Reply to Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Do not care.  The medicine is expensive. Democrats should have thought about this before having mass open borders and allowing anyone to walk in if all they said was 'asylum'. Yes, it will cost a lot of money to fix the cesspool left by the Democrats.

It will be offset though by the tax savings we will get since our schools and hospitals will no longer be overrun. They will finally stop increasing our property taxes to keep paying for more and more schools and teachers who can teach ESL.

You also cannot place a price on our safety and national security. It was so disturbing when they reported how many ISIS affiliates had infiltrated in through our porous borders allowed by Biden, Harris, and the Dems.

Look, being hard-line about this is going to produce heartbreaking stories and photos.  It will be a bitter pill.  But you wouldn't have to go put people and families in detention centers if they never came here illegally or by gaming the asylum system in the first place.  We are an autonomous country that is allowed to exist and have borders.  Once we show spine and back bone about being tough on immigration, guess what?  People will get the message to not even come and they won't take stupid risks to even try. Moral hazard.   In the end, we will save many more lives and suffering by removing all incentives to coming here illegally in the first place.  By allowing people in who are caught and released or who can stay for years by gaming the asylum system, you just keep encouraging more and more to take stupid risks and ruin our entire control over immigration.  That's a far worse option that inadvertently causes much more suffering. [/quote]
The US is a country of immigrants. Your ancestors came here illegally too. This land did not belong to them. It belonged to the millions of native Americans who were already living here. [/quote]

The govt was not providing housing and medical expenses to them.[/quote]

The government wasn’t using [i]taxpayer dollars [/i]to provide housing, food, healthcare, and for illegal immigrants.[/quote]

And the government isn't using taxpayer dollars to provide food and shelter for undocumented immigrants now. Stop being ridiculous.[/quote]

Who is paying for their hotels? Food? Medical care?[/quote]

Not US taxpayer dollars. Stop spreading lies. It does no one any good.[/quote]

Emergency Medicaid
Illegal immigrants and their U.S. children are eligible for emergency Medicaid services.

School nutrition
All children, regardless of immigration status, are eligible for free or reduced school lunch.

WIC
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is available to all who qualify, regardless of immigration status.

Emergency shelter
Illegal immigrants may have short-term access to shelters and soup kitchens in emergency situations.

Public health
Illegal immigrants are not restricted from accessing public health programs that provide immunizations and treatment of communicable disease symptoms.

In-kind services
Illegal immigrants may have access to other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety, such as medical, public health, and mental health services

The total cost of providing benefits to illegal immigrants is unknown because: Illegal aliens are not required to reveal their eligibility to receive certain benefits.

Officials are often prohibited from inquiring about the status of illegal alien

All Undocumented Immigrants Now Qualify For Medi-Cal In California. The new year rung in a host of new laws in California, including the expanded Medicaid coverage, nursing home disclosures, mental health measures, LGBTQ+ protections, and more.

Over half of the states have used state funds to provide TANF, Medicaid, and/or CHIP to immigrants who are subject to the five-year bar on federally funded services, or to a broader group of immigrants. A growing number of states and counties provide health coverage to children, young adults, or pregnant persons regardless of their immigration status. Several states offer or will offer health coverage to older adults regardless of their immigration status. And five states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington) and the District of Columbia offer or will offer public or private health coverage with state subsidies to all otherwise eligible immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

Where federal matching funds are available, forty-four states have chosen to cover immigrant children and/or pregnant people, or to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status. In 2009, when Congress first reauthorized the CHIP program, states were granted an option to provide federally funded Medicaid and CHIP to “lawfully residing” children and/or pregnant persons regardless of their date of entry into the U.S. As of May 2024, thirty-eight states plus the District of Columbia have opted to take advantage of this federal funding for immigrant health care coverage, which became available on April 1, 2009.

Twenty-two states use or will use federal funds to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status, under an option enabling states to provide prenatal services through CHIP. Under this option, the pregnant person’s fetus is technically the recipient of CHIP-funded services. This approach potentially limits the scope of services available to the pregnant person to those directly related to the fetus’s health. However, several states have used another CHIP option or state funds to provide 12 months of post-partum care, regardless of status.

The District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont use state or local funds to provide prenatal care regardless of the pregnant person’s immigration status.

https://www.nilc.org/resources/overview-immeligfedprograms/

Tax payers fund every program listed.[/quote]

So this is bad, but spending hundred of millions to build detention facilities where US taxpayers will feed, clothes and houses millions of undocumented workers while there claims are adjudicated is good?  Including those who are otherwise providing a societal benefit? And then there is the cost of hiring people to find them and transport them.  There is the cost to re-renting their residences with no notice. The cost to re-hiring with no notice.  All of this will be farmed out to contractors at an enormous cost, and they will have no incentive to do it quickly if it longer contracts mean more money in their pockets.

This post isn’t about whether undocumented workers should stay in the US. The post is about how to remove them if we are going that route. [/quote]

Yes, it’s good. We are removing people who are not legally in the US. We are not responsible for them. We should know who is in our country for the safety of our country and our citizens. We are responsible for the safety of our citizens.

We should use our taxpayers dollars to remove illegal immigrants, secure the border, and protect and provide help for American citizens.

If dcum posters have to employ more expensive nannies, landscapers, housekeepers, and general contractors, so be it.[/quote]

Again, the point of the post isn’t whether to remove them, it’s how. We are using our taxpayer dollars to do it either way.

So why is spending years to build facilities and likely hundreds of millions of dollars to round up and fully care for undocumented immigrants the better alternative? Especially when the cost will go to contractors that charge enormous overhead and have no incentive to expedite the process? [/quote]

Stopping the inward flow completely is more important and less complicated than rounding up those that are already here. Detain and deport any criminals but otherwise, prioritize securing the border. [/quote]

So why didn't Democrats do that?[/quote]
Every Democrat politician wanted open borders.[/quote]

Democrats have been making it harder and harder to cross the border since 2000.  Along with Republicans.  It's been a bipartisan effort.  But, by all means, lie about something you know nothing about.[/quote]

Now tell us about the stretch of time from Jan. 2021 - June 2024 when illegal immigration was at historic, unprecedented highs because Biden reversed all of Trump's border EOs.  He assured Americans "the border was secure" and there was "no border crisis.  Until he realized it was an election year and he'd really better get on it and stop lying.
DP[/quote]

+1 add to this that Biden started flying people directly into the country recently. As a result, the headlines since this summer have been that the numbers are down at the border. Well yes, if you fly them in 30,000 at a time per month per country the numbers will be down . And this is why Democrats cannot be trusted on immigration. They let the border be overrun by millions for 3.5 years and I fully expected Harris to grant them amnesty if she were elected. [/quote]

He also has an app that 1,500 illegal immigrants can use daily to schedule an appointment at the ports of entry. The illegal immigrants are not screened for asylum. They are given parole and a work permit and released into the country. Trump said he will end the phone app and flights into the country, which are incentivizing illegal immigration, on day one of his administration. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics