Liz Peek
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
RTXZNHU
April 26, 2017

These Expensive Giveaways to Illegal Immigrants Will Backfire on Liberals

Liz Peek Articles ECONOMY, IMMIGRATION

It looks like the dispute over “The Wall” will not, after all, shut down the federal government. In the past few days, White House officials and President Trump have shifted from demanding budget funding for the wall to asking for money to increase “border security.” That request should not be controversial; the lights will stay on.

That doesn’t mean the immigration wars are over — far from it. As Trump ramps up border security, liberal Democrats vow ever-greater resistance. Blue states are increasingly adopting policies that bolster their pro-immigrant bona fides, but that may ultimately cause a backlash. Brooklyn, New York, recently announced it was manipulating criminal prosecutions to avoid deportations, an approach which could lead to undocumented people being treated more gently than those here legally.

At the same time, states like California continue to offer unauthorized residents budget-busting benefits that could cost citizens important perks – like scholarships to state schools. Such favors could increase hostility to people in the country illegally, and prevent real immigration reform.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that the Brooklyn district attorney has “created a policy that tailors prosecutions to avoid, when possible, the deportation or detention of immigrants charged with certain misdemeanors or nonviolent crimes.” In other words, prosecutors are being told to do legal handsprings to make sure that undocumented defendants do not plead guilty to the kinds of crimes that could get them tossed out of the country.

In deciding what kinds of charges to bring, the DA aspires to achieve “immigration-neutral disposition,” says The Times. Should that be the focus of our prosecutors? How long before that stated goal begins to discourage cops from rounding up criminals who might face deportation to avoid offending their political bosses? Might native-born Americans be treated more harshly under this new discipline than people in New York illegally?

“If someone confronts a guilty plea that would automatically subject them to a harsh immigration penalty,” says Eric Gonzalez, acting district attorney, “and there’s another possible plea that would hold them accountable and ensure public safety, justice demands they are given the one that doesn’t have immigration consequences.” Many people might not agree that adjusting the charges and pleas to circumvent the law constitutes justice.

In explanation, the DA’s office says, “Naturalized citizens, lawful residents and undocumented immigrants, they are all integral to our local economy and vibrant culture.”

What about the Brooklyn taxpayers who foot the bill for the undocumented population that they are supporting? What about citizens whose arrest and prosecution are not influenced by their immigration status?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published a massive report last September that attempted to answer questions that have bedeviled the debate over immigration policy for years:  Immigrants living and working in the U.S. both legally and illegally cost taxpayers $279 billion a year in social services. The average per capita government outlay was $15,908 compared with per capita tax receipts of only $10,887.

It is policies like this, that appear to favor those who have not played by the rules, which tend to harden attitudes about immigration. In California, state officials petitioned last year for a waiver which would have allowed them to offer Obamacare to undocumented people living in that state. Though President Obama vowed that persons in the country illegally would not have access to his signature healthcare program, State Sen. Ricardo Lara drafted legislation seeking a waiver from that federal rule for residents of California. After Trump had been elected, Lara withdrew his bill, claiming that he didn’t trust the new administration to protect the privacy of those who might apply for insurance.

California has offered people in that state illegally numerous benefits over the years, including in-state college tuition, driver’s licenses, and state-funded healthcare for children. Governor Jerry Brown struck the word “alien” from the state’s labor laws and has promised that he will not turn over data on state residents to federal authorities.

California is also the first in the nation seeking to become a “sanctuary state,” despite opposition from local law enforcement authorities. One sheriff from a conservative county disagrees with the effort arguing that politicians should not demand that local cops hide information about criminal activity from federal authorities. “I believe it’s not lawful,” he said.

Such policies could prove illegal; they are definitely expensive. California is home to roughly 3 million undocumented residents, who make up about 6 percent of the state’s population and 10 percent of its workforce. Some 25 percent of the nation’s total illegal population lives in the Golden State. One right-leaning group has estimated that California taxpayers are paying as much as $30 billion annually providing services to that group, which includes about $16 billion in school costs. That’s a significant hit to a projected $180 billion projected budget, which includes an estimated $1.6 deficit.

Governor Brown is expected to tackle the state’s red ink by slowing the growth of public school spending. He has also proposed phasing out scholarship money for middle-class families sending their kids to the University of California or CalState. Will hard-working parents who have gained citizenship the old-fashioned way and whose kids may not get a shot at college resent the billions directed to undocumented residents?

Americans have a sharp sense of fairness and respect for law and order. They also tend to vote with their pocketbook. They don’t like the idea of a wall, but they’re also not keen on sanctuary cities. They want people in the country illegally to be given a path to legal status. Nonetheless, they will not tolerate giving favored treatment and generous handouts to unauthorized people if they have to pay for it or end up feeling disadvantaged. These policies may appease liberal activists in a handful of states, but they will move us farther away from real immigration reform.

 

Published on TheFiscalTimes.com.

Here’s Why Trump Should Forget the Wall and Push for E-Verify Democrats, Now the Party of No, Stonewall Trump at Their Peril

Related Posts

Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AM

Articles

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Articles

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Articles

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Recent Posts

  • Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AMDOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment
  • Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliensDemocrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens
  • Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agendaRepublicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda
  • Screenshot 2019-06-26 07.54.58What Kamala Harris buzz is telling us. Read between the lines, America

Tweets by Liz

Unable to load Tweets

Follow

Liz on Facebook

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Liz Peek

47 minutes ago

Liz Peek

Sorry – my rant got messed up, with a sentence going haywire. Apologies. Here’s the corrected version:
My Morning Rant
Yikes- it’s 3 pm! Ok, it’s no longer morning but I’m doing the best I can – and still ranting!
My favorite New York Times story over the weekend carried this headline: One Thing Helping Trump’s Approval Rating: Some People Are Not Paying Attention. (www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/18/polls/trump-job-approval-news-attention.html)
In other words, the Times is furious that despite their very best efforts, a whole lot of the country is still supporting President Trump. What’s wrong with these people, the NYT editors surely wonder? Why aren’t they falling in line?
The Times pegs the president’s approval rating at 42%, citing their own New York Times/Siena College poll, worse than the Real Clear Politics average of 46% and Rasmussen’s 49% figure. The Times is unhappy their poll isn’t even more negative, but have figured out a good (narrative-friendly) reason. According to their diagnosis, people like Trump who are not following what he is up to.
What’s most entertaining is the two examples the Times gives of how not paying attention can skew attitudes towards Trump’s ratings. Asked about Trump’s handling of immigration, for instance, only 40% approve amongst the group that has heard about the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Of the group NOT familiar with the alleged gang-banger from El Salvador who was in the U.S. illegally and deported back to El Salvador, you are more likely to be ok with Trump’s immigration actions.
If you haven’t heard about Garcia, you’ve missed out on some excellent political theater, as every progressive nitwit eager to make headlines – Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and others – have championed a guy credibly suspected of human trafficking and being a member of MS-13. Van Hollen actually traveled to ElSalvador to try to free Garcia, just before it became known that Garcia’s wife had twice asked for protection against her abusive husband. Never mind, to those panting to win the Democrat nomination for 2028, this is an excellent cause.
Along with progressive Democrats, the Times & other liberal rags beat this story to death, playing to the coastal elites who are their audience. Not surprising that Trump fans may not have been caught up in the Garcia’s totally unsympathetic story. The reality is that not one but two judges found in 2019 there was sufficient evidence to support Abrego Garcia’s gang membership. In addition, Garcia applied to avoid being shipped back to El Salvador because he feared persecution by Barrio-18, the main rival gang of MS-13. Hmmm (Read more here from the BBC www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno)
So I’m running out of room – but the other NYT screen for liking Trump’s immigration approach, is whether people have heard about the Mahmoud Khalil case. This story revolved around a student activist who is a green card-holder and has been a ringleader of the anti-Israel disruptions at Columbia University.. He was arrested by ICE on March 8, 2025, with the stated reason being the revocation of his student visa, although he was then informed his green card status would be revoked instead. The government has been arguing that his arrest and detention are not reviewable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This is a perfect story for the pro-Palestinian NYT; they are apoplectic that a person who abuses their status as a guest in our country might be deported. Trump’s view: if you’re a troublemaker we get to toss you out.
My view- I’m sympathetic with wanting to toss out the bad guys and feel our government should be able to do that – but want the Trump administration to follow proper procedures. We don’t want them back again.
… See MoreSee Less

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 1
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 0

Comment on Facebook

Liz Peek

2 hours ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant
Yikes- it’s 3 pm! Ok, it’s no longer morning but I’m doing the best I can – and still ranting…
My favorite New York Times story over the weekend carried this headline: One Thing Helping Trump’s Approval Rating: Some People Are Not Paying Attention. (www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/18/polls/trump-job-approval-news-attention.html)
In other words, the Times is furious that despite their very best efforts, a whole lot of the country is still supporting President Trump. What’s wrong with these people, the NYT editors surely wonder? Why aren’t they falling in line?
The Times pegs the president’s approval rating at 42%, citing their own New York Times/Siena College poll, worse than the Real Clear Politics average of 46% and Rasmussen’s 49% figure. The Times is unhappy their poll isn’t even more negative, but have figured out a good (narrative-friendly) reason. According to their diagnosis, people like Trump who are not following what he is up to.
What’s most entertaining is the two examples the Times gives of how not paying attention can skew attitudes towards Trump’s ratings. Asked about Trump’s handling of immigration, for instance, only 40% approve amongst the group that has heard about the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Of the group NOT familiar with the alleged gang-banger from El Salvador who was in the U.S. illegally and deported back to El Salvador, you are more likely to be ok with Trump’s immigration actions.
If you haven’t heard about Garcia, you’ve missed out on some excellent political theater, as every progressive nitwit eager to make headlines – Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and others – have championed a guy credibly suspected of human Salvador to try to free Garcia, just before it became known that Garcia’s wife had twice asked for protection against her abusive husband. Never mind, to those panting to win the Democrat nomination for 2028, this is an excellent cause.
Along with progressive Democrats, the Times & other liberal rags beat this story to deathtrafficking and being a member of MS-13. Van Hollen actually traveled to El
, playing to the coastal elites who are their audience. Not surprising that Trump fans may not have been caught up in the Garcia’s totally unsympathetic story. The reality is that not one but two judges found in 2019 there was sufficient evidence to support Abrego Garcia’s gang membership. In addition, Garcia applied to avoid being shipped back to El Salvador because he feared persecution by Barrio-18, the main rival gang of MS-13. Hmmm (Read more here from the BBC www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno)
So I’m running out of room – but the other NYT screen for liking Trump’s immigration approach, is whether people have heard about the Mahmoud Khalil case. This story revolved around a student activist who is a green card-holder and has been a ringleader of the anti-Israel disruptions at Columbia University.. He was arrested by ICE on March 8, 2025, with the stated reason being the revocation of his student visa, although he was then informed his green card status would be revoked instead. The government has been arguing that his arrest and detention are not reviewable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This is a perfect story for the pro-Palestinian NYT; they are apoplectic that a person who abuses their status as a guest in our country might be deported. Trump’s view: if you’re a troublemaker we get to toss you out.
My view- I’m sympathetic with wanting to toss out the bad guys and feel our government should be able to do that – but want the Trump administration to follow proper procedures. We don’t want them back again.
… See MoreSee Less

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 7
  • Shares: 1
  • Comments: 1

Comment on Facebook

Your rant is too long. A reader’s digest version is needed

Liz Peek

2 days ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
I am alternately peeved and sympathetic with Chip Roy, Ralph Norman and the others who torpedoed Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. But after reading the fine print this morning and realizing that reforms to Medicaid don’t kick in until 2029 !!!! I am disgusted. I get that states need some time to adjust to a change in rules regarding Medicaid eligibility – maybe a year or 18 months — but do they really need four years? No, they do not. The extended timeframe is an obvious play to put political repercussions off until after the midterms. Legislators from swing districts fear losing their seats because able-bodied adults lose their free ride. They want to put off any change as long as possible.
On the other hand, those vulnerable legislators will almost certainly get canned if the 2017 tax cuts don’t get extended and Trump’s agenda crashes. We need both to get the bill passed, and to make it tougher.
The conservatives calling for bigger spending cuts are completely correct. Just ask Moody’s, which in recent days downgraded U.S. debt. Imagine, the United States of America has lost its triple-A status. (The other two major ratings agencies had already made this downgrade.) This would be a wake-up call except that most of our country is asleep, lulled into a false sense of complacency by hours spent on Tik-Tok or watching the NFL. We all need downtime, for sure, but we also need to pay attention to what’s happening with our country’s fiscal outlook. It isn’t good. Even the Fed, no friend to the Trump administration or to fiscal austerity, has announced it will cut staff and overhead. Of course, why the Fed has a headcount of 24,000 is a mystery. How can they employ so many people and still get it wrong most of the time? This is the group that never spoke out against Biden’s reckless spending; it’s quite the switch.
Simply put, the country endorsed a huge surge in government spending to compensate for the wrong-headed directives during Covid that shut down schools, businesses and churches. The government under Trump wanted to keep Americans employed and the economy ready to rebound, which it did. Biden kept the spending at max level, refusing to let a crisis go to waste. Democrats in Congress and the Fed went along, spurring the highest inflation in decades.
Now we have to go back to the trend-line pre-Covid spending; the bill on the table doesn’t do that. Republicans must do better if they want to keep the majority.
… See MoreSee Less

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 44
  • Shares: 6
  • Comments: 12

Comment on Facebook

Right on, as usual! Thanks for all your clear-headed messages.

Excellent analysis! Couldn’t agree more.

Just sick of BOTH parties. Neither are there for the Working Americans. BOTH parties responsible for the theft going on. Repubs should have read the bills that gave away money..

Nailed it

We need a balanced budget amendment! Deficit spending needs to end!

Liz Peek Well written, my friend!

Convention of States is looking better everyday.

Honestly you should be somewhere in Trumps administration Liz.. Just sayin

As much as I want a win on the BBB, I’m torn. I find it very difficult to believe that they can’t find more to cut spending

Is TERM LIMITS in this big beautiful bill? Everything else is.
If not, why not?
Past time to cut the deadwood and get “servants” of We the People seated who will do the job more responsibly..

Following.

CUT MORE SPENDING!!!

View more comments

LOAD MORE

Tags

AGENDA AIR FORCE BIG GOVERNMENT BORDER WALL CHINA CLINTON CONGRESS CYBERWAR DEMOCRATS DRAIN THE SWAMP E-VERIFY ECONOMY ELON MUSK FILLIBUSTER FREEDOM CAUCUS FREEDOM WATCH GOP GORSUCH GRADUATION HACKING HEALTH CARE HILLARY IMMIGRATION INFRASTRUCTURE KUSHNER MEDIA MIDDLE EAST MOODY'S NUNES NYC OIL RAND PAUL STOCK MARKET SUPREME COURT SUSAN RICE TAXES TAX REFORM TECHNOLOGY TED CRUZ TERROR TRUMP TURKEY WALL STREET WEATHER WELLESLEY
[themify_map address="233 78th Street New York, NY 10032" width=100% height=250px zoom=14]
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
©2017 LizPeek.org. All Rights Reserved.
Site by Steeplechase Strategies