PDA

View Full Version : 10th Amend...Way to go Oklahoma!


smittty
02-15-2009, 3:18 AM
This past Wednesday, the Oklahoma House Rules Committee unanimously supported House Joint Resolution 1003 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10HB/HJR1003_int.rtf), which expresses the sovereignty of the State of Oklahoma and clearly calls for an end to unconstitutional federal government mandates.

7 other states to follow.

TheBundo
02-15-2009, 3:53 AM
Maybe the great Obama will start Civil War II

KWA-S
02-15-2009, 4:38 AM
Nice one, OK!

So which states are up on this sovereignty thing? OK, NH,...?

Whiskey84
02-15-2009, 5:18 AM
Well done Oklahoma! Gives the rest of us a little hope...

MP301
02-15-2009, 5:47 AM
Hmmmm... This is interesting. But what comes to my mind is the flip side to this coin......I wonder what would happen if CA decided it didnt want to listen to the Feds...and enacted even worse oppression or laws or whatever then the feds were doing?....with the idea that it could do whatever it wanted....?

Paul
02-15-2009, 7:42 AM
If the federal government get's ticked off they normally cut off funding - but California is one of the net loss states. As an example $0.71 of every tax dollar collected by the feds is returned. On the +$787 billion dollar stimulus bill about 3.3% is coming here - 27% of what would be expected in a state of our population.

At 12% of the population of the nation you'd figure about 12% of the stimulus bill would come here ... and the state is in lots of need (the reason why is another posting) so that means 70 billion of money that ought to be spent here is being spend back east.

Imagine what California might be like ... sort of scary! We'd have the borders closed, we'd have less of our life's energy going to illegal aliens ... I don't think we'd have any worse off gun control as just as the 10th Amendment doesn't apply here neither does the 14th's "equal protection clause".

PzKfW
02-15-2009, 8:15 AM
That draft looks like grandstanding.

bwiese
02-15-2009, 8:43 AM
That draft looks like grandstanding.

Yup.

And OK ain't gonna cut off its 'net welfare' status (taking in more from Feds in gov't employee salaries, benefits, Soc. Sec payouts, welfare, etc. that their statewide gross product output).

dustoff31
02-15-2009, 9:11 AM
Yup.

And OK ain't gonna cut off its 'net welfare' status (taking in more from Feds in gov't employee salaries, benefits, Soc. Sec payouts, welfare, etc. that their statewide gross product output).

Nor is any other state. States that backed down on raising/maintaining speed limits on interstate highways when the feds threatened to withdraw federal highway funds are a minor example.

vrand
02-15-2009, 10:30 AM
If the federal government get's ticked off they normally cut off funding - but California is one of the net loss states. As an example $0.71 of every tax dollar collected by the feds is returned. On the +$787 billion dollar stimulus bill about 3.3% is coming here - 27% of what would be expected in a state of our population.

At 12% of the population of the nation you'd figure about 12% of the stimulus bill would come here ... and the state is in lots of need (the reason why is another posting) so that means 70 billion of money that ought to be spent here is being spend back east.

Imagine what California might be like ... sort of scary! We'd have the borders closed, we'd have less of our life's energy going to illegal aliens ... I don't think we'd have any worse off gun control as just as the 10th Amendment doesn't apply here neither does the 14th's "equal protection clause".

Then add the wasted spending from radical liberal vote-mongers spending $12 billion a year on services for illegals. In three decades they have destroyed what was California, the leading model state in America, and turned it into Taxifornia. :eek:

hawk1
02-15-2009, 10:30 AM
Hmmmm... This is interesting. But what comes to my mind is the flip side to this coin......I wonder what would happen if CA decided it didnt want to listen to the Feds...and enacted even worse oppression or laws or whatever then the feds were doing?....with the idea that it could do whatever it wanted....?

What if? California has already done that in emission standards. In the past, Bush blocked California from enacting them under the Clean Air Act. Obama just gave them the OK through a Presidential memoranda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_memorandum).

There's your what if...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential_Memorandum_EPA_Waiver/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


SUBJECT: State of California Request for Waiver Under 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), the Clean Air Act

Under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets emissions standards for new motor vehicles. California may also adopt standards for new motor vehicles if the Administrator of the EPA, based on criteria set out in the statute, waives the general statutory prohibition on State adoption or enforcement of emissions standards. Other States may adopt emissions standards for new motor vehicles if they are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted and comply with other statutory criteria.

For decades, the EPA has granted the State of California such waivers. The EPA's final decision to deny California's application for a waiver permitting the State to adopt limitations on greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2008.

In order to ensure that the EPA carries out its responsibilities for improving air quality, you are hereby requested to assess whether the EPA's decision to deny a waiver based on California's application was appropriate in light of the Clean Air Act. I further request that, based on that assessment, the EPA initiate any appropriate action.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 26, 2009

DDT
02-15-2009, 11:09 AM
What if? California has already done that in emission standards. In the past, Bush blocked California from enacting them under the Clean Air Act. Obama just gave them the OK through a Presidential memoranda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_memorandum).

There's your what if...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential_Memorandum_EPA_Waiver/

Well, the car companies are making so much money now on the back of the environment it isn't really asking too much that they make special cars for California with different emissions control systems and the requisite manuals, training, spare parts costs. Afterall they are making billions off of Californian's.


Oh, wait.... this just in, the Car Manufacturers are already losing billions of dollars a year and this is just one more straw on the back of that camel.

smittty
02-15-2009, 11:39 AM
Nice one, OK!

So which states are up on this sovereignty thing? OK, NH,...?

Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

Montana
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Michigan
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sjgu5xbql1n5xf45imuuysrm))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/htm/2009-HJ-01-22-002.htm

Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/state-legislator-charles-key-wants-to-limit-federal-power/

Hawaii
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

KWA-S
02-15-2009, 12:11 PM
Thanks for the list smitty, got me some good reading to do there.

mdouglas1980
02-15-2009, 12:26 PM
Simple. We all move to Oklahoma.:D[/QUOTE]

yeah check out the Brady website for the review of gun laws in OK... they're like in the top three of the "loosest gun laws" according to the site. I'd move there except I don't like tornado's to much lol! It gets a 2 out of 100!

Experimentalist
02-15-2009, 1:05 PM
Simple. We all move to Oklahoma.:D

Sorry... I just couldn't resist:

INOeZnfUuIY

vrand
02-15-2009, 1:50 PM
I've visited Oklahoma a couple times, driven through there plenty. It's really a nice place. In the south it's got some nice hills (don't call them mountains) and lots of nice folks there. The women (the ones that ain't missing too many teeth) are hot. Summers are hot too, as hell, and in the winter you'll freeze your *** off shovelling snow. Oklahoma's a haven for gun owners though. No BB, no mag restrictions, CCW all day long, NFA guns OK, the list goes on. Plenty of open space for hunting.

I'll take a tornado any day of the week over an earthquake. You can spot a tornado miles away and have a good (usually 30 min to an hour) warning and watch it head your way on the weather radar. The devastation is usually very localized, usually in a strip about as wide as a trailer park.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind moving to OK at all, if'n I can find a job there. Which is a big if'n.

:thumbsup:

yellowfin
02-15-2009, 3:43 PM
Simple. We all move to Oklahoma.:D

yeah check out the Brady website for the review of gun laws in OK... they're like in the top three of the "loosest gun laws" according to the site. I'd move there except I don't like tornado's to much lol! It gets a 2 out of 100![/QUOTE] As an extra incentive, the football is really good too. BCS level college football is one of the best things you can possibly experience.

grywlfbg
02-16-2009, 12:42 AM
Yeah, all the Feds have to do is threaten to take away funding and the OK legislature will cave.

Elsinore
02-16-2009, 6:59 AM
California sovereignty 1994.

BILL NUMBER: SJR 44 CHAPTERED 08/29/94
BILL TEXT

RESOLUTION CHAPTER 93
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AUGUST 29, 1994
ADOPTED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 1994
ADOPTED IN SENATE AUGUST 15, 1994
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 11, 1994
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 1994

INTRODUCED BY Senators Rogers, Ayala, Bergeson, Beverly,
Boatwright, Campbell, Craven, Dills, Hill, Hurtt, Johannessen,
Kelley, Kopp, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Maddy, McCorquodale,
Mello, Peace, Presley, Russell, Wright, and Wyman
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar, Alby, Allen, Andal,
Baca, Boland, Bowen, Bowler, Brulte, Cannella, Conroy, Cortese,
Costa, Epple, Ferguson, Frazee, Goldsmith, Harvey, Hauser,
Haynes, Hoge, Honeycutt, Horcher, Johnson, Jones, Katz, Knight,
Knowles, McPherson, Morrow, Mountjoy, Murray, Pringle, Rainey,
Richter, Rogan, Seastrand, Statham, Takasugi, Tucker, Weggeland,
and Woodruff)

APRIL 14, 1994

Senate Joint Resolution No. 44 Relative to the 10th
Amendment.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SJR 44, Rogers. 10th Amendment.
This measure would declare the state's sovereignty under the
10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and demand that
the federal government cease and desist mandates that are
beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers.




WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the United
States Constitution and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment
means that the federal government was created by the states
specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably
treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the
federal government by the California Legislature without any
response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of
the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may
not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes
of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from
Congress may further violate the United States Constitution;
now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of
California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims
sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and
granted to the federal government by the United States
Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and
demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its
constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of
this resolution to the President and Vice President of the
United States, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States
Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House
and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the
United States of America.

Kid Stanislaus
02-16-2009, 11:11 AM
OK, now let's all just set back and wait until the feds say "play it our way or we don't pay" and then watch all these heroes run for cover. Money talks and bullpudding takes a hike.

kap
02-16-2009, 11:59 AM
Looks like similar legislation is either already passed or planned in 22 states.

http://www.infowars.com/21-states-claiming-sovereignty/
http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty
Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw

The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress.

Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of "unfunded mandates" that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding.

In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).

I just hope this doesn't end with the Fed Gov't just providing funding for programs with money they don't have.

BigDogatPlay
02-16-2009, 12:03 PM
I just hope this doesn't end with the Fed Gov't just providing funding for programs with money they don't have.

Which is exactly what TARP and the "stimulus" already are. That's not the end as we find ourselves there today.

dustoff31
02-16-2009, 1:20 PM
Looks like similar legislation is either already passed or planned in 22 states.

Well, see that's the problem. These bills are with perhaps one or two exceptions, not legislation. They are resolutions, not laws. Which means they are meaningless and unenforcable.

vrand
02-16-2009, 1:31 PM
States’ Rights and the Growing Rebellion – A Status Report

One of the inevitable consequences of the last 75 years of Democrat rule in Washington – augmented by a decade or more of gutless rule by Republican presidents and congressional majorities who thought they could win hearts and minds by imitating Democrats – is a quiet rebellion within that basic building block of our American republic: the state legislatures.
Read more at:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2533,css.print/pub_detail.asp

vrand
02-16-2009, 1:40 PM
OK, now let's all just set back and wait until the feds say "play it our way or we don't pay" and then watch all these heroes run for cover. Money talks and bullpudding takes a hike.

Progression, as some see it:

States pass these resolutions or bills/laws.
Feds ignore them and pass laws anyway.
State chooses to not enforce or comply.
Feds withhold highway funds, etc.
State withholds federal income tax withholding.

Feds ??? What, send in the FBI? Arrest the governor? Declare the state in rebellion?

DDT
02-16-2009, 1:54 PM
Feds ??? What, send in the FBI? Arrest the governor? Declare the state in rebellion?[/B]

Might be easier going in CA and NY where the populace is largely unarmed and where the largest revenue come from for the feds.

kap
02-16-2009, 1:57 PM
The way this is getting played in the articles is that they are looking to limit the ability of the federal government to enact any legislation that would require the states to act. Social programs are constantly mentioned in the articles, but interestingly Montana's is specifically focused on stating that federal firearms laws do not apply to Montana. It even says the Montana AG needs to make sure Montana citizens are not prosecuted under federal firearm laws.

Montana (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm)

It looks like a lot of state governments are using the current financial issues as a way to tell the government to back off on giving them mandates for programs that they have no way to fund. Many states also see the potential for an onslaught of legislation originating in the white house that would mandate programs the states can not fund. Likely, the states are doing this to preserve the federal funding they already get while not having additional requirements put on them. This leaves the states the option of following the new legislation based on the benefit to the states and their finances. These declarations may just be preemptive strikes to to keep current funding.

bohoki
02-16-2009, 1:59 PM
Nor is any other state. States that backed down on raising/maintaining speed limits on interstate highways when the feds threatened to withdraw federal highway funds are a minor example.


yea that and the feds making them raise the drinking age to 21 or cut road funding
but if they pull that garbage
i say put up toll booths and have a toll on federal government cars and increase regualtions and taxes on cars registered to the federal government in california
also impound ones that are not properly state registered in the time limit imposed on us normals

interstate commerce should be severly limited and reviewed the whole nfa was based on that but why can a person not make a machine gun for use in thier state as long as it doesnt enter interstate commerce

the fed has been a boa constrictor since 1934 its time to unwind a few coils

dustoff31
02-16-2009, 2:00 PM
Feds ??? What, send in the FBI? Arrest the governor? Declare the state in rebellion?[/B]


Nope. The feds go directly to the people and tell them what it will cost them to kick the feds out. And that will be the end of that.

No federal highway funds.
No federal welfare funds.
No federal unemployment funds.
No federal jobs in that state.
No federal contracts/business with any business in that state.
No federal air traffic control system.
No federal resources of any type expended in that state.

Need I go on?

Could a state even survive in this scenario? Yes, it could be done, depending on the state involved. But the majority of the people are not willing to endure the pain it would require.

AJAX22
02-16-2009, 2:04 PM
CA or NY could cease payments to the federal government, and the entire system would collapse in short order.

Those are the only two states which receive less than they pay.

vrand
02-16-2009, 2:11 PM
CA or NY could cease payments to the federal government, and the entire system would collapse in short order.

Those are the only two states which receive less than they pay.

:thumbsup:

Then the 50 Republics, being sovereign independent countries, can fund their own debt, just like the US Gov. does now :thumbsup:

AJAX22
02-16-2009, 2:16 PM
Does the state collect taxes and then forward it on to the feds? or do we pay taxes direct to two separate entity's?

if there is a choke point here at the state level where we could get our state government to withhold payments pending a recognition of state soveringty or a committment not to spend a DIME of CA money outside of the U.S.... that might be a fun ballot initiative.

vrand
02-16-2009, 2:24 PM
Nullification

Nullification is a constitutional theory that gives an individual state the right to declare null and void any law passed by the United States Congress which the state deems unacceptable and unconstitutional. The concept is most well-known in the context of the sectionalist crisis that plagued the Union in the 40 years preceding the Civil War.

The origins of nullification are found in the Federalist-Republican debate of the late 1700s. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798) declared that the states had the right to nullify laws by which the federal government overstepped its limits of jurisprudence. When the Republicans gained the presidency in the “revolution of 1800,” nullification became moot.

The “tariff of abominations” of 1828 revived the issue. By this time in the United States, the North had become economically dominant due to manufacturing, and the South was beginning to suffer from exhausted land. The government enacted tariffs on foreign manufactures to protect Northern business, which raised the price of goods to be sold throughout the US. South Carolinians in particular were upset by their inability to afford these goods which the South could not produce. South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union.

John Calhoun, then Vice-President in the Jackson administration, promoted nullification as a moderate alternative to secession. A state would be able to nullify a federal law and exist as part of the Union unless three-fourths of the states passed the law as a constitutional amendment. In that case, the state would secede from the Union. Calhoun’s theory of “concurrent majority” essentially gave each regional interest an absolute veto.

Calhoun wanted to preserve the Union and intended to use the threat of nullification simply to force the federal government to reduce tariff rates, but the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate in Congress divided the nation over nullification. A North versus West controversy about public lands in the frontier turned into a Southern and Western ideological struggle against Northeastern “tyranny.”

President Jackson considered nullification to be treasonous. Jackson stated his view with the following toast at a Democratic Party banquet: “Our Federal Union-it must be preserved.” John Calhoun responded: “The Union-next to our liberty most dear.” Calhoun would resign as Vice-President and accept a Congressional seat from South Carolina.

In 1833, Congress passed a “force bill” which authorized Jackson to use violence to preserve the Union. A compromise on the tariff issue offered by Senator Henry Clay was passed in 1842, which gradually reduced rates to the 1816 level. Thirty years later in the Civil War (1861-1865), after the secession crisis was heightened by the slavery issue, violence would finally settle the matter of nullification.

jphaxx
02-16-2009, 3:26 PM
You guys that are proud of Oklahoma need to check out this bill for New Hampshire:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=154719

CA_Libertarian
02-16-2009, 9:41 PM
I'm not sure about OK, but I know NH gives the feds more dollars than the fed gives back. So if the feds try to play that game, NH might just say, "fine, we'll keep our money, you keep yours. We secede from the union."

(There is already a secession movement in NH - imagine the additional support they would enjoy if the feds bullied the "Live Free or Die" state?)

jphaxx
02-16-2009, 11:35 PM
They have a right to revolt clause in article 10 of their constitution

7x57
02-17-2009, 12:53 AM
Nor is any other state. States that backed down on raising/maintaining speed limits on interstate highways when the feds threatened to withdraw federal highway funds are a minor example.

Then there were the states who played smarter rather than harder. When the feds said Montana's state daytime speed limit of "Reasonable and prudent" (this is what the signs actually read) wasn't OK, Montana passed a speed limit to make them happy.

I'm sure they were so very happy with the vigor with which Montana enforced the federal speed limit. Violating the speed limit incurred a fine of $5, and it did not go on your record so your insurance company had no way of knowing whether you typically proceeded down the highway at speeds better suited to low-flying aircraft (well, they *knew*, nobody did anything else, but there wasn't a paper trail). Police cannot collect a fine, but federalism would be injured if citizens had to go to a courtroom periodically or even mail in a check just to make the fool congress happy. So the ticketing officer would collect a $5 bond against your appearing in court. If you didn't appear, the bond was applied to your fine. Funny, they were exactly the same For convenience, you just kept a $5 in your wallet to make any stops as speedy as possible, sort of like having exact change for the toll.

Just in case it wasn't obvious that this amounted to thumbing Montana's collective nose at the feds, the driver's test had a special question. The only question I missed asked "What is the Montana daytime speed limit?" I answered 55, like the signs said, and I was wrong. The correct answer was "Montana has no daytime speed limit."

Nothing imposed by the feds could be dignified as a Montana law, you see.

And that, friends, is how to maintain your de facto federalism while keeping your highway funds. :D

7x57

BillCA
02-17-2009, 2:34 AM
Simple. We all move to Oklahoma.:D

Oklahoma is a good place to be from. :p

I'd certainly hate to see the balkanization of the U.S. in my lifetime. Especially when it may be very simple to rein-in Congress. Let the states force an amendment that says Congressional salaries will be paid out of the budget surplus. And just for good measure, if the tax revenue exceeds the budget by more than a certain amount (after paying congress), it must be refunded to the people.


The Infernal Revenue Service requires tax payments to be sent to an IRS processing center. Thus, the state has no chance to weasel any money from them. It's a pain in the tail, but you can pay your taxes quarterly. One guy I know does this and banks the money to earn interest on it which netted him an extra $1400 a year. But there are certain painful requirements to meet and penalties if you're late. Most of us hate tax forms and will do it only once a year.

States like California, with high cost of living and high wages pays an excess of income tax per capita. Even if you adjusted taxes for our cost of living, we still get back less than half of what we send in.

If the feds and states would come to their senses and stop funding medical care, schooling, SSI benefits and welfare for illegals the money freed up would make the economic crisis go away (or mostly).

Providing free medical care for illegal immigrants has consistently been one of the state’s largest expenses, an annual cost of $775 million according to a recent (LA Times) news report (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap2-2009feb02,0,7223677.column?track=rss) which cited a legislative analysis. California also spends $4 billion a year to educate illegal aliens, $970 million to incarcerate them and about $500 million on other welfare benefits.

I make it out to be (in 2006) that California spent approximately $6.1B on illegals, or about $458 in taxes for every (non-farm employed) adult in this state. That amounts to paying about $2,190 per year, per illegal.

The state spends about $45,000 per year, per prisoner to incarcerate illegals. And I don't think that includes the fees paid to public defenders appealing their cases.

Education spends $1428 per illegal person on K-12 education and $276 per illegal on medical costs. And $2631 per year in welfare to 190,000 children born in the USA to illegal parents.

Take away the "freebies" and it's less attractive to live here. That will lower the number of illegals significantly and with it, the ancillary costs that aren't detailed above - like losses to petty theft, juvenille petty crime, vandalism, property damage, unsolved felony crimes, etc. This lowers the cost of law enforcement and court usage. [Note: Not meant to imply illegals are primarily criminals. Just noting some "undisclosed" costs.]

In just the demonstratable costs, that lowers the state defecit to $36B. Not a huge improvement, but a start.

Whiskey84
02-17-2009, 5:32 AM
Oklahoma is a good place to be from. :p

[Note: Not meant to imply illegals are primarily criminals. Just noting some "undisclosed" costs.]



If they are here illegally, they are criminals. End of story.