But it is related. The fact is that the NYT article was complaining about the lack of federal funds, but the true fact is that if the citizens of California el

But it is related. The fact is that the NYT article was complaining about the lack of federal funds, but the true fact is that if the citizens of California elected politicians who did not unwisely pay for people living here illegally, they would have the money for the electric rail. Since money if fungible, since California politicians decided that taxpayer money should go towards people living here illegally, then it means that federal funds are going towards people living here illegally. I think this argument is very sound. I'm really tired of people writing articles and other complaining without stating the full context. If that electric rail is so very important to California, and I believe it is, then the citizens of California should elect officials that do not use valuable and scarce taxpayer funds to pay for services for people living here illegally. They should elect politicians that spend taxpayer money for the benefit of people living here legally which includes the electric train.