How big is immigration an issue on people's minds (USA and elsewhere)?

[Lexicus]

Well, I don't think effort in trying to smooth translations makes me a problem.

Interesting peek into your mind, there.

Just to be clear I'm objecting way more to the phrase "the [ethnic group] problem" than to the term used for the ethnic group

 

[Farm Boy]

Right. That's got American cultural baggage associated with it(significantly).

The point going around seems to be whether we can talk about cultural hurdles being variable between groups without then immediately imposing hundreds of years of dealing with the one-drop-rule culture of racism and its lingering baggage.

Translation itself being wasted(in this context) is a surprise to me, admittedly. I guess I'm still assuming that cultural hurdles can exist without being innately racist/bigoted/etc to observe.

 

[Ordnael]

Also just to be clear a didn't know gipsy was an insult word in English! Here in Portugal we call that community by the name they call themselves "ciganos" and "comunidade cigana" which...checks google translate from Portuguese to english (UK) translate into gypsies and gypsy community...i guessed I missed and Y in my first writing of the word gypsy and spelled gipsy...is that the problem?

 

[Lexicus]

That's got American cultural baggage associated with it(significantly).

I disagree that this is a specifically American thing. "The Jewish question" is a phrase of European origin with a considerable European discourse associated with it, lasting roughly the two centuries prior to 1945.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I guess I'm still assuming that cultural hurdles can exist without being innately racist to observe.

I tend to think, when predicting "outrage", something diminishing by the year, that they can be, so long as negative characterizations are only made about groups of more power. Really doesn't seem to be much more to it than that.

I guess if there is, phrasing can be predictive of outrage, and this is largely dependent on the relative proximity of a statement to the language used in the past by organizations thought to be racist. "America first" could be an example.

 

[Farm Boy]

I disagree that this is a specifically American thing. "The Jewish question" is a phrase of European origin with a considerable European discourse associated with it, lasting roughly the two centuries prior to 1945.

You changed the phraseology there, though to another instance of race being interpreted in a very similar way to the one-drop-rule.

That the syllables line up so conveniently is far more likely to be coincidental across, now, what, at least three languages? than anything else.

 

[Lexicus]

You changed the phraseology there, though to another instance of race being interpreted in a very similar way to the one-drop-rule.

That the syllables line up so conveniently is far more likely to be coincidental across, now, what, at least three languages? than anything else.

The similar phrasing arises from the basically similar, even identical, nature of the 'problem' or 'question', which is that the retention of their own ethnic identity by Jewish or Roma people complicates the picture of an ethnically homogeneous nation-state.

It is interesting, because the "Jewish question" at first was a neutral term for the situation of Jewish people living in the national states of Europe, but in the mid-19th century it became associated with antisemitism and today of course it primarily makes one think of the Nazis and the Holocaust ('Endlösung der Judenfrage').

Anyway, I just wanted to express my amusement that someone would use that phrase in that way despite all its baggage. I'm not outraged or whatever. Please carry on as normal.

 

[Farm Boy]

The whole point of a phraseology... here, let's use wiki:

In linguistics, phraseology is the study of set or fixed expressions, such as idioms, phrasal verbs, and other types of multi-word lexical units, in which the component parts of the expression take on a meaning more specific than, or otherwise not predictable from, the sum of their meanings when used
independently.

I mean, if we're not going to walk carefully before assuming the absolute worst of humanity across cultural and linguistic bounds, then what, praytell, are you arguing against?

Honest question, man.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, if we're not going to walk carefully before assuming the absolute worst of humanity across cultural and linguistic bounds, then what, praytell, are you arguing against?

Honest question, man.

This is a lot to read into "oh my god." I'm just gonna leave it there.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is, which is why I'm asking(I didn't bring up the Holocaust, but that's pretty much the worst of humanity). After watching how your "oh my god" was received, right? Call it a liability of me being interested in the talking process itself. I'm a tedious little man.

It was even expanding past you, the original speaker. We've now got what 4 additional people chiming in? I think I was 2nd additional, eh?

 

[Ordnael]

This is a lot to read into "oh my god." I'm just gonna leave it there.

Some folks from CFC have read(and still do) way too much from the little things I write and assumed (still assume) very nasty things of me...but I am over that...honestly

 

[Lexicus]

It is, which is why I'm asking(I didn't bring up the Holocaust, but that's pretty much the worst of humanity). After watching how your "oh my god" was received, right? Call it a liability of me being interested in the talking process itself. I'm a tedious little man.

It was even expanding past you, the original speaker. We've now got what 4 additional people chiming in? I think I was 2nd additional, eh?

I get it, I'm not really blaming anyone for reading a lot into the "oh my god". Just like I don't think anyone should be blamed necessarily for reading a lot into "the [ethnic group] problem."

 

[Farm Boy]

Are we blaming? I think we can talk about where we're falling short of the base and admirable goal you seek to pursue with the central premise of most of your posts, before the devil of the details rules the world? The tangent started off with me trying to provide perspective, but not to you!

I mean, it's just foruming, so the actions we take are the words we choose to convey. Hardly saving the world, but hell. We keep these people around for years and keep coming back. I guess I'm briefly distracted by putting that paramount.

 

[Strong Reaction]

California spending $9.5B on healthcare for undocumented immigrants this year​

​

​

(The Center Square) — California officials told legislators that the state is spending $9.5 billion on healthcare for illegal immigrants in the current 2024-2025 budget.

With the governor’s proposed budget including a $7 billion reserve withdrawal and deficits expected to soon rise to $30 billion, and federal funding likely to decrease, the state may face challenges in continuing to pay for this growing program.

During a budget hearing earlier this week, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, asked California Department of Finance officials how much the state has allocated to undocumented immigrant healthcare in the current budget.

“In the current year, to cover undocumented individuals in Medi-Cal, we’re spending $9.5 billion total funds,” replied a CDOF official, who said $8.4 billion of that comes from the state’s general fund.

“So it’s not the $6 billion that people continue to talk about in the media,” replied DeMaio.

“That was a budget act number. This is a revised number based on the governor’s budget updated estimates,” continued the official.

“If we cut that, at least using your math, we’d have a $1 billion surplus, my friends, we wouldn’t have to go into the rainy day fund,” said DeMaio in response.

Budget discussions are currently underway for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, with the governor’s proposed $322 billion state budget under debate as the state faces potential losses in federal funding due to changes in or noncompliance with federal laws or executive orders. Federal spending in California is set to be $171 billion, or more than one third of the total $493 billion state and federal budget for California, according to the California Budget and Policy Center.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-California, introduced a bill to prohibit use of state or federal Medicaid funds for being used for non-emergency healthcare for individuals in the country illegally, which could complicate matters for the state.

According to insurer Blue Shield, the average wait time at a California emergency room is four hours and 34 minutes, while the national average is two hours and 43 minutes. Because federal law requires emergency rooms to provide care to anyone who needs it, ERs are often the only medical care uninsured individuals can receive, and often do not get paid for said services unless the government covers some losses.

While homeless and undocumented individuals qualify for Medi-Cal, many are not enrolled and use ERs as their only form of medical care.

Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital CEO Dr. Elaine Batchlor says that rapidly rising numbers of emergency room patients covered by Medi-Cal — which could mean either through coverage, or hospital reimbursements for non-covered, non-paying patients — are driving the hospital to fiscal ruin.

“MLKCH opened in 2015 with state funding that projected approximately 30,000 annual visits to the hospital’s 29-bed Emergency Department. In 2023, the hospital saw four times that amount, making it one of the busiest EDs in the state,” said the hospital in a 2024 release. “The majority of these visits (76%) were Medi-Cal, which does not reimburse providers for the full cost of care.”

“We lose money on every one of those patient visits—a significant amount,” said Batchlor in a statement. “As the volume grew and continues to grow, we began to lose more and more money.”

With Medi-Cal reimbursement rates often lower than quickly growing costs of care, more care providers are choosing to either not accept Medi-Cal for routine care, or reducing the number of Medi-Cal patients they do see, making it even harder for the swelling number of Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal to find a doctor.

The majority of California children are enrolled in Medi-Cal, which is available to households making up to 138% of the federal poverty line for adult coverage and 266% of FPL for child coverage. Over 15 million Californians, or nearly 40%, are enrolled in Medi-Cal.

https://www.cbs19news.com/california-spending-9-5b-on-healthcare-for-undocumented-immigrants-this-year/article_6d74ce3c-70b6-508b-b436-3df10e107791.html

Then to make the story complete

"In California, undocumented immigrants contributed $8.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2022 — a number that would rise to $10.3 billion if these taxpayers were granted work authorization, according to the new ITEP study. "


Key findings:

• Nationally, undocumented immigrants contributed $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Of this, $37.3 billion went to state and local governments.
• For every 1 million undocumented immigrants who reside in the country, public services receive $8.9 billion in additional tax revenue.
• Nationally, providing access to work authorization to all current undocumented immigrants would increase their tax contributions by $40.2 billion annually, to $136.9 billion.
• More than a third of the tax dollars paid by undocumented immigrants are toward payroll taxes dedicated to funding programs — like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance — that undocumented workers are barred from accessing. [whose benefiting from that?]
• Similarly, income tax payments by undocumented immigrants are affected by laws that require them to pay more than otherwise similarly situated U.S. citizens; as one example, they are barred from receiving meaningful federal tax credits like the Child Tax Credit or Earned Income Tax Credit.

New Study: Undocumented Immigrants Contribute $8.5 Billion in California Taxes a Year

NEW — 2024 REPORT JUST RELEASED California’s Undocumented Residents Make Significant Tax Contributions SACRAMENTO, CA — A new in-depth national study by

calbudgetcenter.org

 

[stfoskey12]

I would support work authorization for undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for several years while gainfully employed and committing no crimes.But I think there should be a tax penalty associated with it, so you don't get off completely free.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I would support work authorization for undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for several years while gainfully employed and committing no crimes.But I think there should be a tax penalty associated with it, so you don't get off completely free.

Get off completely free how, though? They're paying taxes, which in many states are not insignificant.

They also contribute to the economy. Ultimately they're often slaving away in a precarious situation, taking jobs natives won't to benefit a country that doesn't recognize them.

I understand the issues with illegal immigration, but these people aren't getting anything for free. If anything, they are the ones getting the short end of the stick.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not the only ones. But workers telecommuting are never going to accept arguments for less people to door dash them 20 dollar meals of lukewarm McDonalds.

Spoiler :

 

[Crezth]

I'm fine with immigration as long as people are properly vetted and have some means to support themselves. But just letting people cross and we have no idea who they are or what they're doing? No.

“People should only be trusted if the Government approves of them”

 

[Strong Reaction]

So with the "they are a drain on the system" argument addressed lets address another popular argument bandied about by hand wringers who claim immigrants are the bane of America. Trump, has oft claimed that "illegals" are criminals: murderers rapist, drug dealers, felons etc. I think its fair to say that no population can claim to have zero criminal element in their midst. However studies show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes when compared to other populations.

• immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people.
• 37.1% less likely to be convicted of a crime.
• no correlation between undocumented people and a rise in crime.
• “Our study shows that since 1870, it has never been the case that immigrants as a group have been more incarcerated than the U.S.-born,”

Loading…

www.npr.org

Immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born

A study co-led by Northwestern University economist Elisa Jácome provides the first historical comparison of incarceration rates of immigrants to U.S.-born citizens.<br />

news.northwestern.edu

So if they are not a drain on the medical system are contributing to federal and state taxes, gainfully employed, less likely to commit crimes what other arguments are there, aside from replacement theory?

I am not a proponent of open borders. Having lived in CA all my life I know its necessary to have a barrier. Also, I am not a proponent of the whole catch and release policy that the Biden Admin implemented. Proper vetting, ejecting criminals, sound wall, that all fine. Anyway I suppose any argument against whats going on right now is pointless. We likely will have to wait until Trump is gone to pursue a less punitive sane solution.

 

[Zardnaar]

Get off completely free how, though? They're paying taxes, which in many states are not insignificant.

They also contribute to the economy. Ultimately they're often slaving away in a precarious situation, taking jobs natives won't to benefit a country that doesn't recognize them.

I understand the issues with illegal immigration, but these people aren't getting anything for free. If anything, they are the ones getting the short end of the stick.

Here they work for cash under the table.
It means they're not paying income tax. It leaves them very open to be exploited.

Theoretically it cuts them off from access to schools, registration with a doctor. access to university etc. And buying property. They pay sales tax on stuff they buy.

So they're not paying into things like infrastructure or most things not funded by the local government. They might be indirectly paying local rates via rent.

Often they end up in the media with a sob story often about getting deported. Usually they want citizenship which qualifies them for welfare, pensions etc. But haven't paid into it. A good sob story is usually to try and get the immigration minister to make an exception.

Illegal immigrants aren't that big of a problem in raw numbers. A lot free load and try and scam the system though.

Ironically if they lie on documents it's easier to deport them. There's a good character requirement on visas. Means no lying on documents, fraud or criminal records or activities.

So if you lie about health status for example they can revoke visa or even citizenship.

Ones I linked to earlier scammed the system and paid tax for 6/20 years. Parents went bye bye kids got to stay (1 had citizenship 24 yo, 18 yo got residency).