>I've heard that argument before.
>
>The immigrant should have thought of that before they snuck across the border.

Who's making arguments? It was a question. I agree with you. Way I see it, I can offer real value and I'm not allowed in, so why should illegals be allowed?

>
>
>
>>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.