http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_go_co/immigration_costs
2006-08-21 16:20:31 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
will you be moving out now?
2006-08-21 16:20:49 · update #1
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Now you know they will try to discredit the source or say something more derogatory right? I can't wait til several read it. cm where is the insult? It's true read what I said and the laugh was for me.
2006-08-21 16:28:56 · answer #1 · answered by gidget lil bit 4 · 0⤊ 8⤋
This is a low-ball number, because it doesn't include the costs of services to illegals when legalized or to their families they would ultimately be able to bring in. The calculation I have seen of the total costs uses the word 'trillion' not 'billion.'
However, I don't know what you are crowing about, this is an article saying that the Senate Bill would be expensive if passed. Thereafter it points out that the House has a different Bill and isn't inclined to let the Senate Bill go to the floor even for a vote. (By the way, last I heard, two Senators were stalling the Bill in the Senate so that it has not yet made it to the House, and they couldn't debate it if they wanted to.)
So what's to weep about?
2006-08-22 01:45:18 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The question mark on the end of that statement is appropriate. If you had mastered english, and comprehended what you scanned, you would understand that this article isnt about "legalization" of illegals, it is about the government attempting to come to grips with the cost of a "comprehensive immigration reform plan". The government accounting office does not believe that the costs associated with the legalization of most of the current illegals is in the governments best interest. Here are the pertinent portions of this article,;
The House passed an enforcement-focused immigration bill last December. House Republicans have balked at meeting with Senate counterparts to stitch together a compromise immigration bill, and held hearings focusing on problems in the Senate bill.
Clearly the biggest-ticket items are the enforcement programs, building fences and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents," said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the Immigration Policy Center. "Legalization is nearly a wash in terms of costs and revenues." Johnson's center rejects an enforcement-only solution to U.S. immigration problems.
The CBO estimated in a report last year that the House bill would cost about $1.9 billion over the five years beginning in 2006 and "substantial amounts" after 2010.
So you see , you have only made a point for the LEGAL IMMIGRATION SIDE.
Nice link though.
2006-08-21 23:58:44 · answer #3 · answered by Renegade. 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The Senate's immigration proposal (pegged at $127B)
Is A BID To The American Taxpayers
The HOUSE Bill Proves To Be
More Cost Efficient
Less Expensive
More Effective
AND
More Attractive To The Majority
Of American Taxpaying Voters
will you be moving out now?
Who's Cryin Now ??
2006-08-21 23:51:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why are you happy at the potential of America becoming a third world dwelling? This is a proposal anyway. Now I know your G-string got all bunched up, but it has not happened yet. Just like all the other proposals on illegal immigration in the past months...still waiting... tick tock
2006-08-21 23:52:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are an idiot as you obviously did not even understand this article yourself - it is NOT in favor of illegal immigrants AT ALL! Read what sho_ban and DAR said here in answer to you because THEY read AND understood this article you so proudly tout here. This article is NOT in favor of your cause, dumbo!
This article is saying that it is TOO expensive to give amnesty or any concessions to the illegals and it endorses deporting them and closing up the borders!
Who's crying now? No, I don't think anyone needs to move because the illegals are GOING HOME!! Get used to it!!
2006-08-22 02:37:47 · answer #6 · answered by Daisy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whats your point? 127 billion once is once...
It'd be cheaper than 150 billion every year...if you phuckers stayed...
And phuckers is what you are-- notice how the babies are popp'n out left and right...
----
You don't get it do you? It doesn't matter what Congress does, if they grant amnesty to illegals, the people will overthrow the govt. and deport illegals before they get a chance to process everyone through...
You don't understand how unwanted you are... So, just get over it-- you're packing your bags and leaving.
--Rob
2006-08-22 03:11:56 · answer #7 · answered by stealth_n700ms 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Disregarding some of the racist comments on this reply board, I am against illegal immigration. I have no problem with immigration in general, but I -DO- resent the methods that those who reside here illegally take.
2006-08-21 23:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What in the world is an "anti-illegal"? Wouldn't that be someone who is against crime? I read the article but I don't quite understand your question (which, btw, sounds quite snotty).
2006-08-21 23:44:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Okay, let em stay....Bring em on....I assume you have a job...so you can work to pay this bill along with my husband which works to support his family....
Somethings wrong when an article says well if we give them US citizenship, we expect our food stamp bill to go up...
I'm not moving. I'm pushing for a temporary blackout on freedom of speech and gagging the liberals so people can hear without the chatter and get a sense of reality.
2006-08-21 23:34:58 · answer #10 · answered by cypress9silver 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It won't pass that way so don't get your hopes up yet. And if they do pass it they will be out of office the next election cycle. And if that doesn't work armed insurrection will. Enough is enough and this has gone on for far too long.
2006-08-21 23:32:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋