Illegal Immigrants not a burden to health care?

LB, The first paragraphs from your link:
Enforcement First Favored on Immigration
Survey of 1,000 Adults

March 30-31, 2006

Possible to Reduce Illegal Immigration

Yes 68%
No 20%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before debating new laws, first control borders/enforce existing laws

Agree 66%
Disagree 21%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forcibly Require All 11 Million Illegal Aliens to Leave US

Yes 40%
No 44%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1, 2006--On the divisive topic of immigration reform, the latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey found at least some common ground among the general public.

Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.

However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration.

In our survey, we informed respondents that there are 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States and that more than half have lived here for more than five years. Upon hearing those facts, 40% favored forcibly requiring all 11 million to leave the United States. Just 44% are opposed to a forcible removal of illegal aliens.

This does not mean that 40% would support whatever actions are required to remove the current population of illegal aliens. However, it clearly indicates that there is no broad support for a policy that begins with an assumption that those who already live here should be allowed to stay.

Still, nearly two-thirds also say the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over time.

Quite simply, the polls and what I think about illegal immigration does not need "support."

My position on illegal immigration is quite clear - if you have bothered to read my posts on this subject. I would address any questions related to my opinion identifed by each post, but will not do a wholesale response to your kind of query. I will not repeat it. I never claimed that polls agreed with my position.

Quote:

Still, nearly two-thirds also say the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over time.

I am arguing for a compromise position that contains the right to become U.S. citizens by meeting certain criteria combined with stricter border security.

For me, the most important thing is compassion for people who have been here for a while and have families and are part of communities.

I think you can combine this with a reasonable immigration policy that can be enforced. The current one invites people in while making life as difficult as possible once they get here.

i wonder if any studies have ever been conducted trying to measure the economic impact that would result from removing 11 million people from the united states .
one might assume that unemployment would be further reduced and that both earnings (for most families but not all) and prices of many goods and services would increase .
the citizens of the united states should be presented with what the outcomes would be before being asked if the 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported .
most of the times such seemingly 'straight-forward' questions are asked , the outcomes are usually not communicated beforehand .

i'm reminded that a few years ago a conservative governmant was elected in the province of ontario on the promise of a "common sense revolution " and reduction in the provincial income tax .
being somewhat of a numbers-man , i tried to figure out how the government would be able to fulfill its financial obligations in addition to giving a tax cut .
the solution was really quite simple :
the provincial taxes were reduced and the municipal government s were saaddled with much larger expenses .
NET RESULT : in the end we paid more taxes in total , but the provincial government was able to proclaim : WE REDUCED THE TAXES !

so i'm wondering : will the united states citizens be better off if 11 million illegals are deported ?
who will gain ?
who will loose ?

it reminds me of a simple advice to all investors : investigate before you invest - in simple words : find out what the end-result is going to be .
act on the facts not hunches .
hbg

i don't think the major cost will be the cost of deporting the illegals .

i don't think it would be too difficult (as an example) to calculate how much the cost of agricultural products would rise if there are no illegals . how much would u.s. citizens have to be paid to harvest lettuce ?

i think that many more workers would join unions if the unemployment rate drops considerably , which would likely be the result if a few million people are removed from the workforce . this in turn might increase waages , but the questioon is : how much would wages increase ?
a good study for economists to undertake .
hbg

That's the reason why we import fruits and vegetables from other countries. It's called "oompetition."

The US government collects $7 000 000 000 a year in taxes from illegal immigrants. Something to think about?

If an illegal immigrant has a child in the US is the child an illegal also? How many children are born to illegals each year? Are they all a drain on the US, or do they one day contribute to it's wealth?