You know California is a net contributor to the federal government, right?
By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it.
By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it.
Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally.. Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally.
What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that used tax money for Californians and not for people living in the state and country illegally they wouldn't need the federal money.
Get rid of your politicians and elect responsible ones and stop whining.
I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument without providing much data or grappling with the practical implications of your argument. Even if we were to take all the money we spend as Californians on undocumented immigrants, would that actually come close to the funds we should be receiving for Caltrain electrification? I'm not sure. And what damage to our communities would be done by removing that money from the system? Immigrants, undocumented and fully documented, grow the larger economy and are meaningful parts of our community, and I'm pretty sure we'd be worse off without them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...
That's total taxation, encompassing sales tax, and (for those not being paid "under the table"), income tax and FICA. Again, that's a national average; in CA, sales tax would make it higher). That's not remotely paying all of their own way overall.
As for overall impact: "Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said the $11.74 billion tax contribution covers only a small fraction of what undocumented residents and their dependents use in government services. The Washington, D.C. organization, which favors stricter immigration enforcement, estimates it collectively costs state and local governments about $84 billion a year to provide education, health care, public safety and other services to undocumented residents and their dependents."[0]
As for Social Security, they get that back as much as legal residents do, if they file for it. Quoting your source: "He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits." That's retirement benefits alone, being paid out already. As these payees age and retire, they'll collect far more than they paid in, and that will worsen as lifespans increase... hence it being referred to as a "Ponzi Scheme".
"We lose money on every transaction, but we make it up in volume!"
[0] SJ Mercury News, March 3, page B2, "Undocumented immigrants’ taxes calculated"
"undocumented individuals" is a euphemism that does not help the discussion and tends to minimize and obfuscate the language so as to seemingly minimize the fact that they are living in the country against the law. The correct term is illegal alien (look it up if you don't believe me).
My argument is a simple one that I think most people agree with which is this: people that live in this country illegally do not deserve taxpayer funds. I am not making any assumptions, just a statement.
> "I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument..."
I don't believe I'm an inflammatory argument. Fiscally responsible politicians would not spend tax money on people who are not legally in the country except on law enforcement.
The solution to the train and other fiscal problems is simply electing fiscally responsible politicians. The newspaper article mentioned the problem of federal funding and I mentioned a levitate and proper solution. If Californians don't elect politicians who are fiscally responsible and who feel that it is OK to spend taxpayer money on people living here illegally, they only have themselves to blame.
I don't see any argument that says that the Federal gov. (again because money is fungible) should be funding people who are living in the country illegally.
Or approaching the question from the other direction, how about the larger benefits of the electrification project? By withholding money this way (and I'm pretty sure nobody responsible for the withholding has been making the same arguments you are, but happy to be shown otherwise), are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?
Well, they are people living here illegally. I don't see that as inflammatory but a statement of fact. How else would you say that?
> Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes.
No, fiscally responsible politicians should not be using taxpayer funds to fund people who are living in the country illegally -- against the law except for law enforcement.
You mean, no matter whether they are living in the country legally or not. Well, OK. But I see that there are a lot of veterans that have served their country throughout America and I believe they deserve our support over neighbors who are living in the country illegally. Let's agree to disagree on that one.
But our kindness is indiscriminatory. Our hearts are big. And we're ever so strong. California will take care of even the lamest of the lambs.
Instead, they should spend the money on giving their law enforcement tanks to keep at each existing station and then if an illegal alien gets on board, they can quickly destroy the tracks and/or train. That way, no money will be spent on aliens, period. Plus, the police get the armaments they need to defend against this immigrant threat.
I didn't make the argument that California should or should not fund anyone over anyone else. That is up to the (good) people of California.
You seemed to indicate the California could have chosen to spend its money in a different manner. You started off by pointing out "Money [is] fungible". I was just pointing out the logical conclusion of that argument.
Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting a damn fine deal out of their illegal Mexicans.
That fact is immaterial. The fact is that they're breaking the law, despite any other effects.
Would you be ok with somebody living in your back yard if they watered and weeded the garden? After all, they're contributing more to the property than they are taking out of it.
> please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally
Which I addressed. I also stated that the fact they're here illegally is another matter. This was the line in which I did that, in case you have trouble reading:
> Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem.
So your argument is that as long as each individual immigrant contributes to society, you're fine with aiding and abetting their breaking of the law? If somebody were a serial bank robber that donated most of their taking to charity, would that be acceptable also, since they're arguably performing a net service to society?
> Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage
In case you have problems reading, the business model of their employer has no relation towards their legal/illegal status. I don't know why you'd highlight that particular quote of yours.
Perhaps there should be a rule that when downvoting, people state the reason. I suspect that some readers believe that people living here illegally deserve taxpayer funds. If so, they should have the courage of their convictions.