The Right Side of the News

Worse yet a lot of them play electric guitars, synthesizers and one even plays the harmonica. There isn't a classically trained pianist in the whole bunch.

I have to post yet another reply to your Message 716 because I just investigated OAN's supposed sources for those immigration figures. Here's the OAN graphic again: It says that it's sources are the Center for Immigration Studies, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federation for Immigration Studies, and the Institute for Defense Analyses.I checked the figures that I could find from each of these sources:

• Center for Immigration Studies
  ​
  This is an anti-immigration group, though they call themselves non-partisan. Based upon recently released census data, Record 44.5 Million Immigrants in 2017 says there are actually 44.5 million immigrants in the US, about a third higher than all other estimates and well above the 25.8 million figure in OAN's graphic. But recall that the OAN graphic's figure for total aliens is actually for total legal aliens. In any case, OAN did not get the figure for total legal aliens from this site because the person who wrote the aforementioned report also writes that there are only around 11 million illegal aliens in the country in New Estimate of 22 Million Illegal Immigrants Is Not Plausible.
  ​
  Interestingly, if you trust their numbers, it means the total number of legal aliens is about 33.5 million, or about 10% of the total population. And their total of 44.5 million aliens, both legal and illegal, means that about 1 out of every 7 people is an alien. Even the accepted figure of 36.7 million aliens means 1 out of every 9 people is an alien.
  ​
  By the way, I found the paper stating the $70,000 estimated cost of an illegal immigrant over their lifetime: The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration. They estimate that on average each illegal immigrant costs $74,722 during their lifetimes. They estimate a wall would stop between 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossovers each year, and if you multiply that out it comes to $12 to $15 billion, more than enough to pay for the wall.
  ​
  But - and this is a huge but - remember that the savings of $74,722 per illegal immigrant is over their lifetimes. If their average lifetime is, say, 50 years of life after entering the country at an average age of 30, then it would take 50 years to pay for the wall. But we have to add to that that the wall stops 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossovers not just this year, but every year thereafter. The math gets more complicated at this point, but I'd estimate it would take about 15 years before the wall paid for itself.
  ​
  Of course that's assuming their $74,722 cost per illegal immigrant over their lifetime is correct, but it's not. It's absurd. For the most part illegal immigrants try to remain as invisible as possible while they participate in the economy, a good number of them paying taxes for which they cannot file for refunds, and their illegal status making it impossible for them to apply for any government benefits. They do not identify the costs we incur for illegal aliens. Their position is difficult to understand.
  ​
  I couldn't anything at their website supporting the other figures in the graphic.
  ​
• Department of Homeland Security
  ​
  I didn't even bother going to their website. They are a competent group and are not going to claim costs that exceed their budget by a wide margin.
  ​
• Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR)
  ​
  Their motto is, "Leading the fight to stop illegal immigration." This is a wildly anti-immigration group concerned about the effect of current levels of immigration on the nature of future America while giving lip service to anti-discrimination but emphasizing the need to make tough decisions. Naturally they call themselves non-partisan.
  ​
  They have no recent figures for the nationwide cost of immigration. Their most recent paper on this topic is from 1996, and they have a bunch of papers about individual states. I don't think they're the source of the figures in OAN's graphic.
  ​
• Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)
  ​
  There is very little about immigration at their website, and nothing about the cost.

So just like the Washington Post fact-checker I was unable to track down the source of the numbers in the OAN graphic. Summarizing:

• Their 25.8 million figure for the total number of aliens in the US is actually the figure for the total number of legal aliens.
• The 12,719 figure for the number of aliens who have illegally crossed our border this year (27 days and counting at the time Trump posted his figures) is very believable, concordant with many estimates.
• The total cost of $18 billion so far this year is completely bogus and on an annual basis exceeds the total budget of Homeland Security by a very wide margin.
• The $392.5 million "cost this day" yields a figure a little more than half the $18 billion so far figure, so they don't agree, but it might be for a partial day. I get the impression that the OAN image is actually of a graphic that is dynamically updated on a real time basis.

Bottom line, still four Pinocchios: --Percy

Yes I should have written out some of the information. Here's one fact I should include at least: four California cities are said to have gone bankrupt and pensions have been lost. Don't know why that supposed surplus didn't kick in to save the situation.

You do know that there is a difference between state and municipal budgets right? Just because the state budget has a surplus doesn't mean that municipal budgets must also.

I see. So the majority of California cities could go bankrupt and people lose their pensions and nothing can be done about it and that doesn't even count as a problem for the state as a whole.Well I guess at least I can rest easy for my relative who works for the state.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's the solution! They should form a band and do concerts instead of trying to run the country, which is beyond their talents.

Which California cities would those be? Why no link to anything? Can I guess that this is just another fallacious factoid you heard in your right-wing echo chamber?Poking around on Google I found this article that has Stockton going bankrupt in 2012, and San Bernardino in 2013. Also, Vallejo went bankrupt in 2008. These all precede the surplus, and the pensions were not lost, as you can see by this article: City bankruptcies should be a state responsibility:

quote:

---

Because San Bernardino, like Vallejo and Stockton before it, opted not to pursue pension cuts in bankruptcy,...

---

What's the fourth city? Was it Mammoth Lakes, which was in bankruptcy for less than a year in 2012, emerging quickly because it reached an agreement with its biggest creditor? No pensions were lost there, either.The solvency of cities across the US and their pensions is a serious and legitimate concern, but you appear to be dead wrong about pensions being lost. Until you can come up with some kind of substantiation for this claim we're going to have to give this four Pinocchios: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Correct city name.

Name the cities.
Oh you can't?You do realize that we do the research that you are either to lazy or to ignorant to do, don't you?

Stockton and San Bernardino are two. I'll listen to the video again eventually.The thing is I'm not impressed by your research. You don't seem to know that politics enters into all of that.ABE: Oh and I now see that Percy has added Vallejo. There's one more though.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why don't you watch the video instead of indulging in your usual hatefest against me?

As Percy pointed out these bankruptcies have already happened. They are not on the verge of bankruptcy. They are no longer in bankruptcy. Your sources are lying to you.3 years ago, Stockton, California, was bankrupt. Now it's trying out a basic income. - VoxJudge confirms San Bernardino, California's plan to exit bankruptcy | Reuters

I see you're going to insist on continuing to be wrong about bankrupt California cities and their pensions. One more time, no pensions were lost. California cities and towns do not usually run their own pension funds. They pay into two state run pension funds, CalSTRS (teachers) and CalPERS (everyone else). There are other California pension funds, but they are tiny in comparison. A California municipality could opt to diminish contributions, thereby reducing pension benefits in the future, but current retirees pension benefits would not be affected.As mentioned in a previous post, the solvency of the CalSTRS and CalPERS pension funds is threatened because future obligations are underfunded, but that is a separate problem from municipalities going bankrupt. We're going to have to give you four Pinocchios again: --Percy

That any California cities have gone bankrupt says something about the situation in the state. Especially four of them, showing it's no isolated phenomenon. As for what is GOING bankrupt that's the state itself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again I suggest you watch the video. I know you just love to hate me personally (against your own forum rules, more and more these days) but this is about the video in Message 740..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another fail. In that very post, Message 757, I asked about what was probably the fourth city: Since your reading comprehension problems are so prominently on display today let me state the city's name again: Mammoth Lakes. Is that the one you meant?You only mentioned bankrupt California cities because you claimed their pensions were lost. Are you going to substantiate this claim of lost pensions or not?--Percy