I've heard that argument before.

The immigrant should have thought of that before they snuck across the border.



>Hi Kevin
>
>Here's a hypothetical question. Suppose two illegal immigrants have children. Are the children US citizens or not?
>
>If one illegal immigrant has children, what of them? The illegal is deported regardless?
>
>Our previous police chief used to complain that a person would be deported for criminal activity only to return. The different branches of the government leave too many holes.
>
>>I don't know the exact figures. I don't need to know the exact figures.
>>
>>The cost of removing the illegals is a one time fee. It's a startup
>>cost, so to speak. You assume this going in. The real question is the
>>long term.
>>
>>Assume there were 100k american taxpayers getting medical care at
>>hospitals in California in 2005 using health benfits they paid for.
>>
>>Assume there were 100k illegal alians getting medical care at
>>hospitals in California in 2005. The law says they MUST be treated.
>>Who's paying for the illegals to get medical care? The taxpayers are.
>>
>>Multiply this by 10 years, or 20 years, and it doesn't take complex
>>mathmatical computations to see that the long term benefit of removing
>>the illegals.
>>
>>And that's just medical care. Figure in housing costs, schools, welfare
>>and so on, and it becomes alot clearer.
>>
>>Illegal immigration costs 10.5 billion per year:
>>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
>>
>>While the cost of removing them mighrt be higher, it's a one time fee
>>that I bet most taxpayers would gladly pay.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>No, I don't
>>>>
>>>>But I do know that while there might be some significant cost to eliminate the
>>>>illegal immigrants, the long term benefits justify it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see how you can know that without assuming that $Y is an initial lump sum and the following years will see much lower values for $Y.
>>>
>>>That doesn't seem like a good assumption to me.