Please verify

Blaze Media
Watch LIVE

Cher says L.A. can’t afford more illegal immigrants. Well, neither can the rest of the U.S.

Conservative Review

A recently-floated proposal to send apprehended illegal immigrants to sanctuary jurisdictions may not ever actually come to fruition, but it's already turning the conversation on illegal immigration on its ear.

Case in point, a Sunday evening tweet from the rabidly anti-Trump celebrity and pop music superstar Cher questioning why her home of California should have to pick up the tab for illegal immigrants when it's already having trouble taking care of Americans.

“I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More,” Cher wrote Sunday afternoon.

Naturally, the singer was thoroughly roasted for the remarks. "Welcome to the Republican Party" Donald Trump Jr. wrote on Instagram.

But, let's look at what's really happening here. This is a spectacular show of NIMBYism, a west-coast celebrity has stumbled across one of the basic arguments against illegal immigration: That resources are finite and resources used on illegal immigrants detract from those used on American citizens.

The question then becomes, who then, is supposed to take on that resource burden?

Given the fact that the national debt is currently over $22 trillion and climbing, it would seem that the federal government is even more resource strapped than Los Angeles County and has considerably more American citizens to worry about.

There are disadvantaged American citizens everywhere you look, after all.

The estimated net taxpayer cost of an illegal alien is somewhere around $74,000. Right now, our annual influx has an estimated price tag of about $150 billion.

American taxpayers already have more than they should on their plates; to borrow Cher's words, how can they take care of more?

Meanwhile, American commerce is already suffering because of Customs and Border Protection's need to reallocate customs officials to deal with migrant waves instead of dealing with imports at the border.

And why should border states and jurisdictions alone bear the fiscal weight of an immigration crisis that has been perpetuated in large part by the politicians who represent deep-blue districts and sanctuary jurisdictions?

If politicians and voters want an unsecured border and unreformed asylum laws, they should at least be willing to shoulder the results of those combined policies. If not, this whole sanctuary movement is just going to look like yet another meaningless virtue-signaling ploy.

Then again, maybe that's what it really was to begin with.

Read MoreShow less
Most recent

THIS is the one question you should ask yourself following McCarthy's ousting

Horowitz: One quality we need in a new House speaker

All Articles