- Sep 7, 2009
- 2,706
- 1,031
I don't really have an opinion on the issue. I can understand the issue tax payer dollars being used to pay for medical cost et al for "illegals".
On the other hand I'm sure we have enough pork in state and federal budgets to offset these expenditures.
The states with the highest percentages of illegal immigrants are struggling the most financially. California is a prime example.
However there's one thing that we seem to be forgetting, and that is the vast majority of mexican "illegals" are of 1st nation descent.
Arizona, new mexico, nevada, texas and california are their ANCESTRAL lands. Incidentally california was named for the california indians, many of whom are black.
Large contingents of their ancestors were forced to leave these respective states for mexico.
Something worth considering
If you purchased a home in Arizona, would you allow mexicans to have free access to that home because it is their ANCESTRAL land? Would you allow them to come into your house and go into your refrigerator and remove your resources because it is on their ancestral lands?
The fact is if the united states vacated texas, arizona, new mexico, navada, and california and gave it back to mexico, they would still cross the new border for the opportunities that exist in the United States. It is not about geographic location, it is about economic opportunity. Mexico simply does not provide its people economic opportunity...this is related to the WAY the country is run, not the geographic location of the country.