually I know you support it for states...so long as you agree with that state

 

[StatesRights]

its sueing to enforce the law...the constitution...

but of course those facts are not convenient to you, so you ignore them.

Unless your in favor of states make there own Immigration laws now for the US, not the Federal government whos job it it....actually I know you support it for states...so long as you agree with that state

Arizona isn't making its' own law. It is simply re-enforcing current federal law. I kind of lost you on your last sentence.

 

[Gipper]

Arizona isn't making its' own law. It is simply re-enforcing current federal law. I kind of lost you on your last sentence.

So right StatesRights. But, libs do not see this. Most of them are completely brainwashed and incapable of reason. None of them have ever read the law and most do not know that it mimics federal law. Many other states have similar laws to AZ.

But, libs only believe what their Messiah tells them. They are sheepple....

 

[PLC1]

So right StatesRights. But, libs do not see this. Most of them are completely brainwashed and incapable of reason. None of them have ever read the law and most do not know that it mimics federal law. Many other states have similar laws to AZ.

But, libs only believe what their Messiah tells them. They are sheepple....

Using your definition of "lib" as someone who favors big government vs. individual liberties, there is no connection to liberal philosophy and suborning illegal immigration.

Moreover, as Top Gun points out, and as has been pointed out many times on this forum, the Republicans had six years to fix immigration, and what did we get? zip, zero, nada, that's what.

Some things just aren't "conservative" vs. "liberal" issues