Federal Government Shutdown

I've noticed a constant repeating of the "illegals cost us so much money" line in this thread. Do any of you take into account the amount of tax money and social security that they pay into the system? I'm sure there's many illegals who take more than they give, but there's also many who pay into a system and get nothing out of it (like most of us here do I'm sure).

I'm not scared of the criminal element because it's a low percentage just like the rest of the population, I'm not worried about the economic part because there's plenty of shithead Americans who take advantage of the system too. I'm all for changing the system that allows this to happen, but illegal or not it's the same shit. And I don't want a wall because this country is doing just fine without one, in fact it was great well before this clown ran on what a shithole it is. Most of us weren't clamoring for a wall before the clown, so stop acting like we only oppose it because of him.

 

Actually it was the clown with the darker skin tone that went out of his way to try to convince everyone that America is not that great...

 

FTFY

 

If you are talking sales tax - probably not that much. Income tax, medicare, etc - how, exactly, do they do that without a social security number? Either under the table, not enforcing I-9 or fake SSN...

What does it cost? Are they contributing the $10,615 it takes for their kids average public school education? Doubtful. Are there Americans not contributing their fair share? Oh, you betcha, this is why we need a new plague. As for immigration reform - it's been around since at least Reagan, as I remember it.

Texas keeps record of illegal alien data. https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm
Between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018, these 186,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 292,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 539 homicide charges; 32,443 assault charges; 5,695 burglary charges; 36,840 drug charges; 395 kidnapping charges; 15,859 theft charges; 23,487 obstructing police charges; 1,650 robbery charges; 3,428 sexual assault charges; 2,152 sexual offense charges; and 2,949 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 120,000 convictions including 238 homicide convictions; 13,559 assault convictions; 3,138 burglary convictions; 17,806 drug convictions; 173 kidnapping convictions; 7,064 theft convictions; 11,264 obstructing police convictions; 1,011 robbery convictions; 1,689 sexual assault convictions; 1,148 sexual offense convictions; and 1,280 weapon convictions.

Average costs for incarceration in Texas is ~$22K/yr. Difficult to determine how many years they would serve....so I'm going to guess half of the study length (just because) or 3.5 years for an average. (120,000 x $22,000/year x 3.5 years)= $9.24 Billion. That is just Texas. Throw in Arizona, New Mexico, and California and it'll be multiples of the $5B that is requested.

But that is just one facet, and it doesn't include police, public defender, judge, etc costs. Or the victims costs, like death, for instance, hopefully you don't win the shit lottery and the criminal element decides that someone you love isn't coming home today.

 

They live here and buy shit just like we do, how is it not that much?

Yep, fake SSN's. And paying taxes and social security.

https://www.cato.org/publications/i...f/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant

 

This is where you lose this whole thing. Much of the US wants border protection .... even 10 years ago when the D’s were pushing for it. Specifically a wall? Nope. But this open border, we pick up the tab for anyone that makes it across stuff is bullshit. Trump’s solid stance on border security is a big reason he was elected. The system also needs to be addressed. But just because we have turds floating in the punch bowl doesn’t need it needs to be free swim for all.

 

You say pick up the tab, yet they are paying taxes and contributing to your social security. Whether illegals are a net loss or gain is arguable, but saying we're picking up the tab is wrong, they're putting money into the system just like we are.

 

Point blank, do you want border security or no. Directly to you.

How do you feel about the past 4 or so presidents and democrats who’ve also said (but not done shit) about wanting and needing border security and now that trump is in office they completely change their tune? Manly Obama/Clinton supporters.

 

https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

 

Really? I guess the fence supported by the Dems a few years back was my imagination.

 

Some are ... eventually. But not when they first cross with nothing and have medical and housing needs.

 

Working a minimum wage job or even two, how much in taxes would they pay? Not enough to to cover the cost of sending one of their kids to school.

Your cato link is just compares #'s of crimes of natives to illegals - so what? That number would be 100% native is there were no illegals. what is your point, exactly. Mine is, they cost us - which was to answer your statement from above

"I've noticed a constant repeating of the "illegals cost us so much money" line in this thread." and "I'm not scared of the criminal element because it's a low percentage just like the rest of the population"

 

I'm quite familiar with the FS planning rule. I've been involved in the three southern Sierra Forest revisions. The revisions are due to Federal laws, all laid out in NFMA. Plans do require public outreach and comment. I'm curious as to how you interpret that as local laws or regulations trumping federal ones. What happens on Federal land is a function of decisions made by federal employees. Local laws and regulations due not apply.

Despite Garth's claims, many in the fire management community have been trying to resolve the paradox of fire management in high fire return-interval forests. We suppress fire at the low end of the intensity spectrum but cannot do that for the other end of the spectrum. On private land, law dictates that we suppress wildfires. Effectively, we censor low-intensity, low-severity fire, and in many forests that was the natural regime. WRT to fuels, much of what we have in terms of fuel and forest structure came from when we high-graded (cut) the first-growth and let the residual stand alone to its own devices, or the 70-80's period of accelerated even-aged management that was replanted to very high densities and then left alone and now the only kind of fire they ever see are high severity, crown fire. Private land suffers some similar and some different conditions. A lot of it is owned by small, non-industrial landowners, who don't have (or choose to apply) the assets to manage fuels, and don't have the desire to harvest timber that might help offset fuel treatments. Current legislation has targeted about $200M for forest health and fire prevention grants, but believe it or not, the (forest) problem is quite a bit bigger than that. Then there is the issue of people and communities that simply are not prepared for the inevitable. When you build out of combustible material in a fire-endemic landscape, stuff burns down. There are engineering solutions to this, but they are 'spensive. It is important to understand that forest elements with significant value (large trees) do not have lot of influence on fire hazard. That's why mechanical treatment (some silly and poorly informed people refer to this as raking) costs upwards of $2k an acre out in the woods and more in the interface.

So...back to how is it that California (as a state) has caused the problems on Federal land? I do have some ideas, but I'm interested in yours.
Or Garth's. I'm sure, given his extensive background in biological systems, that he has a lot of insight.

 

Guessing you didn't actually read anything, this is the first line in the first link.

"National Forests are forested lands publicly owned by the United States of America and managed by the national Forest Service, a Federal agency (within the U.S. Department of Agriculture)."

 

@dspapsis: thank you for the insight. a very long time ago, 1995 or 1996(?) i was in idaho and watched a forest fire being fought. it was amazing and terrifying.

 

I dunno as all I have to go by is thru search engines, that is why I asked the questions and I appreciate your input. Just reading the timeline based on headlines, Fire on the Mountain report is released in Feb’ 18, Moonbeam vetos something by saying legistation already exists, big fires happen, Moonbeam crabwalks and new legistation is written to do something about 127 million dead trees as he goes out the door. By your statement, there seems to be a difference of opinion for the management of the forest vs private land. This would make sense to why the state and local regulations are under review.

 

No idea, but clearly the current management being implemented hasn’t exactly been effective. On the other hand, I realize it’s easier said then done and the reality is, with out man, fire is a natural occurrence and cycle, that can provide benefits to the overall long term health. so? And thanks for finally replying you goof.

 

Of course I didn’t read it. This is the been after all.

 

Good God, those Dems certainly looooove your kind of a supporter.

I have 2 questions for ya, based on your content on this page.
1) Did you gripe about the wall during the Obama years whenever they discussed AND funded it, can you quote your gripes?
2) Did you NOT catch the report where those brave brave illegals who received an ITIN# to pay the miniscule amount are actually making out to the tune of MILLIONS declaring fake children??? NO you didn't? How convenient.

 

No they’re not. This is a liberal fantasy. Not even close to putting money in like legal working citizens are.

Besides, this is a stoopid argument made by stoopid liberals. they are illegals. Everything else doesn’t matter anyway. But the notion that they are contributing and putting money into the system just like the regular legal citizenship work force is is completely false.