3 ms·
> Your comment might be correctly phrased as "leaving > the hairy question of illegal immigration aside..." No, it really couldn't. I'm replying to your e
by avar 10y ago
> Your comment might be correctly phrased as "leaving
> the hairy question of illegal immigration aside..."
No, it really couldn't. I'm replying to your economic fallacy of
asserting that "[a] program for a million people will cost more [than
a program for one person]". Of course that's literally true in terms
of absolute dollar amounts, but it's not true in the sense that
actually matters. I.e. if you had a million extra people in your
country would they be a net drain on your economy, or net
contributors?
To answer that question it doesn't matter that they're illegal
immigrants or legal immigrants. You can't assume that just because
someone's illegal they're more likely to be a net drain on the
economy, actually the reverse is probably likelier to be true, since
an illegal immigrant will seek work but can't make use of social
services provided to people legally in the country.
> I'm not assuming that [illegal immigrants are a
> net drain on the economy] at all.
I really hate to put words into someone's mouth, but the most generous
reading of what you're saying really does sound like that's what
you're actually saying.
You're asserting that having X number of "illegal" immigrants is going
to have some linear drain on the economy as a function of X, it's not
at all clear that that relationship exists in any sense, i.e. it could
be a gain not a drain, and it could be non-linear.
- davidf18 10y agoI'm not stating myself clearly enough. I'm simply stating that taxpayer money should not be paid to support people who are living in this country illegally. Instead they should be living in the country that they are legally residents of and receive education, health etc from that county. The correct term for the people is illegal aliens. No quote marks.