While I respect what you're saying to some extent Mandark, "when you subsidize something, you get more of it."
As long as our welfare state is as large as it is (and some *cough* want it to get bigger), all we do is encourage more people to cross over and be a drain. Maybe you have the luxury of not living in a state where that matters, but I don't.
Three points:
1)
If only you had lived it, then you'd understand I was right. La de dah. The metro area and Congressional district I live in have higher proportions of residents born outside the US than, oh, Texas. You ride the Q2 through Wheaton and tell me how sheltered I am.
2) I'm not buying that immigrants are a "drain" because of the welfare state, and it's absurd to imply that they come here with the intention of becoming one. Immigrants skew towards working-age and those desiring to work (the main economic concern is that they'll drive down wages by
competing for jobs ferchrissakes).
It's weird how you're treating The Welfare State like a black box which mysteriously converts the money of the rich into the money of the poor. You could at least cite some actual, real-life programs by which the immigrant population siphons off wealth. The reality is that most social spending goes towards the elderly, and immigration is a boon for that. Ask any economist who's had to model Social Security's long-term prospects, and they'll tell you that immigration makes the program more solvent, not less.
3) This is the important one, and I was kind of trolling you into your response so I could make this point.
You're not against immigration per se. You're against the welfare state, and open borders would make it easier for certain people to apply for and receive government subsidies.
So, as a remedy to this problem, you're okay with a separate branch of the government arresting and deporting those people and telling them where they ought not live (which is essentially a whole continent). Not just the people who are draining the system, but a whole swath of people you think are more statistically likely to do so.
Well hell. Our government gives out agricultural, fossil fuel, nuclear, aviation, automotive, timber, and construction subsidies. What if a government agency started cracking down on people who started businesses (or were more likely to start businesses) in those industries?
Tlderly are far and away the biggest personal "drains" on our tax dollars, through Medicare and Social Security. If the FBI started shipping off mee-maw and pop-pop, would you say "I'm not against senior citizens in general, and I'd much rather do away with the welfare state so they could stay. But as long as it persists, it's probably better to ship them away before they can incur such outrageous costs. Maybe you have the luxury of not being surrounded by doddering old geezers, but I don't."
edit:
Ted Kennedy has died.
Well, shit.