Immigration Watch International (2): Chicago Approved $51 Million for Migrant Spending. Here's Where It Went

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Chicago Approved $51 Million for Migrant Spending. Here's Where It Went

New information has come out to show how little of the $51 million the city of Chicago approved to spend on the thousands of migrants who have been processed and released from Border Patrol arriving to the city.

The Chicago Tribune reports $47 million went to pay for "contractual staff," leaving only $4 million to go towards other expenses related to housing and providing care for the new arrivals. The city wants to spend at least $25 million on rental assistance.

Alderman Raymond Lopez (D) said the majority of the money is going towards "the pockets of grifters [and] usual poverty pimps."

Chicago, much like other self-proclaimed sanctuary cities, is struggling to find space for the near daily arrivals as hundreds of illegal immigrants continue to cross the southern border. Some of the city's police stations have turned into shelters, where stays have lasted for weeks.

Los Angeles recently received their first state-sponsored bus from Texas. Mayor Karen Bass (D) said Texas Govenor Greg Abbott (R) should not use people for a political stunt and that she is concerned what could happen if the busing of migrants continues, according to KABC.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2023/06/20/chicago-approved-51-million-for-migrant-spending-heres-how-much-they-actually-got-n2624725

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Chicago Approved $51 Million for Migrant Spending. Here's Where It Went

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors