What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America? | Village of the Banned. This was one of the most interesting blogs I’ve read in a long time. I have always been a proponent of tighter borders, but this blog was stuffed full of incredible statistics to back up that wish! Here are a few of them…
“…In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grandchilds would move back ‘home’, mostly to Mexico . That would save Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our grid locked cities in Colorado . Denver ‘s 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.”
This is not all the interesting statistics in this blog. It is a must read. Go check it out! Really amazing and something to think about!
Thank you for the link back my friend.
I was checking the “facts” cited on this article and found some really interesting information. I found that most of the information citied as “facts” come from Lou Dobbs Tonight’s transcripts from his show that was pulled from CNN in 2009. Wasn’t he forced to resign in 2009 amid criticism of biased reporting? Did he get a job with the INS? I also though that it was interesting that you also cited rense.com as one of your sources of information. This citing is number 13 on the list of “facts” you cited as one of your sources of information for this article. Is this the same site from Jeff Rense, who is talk show host, a conspiracy theory nut, a Holocaust denier, and also does some very interesting reports on UFO abduction? I just wanted a clarification. Also in researching further I found that the National Policy Institute the 12th cited source of information has been criticized by the SPLC’s Mark Potok “condemned the National Policy Institute as a ‘white supremacist organization’.” I also found that its chairman Louis R Andrews was quoted in a report as saying he “voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 US Presidential Election in order, he said, to help destroy the Republican Party so that it can be reborn into a party that will support the ‘interests of white people’ . Is there another National Policy Institute that I don’t know about or are we talking about the same one cited in this “news article”? In looking at the links for tinyurl.com I was redirected to Ask.com and when I clicked on the link for drdsk.com I gave me a simple error message and stated online the file could not be found. I would love to know where that information came from to do all of my due diligence as to make sure I am being impartial and objective. I did find a nice diamond in the rough with the information from the Center for Immigration Studies. I did some more research that you might find interesting. Here is Mark Krikorian’s, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies solution called “Attrition through Enforcement” Mark Krikorian sums up “attrition through enforcement” as:
“Shrink the illegal population through consistent, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law. By deterring the settlement of new illegals, by increasing deportations to the extent possible, and, most importantly, by increasing the number of illegals already here who give up and deport themselves, the United States can bring about an annual decrease in the illegal-alien population, rather than allowing it to continually increase. The point, in other words, is not merely to curtail illegal immigration, but rather to bring about a steady reduction in the total number of illegal immigrants who are living in the United States. The result would be a shrinking of the illegal population to a manageable nuisance, rather than today’s looming crisis.”
He also has estimated that the number of illegal immigrants at 10 -12 million  people not 20 million. There is also another interesting observation made by this group who is surprisingly non-partisan. He rejects the plausibility of mass deportations for these three main reasons. 
-“First, we simply don’t have the capacity to find, detain, and deport 10-12 million people in a short period of time.”
-“Secondly, even if we had the capacity to magically relocate the millions of illegals, the economic disruption from such an abrupt change would make the transition more painful than it needs to be for those businesses that have become addicted to illegal labor.”
-“And finally, political support for a new commitment to enforcement might well be undermined if an exodus of biblical proportions were to be televised in every American living room.”
I thought that was interesting because that is actually the exact opposite conclusion that this article proposes. I thought you might like to know that because you did use Mr. Krikorian and his organizations findings as one of your sources for this “news article”. Also I was wondering why in your “interesting statistics” section why the 3rd statistic you cite from the actual Center for Immigration Studies is off by 5 billion dollars? The second statistic of the cited websites article cited in this “news article” states in black and white and also in English that the cost is actually 2.5 billion annually  for Medicaid. I would also like to point out that in this same citation that you have used in this “news article” the first statistic says in black and white, and also in English, that the annual deficit is actually 10.4 billion dollars annually . I’m going with the Center for Immigration Studies numbers because they are not talk show hosts or Holocaust deniers and are an actual organization founded in 1985 to track illegal immigrant information. More importantly I can also easily verify the validity of their data. So that means that your “interesting statistic” of 583.3 billion dollars a year drained by illegal immigration in this “news article” is off by roughly 5000%. Actually, it’s a little more, but I’m being as Conservative as possible. Wow! That is interesting. Be sure to keep in mind I am using the same statistical information that’s written in English that you cited as one of the basis of this article. So lets do the math, at 10.4 billion for the deficit annually (according to the only source of information that isn’t a spurned talk show host, or someone investigates UFO activity, and is actually verifiable information.) We divide that number (10,400,000,000) and divide that by the number of tax payers according to number from the Internal Revenue Service  which is (138,000,000) so the formula is (10,400,000,000 / 138,000,000) is a whopping $75.36 drain a year on each tax payers income. That is $6.28 a month, or a whopping .21 cents a day. But lets be fair and balanced, this statistic was created in 2002 so lets multiply that $75.36 x 9 and almost a decade later the tax payer cost of illegal immigration has cost each of the 138,000,000 tax payers a whopping $678.24 since 2002. So if we add up the 10.4 billion deficit and multiply it by 9 for the same number of years since the study we have total of roughly 93,600,000,000. Remember, I got this information from your 3rd citation in the same website article from the same Center for Immigration Studies that you use for the basis of the research for this “news article”. Adding up the numbers since 2002 your “interesting statistic” for one year of spending at 538,300,000,000 is still off from the last total of 93,600,000,000 (which according to your sources is the last nine years of spending put together) is still off by more than 444,000,000,000 or about 572%. Remember we are still talking about a problem that costs the American taxpayer .21 cents a day. Let’s put that in perspective with the Bush Administration bailouts that cost around 750,000,000,000 to the taxpayers of the United States of America. So let’s do that math: 750,000,000,000 / 138,000,000 = 5435.78, that’s how much it cost the American taxpayer in the last year of spending under the Republican Bush Administration. If you take 5435.78 – 75.36 (which remember is the cost of illegal immigration for one year) is a difference of 5360.42. Even if you take the 678.24, which is the .21 cents a day for the last 9 years, the difference is still 4757.54. To be fair, he did give out a $600 tax credit, so the Republican Bush Administration only cost the American tax payer 4157.54 or $11.39 a day, and that was just in the last year of his last term in office. Remember, the information that I’m using isn’t from spurned talk show hosts, or Holocaust deniers, and can be easily verified, some of which comes from the same sources in your article. We can also go over the numbers from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost of the Republicans blunders to the American taxpayer if you want but I’m hoping your smart enough to understand where I’m going. After all I am speaking in English, and I’m fairly sure I can remember to add, subtract, divide, and multiply correctly based on the only valid sources of this “news article”. Maybe there is a new form of English and Math I don’t know about? One last thing I would like to ask, and this question is directed at the Denver Rocky Mountain News. Are you taking on any new hires? Because it looks like , to me at least, you’ll give anyone a job that has a journalism degree.
As I stated in the beginning…this was someone else’s blog post. I reposted it because I found it interesting. Thanks for all of your research and additional info.