Well, there you have it. Every Illegal immigrant would save the American taxpayer more $700,000 if deported. Report: Every Deported Illegal Household Saves Taxpayers More than $700,000
Sounds a little high but the savings would definitely be there, and the boost to the economy as wages would naturally go up for the bottom rung employees, so wages/salaries for those at the top would need to go down. This is the real reason the rich/elites favorite plutocracy (two party system) is totally against it. Jeb is showing his true colors as the neo-con plutocrat he is, saying that it is not conservative values to protect our borders and our sovereignty, or keep America working is about as un-conservative as a person can get next to full blown socialism.
It's amazing to think just how rich of a country we could have been if we never got bogged down in the business of importing 3rd world poor people and hooking them and their dependents up to welfare. - - - Updated - - - It takes about 250-300k to raise a kid from birth to age 20, so when you consider how many children Mexicans average, 700k is completely believable.
Since it would take the average worker 25 years or so of gross pay to hit the $700K mark, call me skeptical. As for spending $300K to raise a kid, yea I have never bought those estimates.
They are always wrong. That is nothing new. SO is there source, the US government. My parents did not have to pay extra for housing to raise any of us. They had to have a house whether we existed or not, and that is 30% of the number. 18% for childcare? LOL. My parents never paid a dime for "childcare".
Some do. Surely you didn't all sleep in the same room, and have an outhouse out back? If you did you are not part of the equation. Lot's of kids don't need braces or never have a penny saved for college either. These number are based on the belief that each and every family lives under pristine conditions, and have all the necessities society demands. Unfortunately the real world isn't like that. That is why I doubt the numbers are totally accurate, but when you look at welfare, medical/dental, free/reduced housing in most cases, the extra teachers/classroom space/free lunches/education in general (most of them (*)(*)(*)(*) away), and all the government employees necessary to keep them comfortable, we "ARE" talking about a lot of money the tax payers have to provide so mega corporations can exploit illegals for their slave labor. Oh and Jeb Bush is still not a conservative no matter how much one wishes to prostitute the word.
The OP got it a little wrong. That estimate is for an entire household. So we're talking maybe five people on average to hit the proposed $700k mark. Though while there is a least some backing for the report that gave the overall $100 billion a year cost, the $700k number one doesn't have any information on where it came from, and seems to have come from one guy. Though if you take that $100 billion per year number, divide by the number of illegals and their children, and then multiply by five for a household then you get a little over $30k a year. So $700k over all years doesn't seem out of order. That said I think their citizen children are a large source of the tax burden because they're eligible for all the financial assistance bennies, but they're citizens, so I don't think you can just deport them. Instead you'd deport their parents and then the kids would become a ward of the state and presumably the total cost per kid would actually go up.
The intent of the 14th amendment was related to legal entry, slaves who were brought here legally, and native Americans who were legal residents before anybody else. The fact that people still cling onto this idiotic notion that criminals should be rewarded for breaking our laws, when it comes to this one exclusive issue says a lot about the mentality of the people misinterpreting the law. There is 'nothing' so blatantly irresponsible as this misinterpretation of the constitution as this is.
Believe this is the report.. http://fair.thinkrootshq.com/DocServer/research-pub/USCostStudy_2013upd.pdf
Yet the natural born citizen language is contained in Article II as well, so I do not see that the law is misinterpreted at all. If one has to be natural born to be President, then it naturally follows that the intent of the 14th amendment is tied directly to the original intent of the framers regarding citizenship by birth being a requirement for the Presidency.
Yes if that is all you take into account is a literal translation of 3 words, but when you look at the conventions, and the debates, and the final intent, there is absolutely zero rational to think that the words 'natural born citizen' doesn't encompass blatant criminal activities, or acts inclined to lead to treason or the infiltration of the nation. Our laws are specific about ill-gotten gains or individuals benefiting from criminal activity, and the 'anchor baby clause' is blatantly contradictory to this ethical and moral stance. The purpose of asset forfeiture/seizure/confiscation is to disrupt criminal activity by confiscating assets that potentially could have been beneficial to the individual or organization. Automatic citizenship, created because of an unlawful act is and/or should be no exception. Any and all rights are not absolute, to argue this illogical misinterpretation is absolute is extremely irrational and contradictory to all the rest of the laws of the land. The original intent of this law had nothing to do with creating loopholes for criminals or individuals wishing to subvert this country's sovereignty. To assume otherwise is reckless and irresponsible.
