I keep hearing people putting the blame on the government of the State of California for the problems associated with the phenomenon of illegal immigration.

Reality check: it isn't a problem that any State government can solve, or even affect to any great extent. It a responsibility for the Federal government.

My own perspective is that there are a lot of native-born Americans in denial out there about the illegal immigration problem.

Reality check:

1) They aren't all from Mexico.

2) If the ones who are from Mexico are rolled across the border, many of them will simply cross back over.

3) Illegal immigrants are costing the country, but many of them are also helping the economy of the country. Their impact isn't 100% negative.

4) Much of the negative impact of illegals is created by a tiny minority among them. For instance, in California, I've heard that illegal immigrants make up 1/5 of prison inmates. Someone else said it was more like 1/3, in another post. The fact is that even if it were 1/2, that would still be fewer than 90,000 illegals, out of several million people. We need to separate out the problems of illegal immigrant felons and gangsters from the problems of people who are basically honest other than the fact that they crossed the border illegally.

5) A lot of Americans seem to think that the Feds will be able to wave a magic wand, round up the millions and millions of illegals presently in this country, put them all on boxcars and send them back to Mexico, or something.

Strictly in terms of financial expense: if you think illegal immigration is costing the country money now, it's nothing compared to what a program like that would cost. With little guarantee of anything other than an escalation of ethnic tensions, police repression, and organized violence. It's just the facts. Even a fascist regime, God forbid (although I don't think that's a serious possibility) couldn't do it without it costing tens of billions of dollars, when the impact of lose labor, social disruption, and tax revenues devoted to the project are totalled up. Who knows how much- $100 billion? $200 billion?

In a nationwide program of illegal immigrant "cleansing", I think $20,000 per deportee would be reasonable ballpark estimate for the expense. To put them where? To send them where?

Or, to float a modest proposal- maybe some of you would prefer a Final Solution. If that's the case, by all means- don't beat around the bush, be explicit in your demands. Tell us how you really feel.

You might as well realize that even mass extermination would be bound to cost big money. Unlike the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe that were taken over by the Nazis, the illegals don't have any wealth to plunder. That means that the American taxpayer will foot the bill.

On the other hand, if you're one of those bleeding hearts- like myself- who are fairly irrevocably opposed to setting up death camps for illegal immigrants, you have to grapple with the realities associated with finding the best practical alternatives.

Just like with the problems associated with government budget deficits- simply saying "no" is not an answer.

Yes, but when the house doubles and triples in value the taxes stay the same. Not a bad deal. Not fair, but a good deal nevertheless.

Not a bad deal. Tell your kids to enjoy their dark, diminished future that your voted for. But just think. You didn't have to pay taxes!

I appreciate your reasoned and fair response.

In response to you saying solve the deficit now and cut later for fear of terrible repercussions I would agree with you except that IF they (the Democrats) get tax hikes like they want, there is no way they will be FORCED to cut their largess. They will simply say "we got our tax hike we can continue on the way things are". I am afraid that for a legislature as we have it now, one with not an ounce of common sense, they will have to be FORCED to cut, or there is no other way for them to act. In fact, even now when things are extremely dower, they are resisting...what makes you think they will be more amenable later? They won't because giving up their entitlements is death to them and they won't do it.

The other item about Prop 13 being mostly about businesses...I wish that were true. It isn't. There are many who want homeowners, even frugal ones, to pay the brunt. One of them is my sister who makes a large income...very angry woman. She doesn't care if others do not have her high income...to them she says "oh well!". I am betting she has changed her tune now that her house is relatively low taxed!

As for CA having so many "benefits" etc. Yes, we do but truly, I think there are better places to live now for sure. Yes, we have the weather, and YES, we have natural beauty BUT we have lots of problems that make life here awful. HORRIBLE schools with teachers who cannot be fired no matter how incompetent (50% drop out rate even with highest teacher salaries), GANGS (including deadly ones from S. america and a government who won't even deport criminals), SMOG, crowds and a government who HATES the responsible middle class and wants to punish them at every turn. Um, no thank you! I am so out of here. They can say good bye to me, a good tax paying citizen who doesn't take....because I want to go to some state that is responsible and good like me. California used to be a paradise but it has become a hell in many ways, thanks to the Democratic controlled legislature.

When I lived in SoCal in the 70's a real estate agent pointed out numerous big corporate headquarter hi-rises and said they paid paid no property taxes. He said that in the 30's and 40's the state wanted big insurance and bank companies to move their headquarters to Cal, so they offered to exempt them from property taxes in perpetuity. If true, I guess it wasn't such a good idea, chickens-home-to-roost-wise.