Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.
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.