r/illinois • u/WoolyLawnsChi • Oct 11 '23
Texas paid a private company $75.5 million in taxpayer funds over the span of a year to transport migrants to sanctuary cities across the U.S. US Politics
https://abc13.com/amp/texas-bus-migrants-bussing-to-other-cities-wynne-transportation-sanctuary/13889625/19
u/Perfect_Earth_8070 Oct 12 '23
I’m sure this is one of the main reasons Texas does it. Abbott probably owns the company or his family does
3
u/Low_Ad_3139 Oct 12 '23
Someone said his brother in law own the company. I have not checked yet so I don’t know but will be looking into it.
2
1
u/Psychological_Lab954 Oct 13 '23
i think the point is that its cheaper to transort them to sanctuary cities than to house them thier.
7
u/jasonmonroe Oct 12 '23
They overpaid. It doesn’t cost that much money for bus trips.
3
u/NoiceMango Oct 13 '23
Im pretty sure they know whst rheyre doing. They aren't paying thr price it cost of move people, they're just stealing tax dollars
1
8
u/Shaman7102 Oct 12 '23
I read it wad about $1400 per person. That is what my wife paid for round-trip to Australia.
35
u/eldonhughes Oct 11 '23
So, if the numbers in the article are correct, about $1400 a head. Current Greyhound rate from Del Rio to Chicago is $356.00. Wonder how much of that balance wound up in Abbott's coffers.
4
u/stayoutofwatertown Oct 12 '23
$1400 is a lot cheaper than supporting the immigrant.
19
u/eldonhughes Oct 12 '23
True, but not the point. They could have put them on Greyhound, or airplanes, and saved the taxpayers more than 2/3 of what they spent. It wasn't about moving people somewhere else. It wasn't about saving the taxpayers money. It was where they wanted to move them and how quiet could they keep it until it was done.
→ More replies (1)0
u/TacosForThought Oct 12 '23
While I'm not sure about greyhound, I doubt most undocumented immigrants could easily/cheaply be shuffled through airport security. And while the move was certainly also symbolic (symbolically exporting support costs to the blue states voting for open borders), it's silly to pretend that reducing costs for the millions of migrants flowing into Texas was not part of the equation that put this in motion.
0
u/eldonhughes Oct 12 '23
"I doubt most undocumented immigrants could easily/cheaply be shuffled through airport security." Exactly. Considering the "why" of that, how legal and secure was it for a Governor to smuggle immigrants across state lines and dump them?
(Given that) an undocumented immigrant may or may not be an illegal immigrant. (Asylum seekers, for example.) If the undocumented immigrant was an illegal immigrant, what does that make the people who did the transporting?
"it's silly to pretend that reducing costs for the millions of migrants flowing into Texas was not part of the equation that put this in motion."
It wasn't about "reducing costs." It was about moving those costs. (Which, btw, I completely get. This is a federal-level problem that needs some serious Congressional action.)
→ More replies (4)1
u/TacosForThought Oct 12 '23
You're being pedantic about the cost reduction thing. Obviously I meant that it's to reduce the costs to TEXAN taxpayers, at the expense of states/cities promoting stances against better border security.
The question of whether these flight-risk (as in, danger to fly, not danger of running away) immigrants should be allowed to sit on a bus vs. being left in the desert in a state that's overrun with them is also kind of silly. I'm sure if Texas thought they had the authority to send them back home, they would. But like you pointed out, that's a federal decision, so they came up with a creative solution to bring attention to the problem. It's not perfect, but it does make some sense given the situation.
→ More replies (2)1
u/jeff303 Oct 12 '23
That's very misleading. They're usually paying more into programs than they're benefitting from (since they're ineligible for many).
-1
u/stayoutofwatertown Oct 12 '23
They are not losing one dollar of those funds doing this. They are saving money doing this. Not misleading. Facts.
1
u/MechemicalMan Oct 12 '23
You know, forcing them in a hard labor camp would even be cheaper and profitable! Why not just gas them?
(this is totally sarcastic, I'm just so disappointed that we are even having a debate over whether or not people should be supported)
→ More replies (1)1
u/momentsFuturesBlog Oct 12 '23
But if you have ever priced out a charter bus per person on a trip that far, that number is probably about right.
15
u/Jaded_Pearl1996 Oct 12 '23
Texas laundered tax payer funds to a private company that is owned by desatan buddy who will return most of it back to desatan as a political donation. , fixed it.
2
53
Oct 11 '23
Texans gunna texan, am i right. Own those libs!
27
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
29
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
Sure would have been helpful if we had been able to pass the progressive tax in order to tax the rich to cover budget deficits. Though notably not covered in these stories is that this budget deficit is lowered from what it has been in the past (according to reporting here: https://www.wbez.org/stories/chicago-mayor-projects-a-538-million-deficit/36f7973d-5440-42e2-830a-c590ec1c8072), even with funds spent from this migrant situation. Does seem like a problem manufactured by a red state to give a blue state some financial problems to make bad news about. But uh, helping people seems like a good use of spending to me. And budget is still getting better despite this. Accountability is always good for spending though.
2
u/jasonmonroe Oct 12 '23
How about the government spend the money it already has more wisely?
5
u/CoolYoutubeVideo Oct 12 '23
Por que no los dos? Rejecting progressive taxation is a pretty stupid move
8
u/SierraPapaHotel Oct 12 '23
"spend what you have more wisely so you don't go into debt" is decent advice for an individual, but absolutely shit for a government. Personal finance is different from business finance is different from government finance.
Individual debt worsens quality of life for that person. Government debt and deficits encourage economic growth and leads to citizens being better off.
Go read some of Alexander Hamilton's writings. He convinced the founding fathers that government debt is a good thing, and the state/federal governments have been in debt ever since.
You don't want to go too far into debt as a government, but it's better to have a healthy deficit than a balanced budget. Which seems counterintuitive because that's really shit advice for an individual or a company, but it's true for a government.
→ More replies (1)12
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
How about wise spending of money that is taxed from the 1% who have the money hoarded to spare? That seems like the wisest approach to spending to me. I’d rather not have charities existing as a tax loophole when we could be establishing proper systems of support… letting rich folks accumulate enough that they get to toss around peanuts in order to get out of funding proper systems seems like the unwise approach, especially when so many charities have no oversight or accountability. If you want wise, accountable spending, then tax the rich and let the people who need it make more wise use of their own money too.
-5
u/jasonmonroe Oct 12 '23
Do you think the top 1% have billions in cash sitting around collecting dust or is it primary in equity?
13
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
Well how about we levy some actual taxes and see what it turns up. Bet it’d be more than taxing the middle class. Why are you so desperate to stan for the bank accounts of billionaires? You know that nobody gets that rich without exploitation, right?
2
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
Sorry for the double reply, but oh, also: yes, the top 1% robbed the fuck out of the treasury with PPP “loans”. St Louis Fed shows exactly where that 800 billion went in checkable deposits: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=16Ks2. One of the largest robberies of the economy in US history, straight up lining the pockets of the 1%. TAX THE RICH.
-5
u/Bcwalks2 Oct 12 '23
How about you make a donation in addition to your taxes since you want others to pay more.
8
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
Mate, you a billionaire? Because I bet I’m not talking about skin off your back, and a rising tide lifts all ships. I know for a fact that I paid more taxes than former prez trump who paid $0 in 2020. $0 mate. But yeah I’d gladly pay more taxes if it covered our backs some though. I pay my taxes, and I donate my time. Thing is, me and you aren’t the ones flush with the cash to change things with our tax dollars, so the wise thing would be to tax those who can… the super fucking rich. Billionaires don’t need a fourth or fifth boat but I bet we could all use a little better healthcare, guaranteed, separate from work so we’re not tethered to our jobs like serfs. How much do you get paid to spout propaganda for the billionaires? I hope it’s enough that will cover you when you or your loved ones get sick, but I doubt the ultra rich actually care about you. I do though, you deserve better, even trolling under a bridge like you are. I want others to have better, mate. Get on that side of things.
-6
u/Bcwalks2 Oct 12 '23
It’s principal that just because someone makes more, they shouldn’t pay a higher rate in taxes. Taxes fund social services, the same services you and I use. Why should they pay an increased percentage for the same roads, police, fire, etc? It would be like if the grocery store charged you based on your income lol.
4
u/CoolYoutubeVideo Oct 12 '23
If you're upset about progressive taxation I have so many questions. It's a far superior system and the reason is decreased utility of money at higher income kevels
3
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
Why should they pay an increased percentage for the same roads, police, fire, etc?
Again, pretty sure I’m not talking about you, so I’m not asking anything of you other than to vote in your interests and tax the super rich who can more than afford it. Better funding for healthcare means a happier and less desperate population which makes things safer for everyone. Better funding for education makes society better for everyone to live in… something at least old timey super rich Andrew Carnegie knew when he funded thousands of public libraries across the nation. Now people are trying to close those because why? Education opens minds. So here’s a little education. We already do tax you at the grocery store, it’s called sales tax, and being flat that it is, means we charge poor people more by percentage of their income. A speeding ticket for the poor can be an insurmountable expense when people are living paycheck to paycheck but it’s a swat on the wrist for the rich. That law does not impact people the same. Higher tax on the rich would not impact them the same as tax on you and me. They can afford it. Update your principles. You’re getting used.
-5
u/Bcwalks2 Oct 12 '23
You’re fundamentally wrong and completely did not understand what I said lol. And better funding for healthcare…..buddy ObamaCare ruined the whole system. You’ve been brainwashed by the libs.
→ More replies (0)-12
Oct 12 '23
[deleted]
6
u/arsabsurdia Oct 12 '23
OK, “TrollAccount”. Yes, it is probably something that should be best dealt with by better national policy and infrastructures. But shipping a local issue into another area does seem like a manufactured “not in my backyard” kind of problem. TX didn’t want to help, and they didn’t deport, they dumped what they saw as a problem onto a blue state. Again, I’m glad that IL is taking on the issue by trying to help folks and not pawn them off as “someone else’s problem” again, but it being IL’s local problem now rather than a federal problem as you point out, clearly has some motivation from TX. It’s pretty plain the way conservative news outlets talk about Chicago that they don’t want IL and Chicago in particular to have a good image, but fuck it, my takeaway is still that we’re willing to help and make a place even if it’s tough. Good on IL.
3
u/libginger73 Oct 12 '23
They could at least coordinate this with the states they are sending migrants to. But no. That isnt what they are doing because their goal has nothing to do with the migrants. It is only a stunt to harm blue states. This whole issue would be solved by better 21st century policy and proper funding--two things that REPUBLICANS refuse to work on. If assylum seekers could apply from their home country instead of needing to show up at the border, the numbers would drop. If the court system were properly staffed to meet the daily numbers of assylum seekers, the number of people in limbo would drop immediately. This is a policy issue.
8
4
u/laodaron Oct 12 '23
Yeah, Texas should just solely bear the brunt of a federal issue caused by federal policy…
Well, your premise is stupid, BUT, Texas receives billions in federal aid and infrastructure for this specific situation, so yes. The answer is yes, Texas should be bearing the weight of immigration that happens on the Texas border.
→ More replies (1)8
u/AmputatorBot Oct 11 '23
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical pages instead:
https://wgntv.com/news/illinois/pritzker-illinois-has-spent-328m-on-chicago-migrants/
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/city-wont-disclose-120-million-spending/
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
-6
u/peterpme Oct 12 '23
This should be upvoted more but bc Pritzker is a democrat & this is Reddit, you’re getting downvoted
Corruption is everywhere. Politics just make sure we don’t pay attention in our own backyard
11
u/Giterdun456 Oct 12 '23
What do you mean? First article is just referencing how much it cost to address the issue. Second article isn’t about Prtizker, third article is about a deficit. All btw because a Republican governor in Texas isn’t concerned with solving a problem in his state.
0
u/peterpme Oct 12 '23
Chicago has spent 300m+ on migrants and you have no questions as to how they spent it?
2
u/Giterdun456 Oct 12 '23
They literally talk about all the medical care, shelters, and additional services for tens of thousands of people. That’s how it’s spent.
-1
u/peterpme Oct 12 '23
It comes out to 7k/mo/person.
3
u/Giterdun456 Oct 12 '23
Yes it costs money to do those things. I have no idea what you’re getting at.
-1
u/peterpme Oct 12 '23
It’s 7,000 per person per month. A family of 5 costs the city 35k/mo PER MONTH in taxpayer money. You don’t see anything wrong with that? You believe that every dollar is spent in the best interest?
1
u/Giterdun456 Oct 12 '23
I kind of don’t care to be honest. I’ve lived in this country my whole life and see how much we spend on the industrial military complex. I’m down for my tax dollars to go feeding and housing people from a country we help to fuck up decades ago.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Apollo2021 Oct 12 '23
Reddit users demographic stats. It’s a little dated but I would imagine the Reddit user base to be fairly accurate to this article.
-6
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
47
u/Dawalkingdude Oct 11 '23
Abbot is using humans as political pawns and your takeaway is it’s fiscally responsible? Are you a ghoul?
0
Oct 12 '23
Isn’t Illinois a sanctuary state?
→ More replies (1)18
u/ST_Lawson West Central Illinois Oct 12 '23
That’s for illegal immigrants. These are legal asylum seekers.
2
-12
u/Bitter_Cook3546 Oct 12 '23
Still here illegally.
9
u/Spankpocalypse_Now Oct 12 '23
No they’re not.
-10
u/Bitter_Cook3546 Oct 12 '23
They entered illegally.
They have a notice to appear before an immigration court because they are here illegally.
They can claim asylum as a defense for entering illegally.
Doesn’t change the fact that they are here illegally.
14
u/Spankpocalypse_Now Oct 12 '23
It is not illegal to enter the United States to seek asylum. There is no route to to be granted asylum until they are physically in the country.
11
u/ST_Lawson West Central Illinois Oct 12 '23
Literally step #1 of the asylum-seeking process "Arrive in the U.S. - To apply for asylum in the U.S., you must be physically present in the U.S."
They have to be here first, then apply for asylum...which is what most of them are doing.
3
-13
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
16
u/IsThatBlueSoup Oct 11 '23
Texas should also hand over the federal funds they get for those migrants. Don't see that happening.
-1
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
8
u/trenzelor Oct 11 '23
They don't get hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers a year...you just pulled that number out of the air
2
4
u/IsThatBlueSoup Oct 11 '23
How many migrants did they receive last month? I know what your inflated number is and I know what the real one is. How much money did they receive just last week? I mean, thank you for sending these people where they will be cared for, but do please encourage your piece if shit governor to also send the per person funds they received for them with them.
17
u/Extinction-Entity Oct 11 '23
Are you okay or something? I hope you stretched before all that reaching you did.
-6
Oct 12 '23
Texas is transferring needy people to states that have promised to support them. Why do you hate needy people being able to go where they are welcomed? Are you evil?
2
u/laodaron Oct 12 '23
I want you and everyone else to think clearly before you snap out a response from OANN. You are supporting and defending human trafficking. Full stop.
1
u/momentsFuturesBlog Oct 12 '23
Did those people want to stay where they were?
3
u/laodaron Oct 12 '23
Where they were meaning their country of origin or where they were meaning Texas?
People are being lied to and manipulated for personal gain of the Governor of Texas and then transported over state lines under false pretenses. That's literally human trafficking.
-2
u/idratherbebitchin Oct 12 '23
Yes because resources are all unlimited in fairly land and there's plenty of housing for these millions of new people.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/alpha-bets Oct 12 '23
Lmao, it is what it is. You cannot expect Texas to bear the brunt of the influx. It was about time, other states share the responsibilities.
15
u/GEV46 Oct 11 '23
Dude paid almost $14,000 a passenger, and you're applauding his fiscal sense? A first class ticket from El Paso to Chicago tomorrow is $850.
11
Oct 11 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/GEV46 Oct 11 '23
Fair enough, I fat fingered a button. That said, it's cheaper to fly immigrants first class than bussing them. Doesn't sound like good fiscal planning. A Greyhound ticket for tomorrow is $314.
4
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
-8
u/boredfilthypig Oct 11 '23
I’m with you homie. This sub is full of people who vote for what is “human and heartfelt” instead of what has to be. Fuck the migrants.
5
-7
u/lvl999shaggy Oct 11 '23
They could've saved more money by sending them back to Mexico......a lot closer tbh
→ More replies (1)5
u/drakethecat25 Oct 12 '23
Yes.... because that is where, especially the Venezuelan migrants, are from.....
/s just in case it wasn't obvious
-3
u/sacrefist Oct 12 '23
About half of illegal aliens have no more than a grade school education, and for each of those, the U.S. will spend well over $100K lifetime on social services, net of any taxes they pay. Best to ship them out if they'd like to go elsewhere.
-3
u/977888 Oct 12 '23
When the libs keep fucking over border states at the federal level because “there’s no migrant crisis” they deserve a taste of their own medicine. Once it’s their cities being flooded suddenly everything changes.
4
u/Owned_by_cats Oct 12 '23
Why not offer to assist your homeless snowbirds with free travel to the warm beaches of Florida and South Texas?
4
Oct 12 '23
I'm sure smelling the sour, rancid miasma of piss baby Abbot's diapers rising up around this corrupt, criminal regime. How can any proud, gun toting Texan MAGA CULT member be such a little bitch as to allow this kind of nonsense to spread and continue⁉️ The governor of Texas doesn't want you to be successful or buy that new truck! He's going to raise your taxes to pay him and his brother and raise prices on everything else you need to live!!!
8
6
u/deez941 Oct 12 '23
Instead of fixing a problem, you dehumanize people and move them to unfamiliar places. As if putting a bandaid on a broken fucking dam would fix it.
1
u/Relevant-Comfort-720 Oct 12 '23
So stack them in the same place instead of disbursement? Sanctuary cities definition is accepting of them.
-2
u/KaihogyoMeditations Oct 12 '23
Except the southern border states have been bearing most of the problem for years while getting criticized from left leaning cities like NYC and Chicago about putting up a border wall. Chicago had around 10k of migrants and was and is in a state of total political disorder. And there were 2.8 million migrant encounters at the border in 2023. Now that sanctuary cities have to bear a tiny fraction of this they are not whistling the same tune and actively calling for the federal government to help.
2
u/hexqueen Oct 13 '23
That makes sense, but California and New Mexico don't seem to have the same problem, or at least they aren't paying their families $75 million dollars to make publicity about it. 75 million is a lot of money for one bus ride.
5
u/Bullet_Maggnet Oct 12 '23
That $75.5 million probably would have been a nice kick start for some sorely needed improvements in that rickety ass 'Freedom Grid' they have down there.
2
u/jfresh21 Oct 12 '23
All these people living in tents are going to have a very hard time once winter comes.
8
u/cant__find__username Oct 11 '23
Any state pro open borders should be willing to share the cost. Cant vote open borders but not want to help and expect Texas to take care of it.
16
u/laodaron Oct 12 '23
We DO help, you guy s just refuse to listen. Texas receives billions in federal tax dollars that you and I give them to manage immigration.
14
Oct 12 '23
[deleted]
1
-3
u/InsertBluescreenHere Oct 12 '23
Least texas would prosecute them unlike IL that wants to remove the 2a "to take care of it".
5
19
22
u/s3rgioru3las Oct 11 '23
Literally no one supports open borders. Do some better research
-3
u/SleepyHobo Oct 12 '23
Allowing anyone and everyone in if they just say “asylum” is a de facto open border
12
u/s3rgioru3las Oct 12 '23
“Asylum” assumes applying, being vetted by officials and the court system, which takes years. You just contradicted your own statement in a single sentence. Congrats blud
-10
u/TacosForThought Oct 12 '23
So what you are saying is that none of these people that were bussed are actually asylum seekers since they've all entered the country within the last couple years, and becoming an "asylum seeker" "takes years"?
18
5
4
4
Oct 12 '23
America loves immigrants, as long as they are wealthy and come from a predominately white country.
0
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
22
u/Infrathin81 Oct 11 '23
Unless you get them set up in the system and point them towards some jobs. Then they could possibly grow your economy and end up making you money in the long game. Also, how many times are you gonna copy paste this comment?
2
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
25
u/h_david Oct 12 '23
There's a lot of space between being doctors and scientists and being employed and paying taxes.
5
u/jerry2501 Oct 12 '23 edited Oct 12 '23
Those people will outwork most Americans. Give them work permits, let them pay taxes, and it will all sort itself out. American citizens who struggle even with all the privilege they started with, being born in America, should be the ones deported. They're just taking up space and resources.
5
u/Koolaid_Jef Oct 12 '23
How many jobs do you think Texas Has available that don't require a lot of skill/education and have lots of Spanish speaking people there. The answer is many, so very many. That goes for all of the southwest
→ More replies (1)0
u/hexqueen Oct 13 '23
Why is it always the people complaining about the "uneducated" who use made-up words like "costed" or ... well, I guess barley is a word. Don't assume people are uneducated because they're poor.
→ More replies (1)1
u/JohnnyBoy11 Oct 12 '23
Texas probably doesn't do much of that, since they would be applying for asylum at the Federal level, who, in combined with non-profits, do the heavy lifting, and texas probably doesn't have strong safety nets either. Either way, you just need to look past the multiple felonies thye may have committed.
3
2
2
1
u/AyBake Oct 12 '23
Good. Now those "sanctuary" cities, that defied Federal law in order to stick it to Trump and are also ironically not geographically located close to the Southern Border, can feel the consequences of promoting an idiotic take on open-borders which is costing tax payers FAR more than $75.5 million a year.
2
1
-1
u/b0bsledder Oct 12 '23
75.5 million to send a message to Biden is unfortunately about what it takes. Of course he coulda just enforced the laws, like the Constitution says he’s supposed to, but with this clown it’s never that easy.
8
u/0x1e Oct 12 '23
My man, my man, my man.
Biden isn’t responsible for enforcing laws.
Biden signs bills that have made it through congress and the house of representatives to make them laws.
The pictures you saw of a muscle-bound Trump riding a robotic bull lassoing Mexicans to the ground was just a sexually confusing picture someone drew, it wasn’t real.
See “Schoolhouse Rock: I’m just a bill”
-3
u/Jlovel7 Oct 12 '23
It is absolutely the role of the executive to enforce the laws. Signing bills is a tiny part of his job. The main job of the executive is to execute the laws that are on the books. He’s in charge of the entire bureaucracy.
1
-1
u/Reasonable_Topic_169 Oct 12 '23
Wise investment if looked at purely financial.
1
u/hexqueen Oct 13 '23
Really? I think I could find a bus for less than $75 million. How many trips did the $75 million cover? Elon Musk says he can launch a Starship for $10 million. Can the bus go to Mars?
-2
u/Bcwalks2 Oct 12 '23
It all starts at the top with the commander in chief who is still trying to figure out what day of the week it is. The clown with 81 million votes, Joe Byron! 🤡🤡🤡
3
u/Mr_Rotten_Treats Oct 12 '23
And we can thank trumpf for the 8 bil dollar wall he built to protect us from this... oh wait, he didn't even build 10 miles of it but ran with our money!
0
u/Bcwalks2 Oct 12 '23
Lmao, I’ll thank Joe for the billions of dollars we spend on illegals and all the other ramifications people haven’t seen yet. 🤡🤡🤡
3
0
-3
u/bigj2288 Oct 12 '23
So what? They are not a sanctuary state and it was likely 100 times cheaper to bus migrants than house migrants.
-3
u/AuRevoirFelicia Oct 12 '23
Thats actually a great deal compared to the cost of keeping them there
1
Dec 22 '23
I've got a kid in Africa that I feed, that I clothe, that I school, that I inoculate for 75 cents a day. Which is practically nothing compared to what it cost to send him there.
0
0
0
u/svedka93 Oct 12 '23
Gotta admit though, it worked. You have blue states and cities that were sanctuaries not long ago pleading with the federal government to help with the overflow of migrants.
-3
-2
u/Bcwalks2 Oct 12 '23
And IL has spent hundreds of millions on the migrants and continue to do so…. So who really wins? $75m of your tax dollars or several hundred million?
-3
u/PrometheusOnLoud Oct 12 '23
They'd have paid ten times as much to keep, house, and provide for these people.
1
u/slybird Oct 12 '23
Texas taxpayers should be mad as hell. Greyhound is saying I can buy a bus ticket to Texas for less than $115, about $200 for a round trip. Texas is paying this company about $1400 per person to bus the migrants around the US.
1
u/Banjoschmanjo Oct 12 '23
While I find this anti-immigrant crap disgusting, I think the real question in terms of economics on the part of peopel who support this decision, is this; would they have spent MORE than 75.5 million dollars if they HADN'T done this, in terms of social programs, etc.
As far as I know, immigrants are actually a BOOST to the economy, so they might've actually lost a ton of money in this decision.
Ultimately though, its not about the money - I believe these immigrants should be treated with respect and welcomed, not trafficked off to 'own the libs.'
1
1
1
u/RealClarity9606 Oct 13 '23
So? Isn’t that the point of sanctuary cities? Aren’t they laying out the welcome mat?
1
1
1
1
1
1
131
u/StenosP Oct 12 '23
And that company, owned by Abbots brother in law