Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpurdy | Hacker News Reader

Yes, 1000x this.

It is frustrating to be sending piles of money to these states every year, which they then waste on political stunts like flying legal immigrants to other states, instead of taking care of their citizens, or maybe investing in climate hardening.

And then they're completely unprepared for cold weather, hot weather, wet weather, dry weather, ... and say things like "Nobody knew ___ could be so complicated."

I really don't mind my tax dollars going to these states, but I don't want my tax dollars to be wasted, or worse yet, spent to hurt people on purpose.

View on HN

The reason people live in coastal regions is because there are outsized economic benefits to the hinterlands that may outweigh the damage these storms inflict. The interface between land and sea is crucially important for the survival of civilization at our scale.

Under "2 and done", do you restore critical port infrastructure to dunes if they get destroyed by a hurricane twice? Port infrastructure can't exist on its own, it needs a community behind it which needs schools, parks, houses, etc.

This is a problem that the insurance industry will need figure out so they can price risk to the area that's wiped out, the way the home is constructed, etc.

In my mind the debate is how FEMA subsidies will distort the insurance markets. Perhaps they could serve as a "2 and done" re-re-insurance provider?

A great counterpoint to this argument is that an insurance oligopoly might "price gouge" after a big event like Ian, which could kill the community that's needed to support the vital port infrastructure. Ultimately if FEMA subsidies were removed from the picture, shipping costs would increase to price in the risk of hurricanes for the area. Either way we're all paying for it somehow.

These regions can do what California did. Insurance companies left the market in response to the Northridge earthquake, so the state provides a very high deductible earthquake insurance.

Yet fire and earthquake damage are not generally covered by FEMA in California in most cases (I would expect the Big One, when it happens, to be, but based on the big stink that Trump raised to the applause of certain states, like Florida, about cutting back wildfire prevention/disaster funds to CA in 2019, who knows) and economically that state is much more important than Florida.

And thus California has very-high deductible insurance coverage in areas that are especially susceptible to such disasters, because it IS an inevitable risk that such an event will happen. Florida should do the same, as their "catastrophic disaster" is annual.

Wild fire destroyed my home I California. FEMA gave me a check for 25 grand.

Private insurers will not cover homes in coastal areas that flood frequently. It is simply not financially viable. Many beach properties have subsidized government insurance.

This is what needs to stop. If government provides cheap insurance. The building on coast is a great idea.

Geraldo Rivera did a special on it many years ago. He lost his house. Didn’t cost him a dime. Was planning on rebuilding due to cheap insurance. Which he seemed to find ridiculous.

I doubt FEMA money is actually used for the immigrant stunt and Florida is not unprepared for hurricanes. Florida actually has pretty good stormwater management infrastructure, mostly because it has to. Homes in South Florida are also required to be built out of concrete block and have hurricane windows. Point being: Florida is decently prepared for storms. Could it be better? Of course. But I would not say Florida is complete unprepared. I do think there needs to be changes to insurance and government aid though. We're distributing (read: subsidizing) a lot of the cost of living in an expensive area. We're seeing ripples of this with insurance companies not wanting to insure houses in Florida. That or making it more expensive to get insurance directly (premiums) and indirectly (you can't have a roof over 10 years old in some cases because, by law, they have to pay to replace a roof if a few shingles come off).

I say Florida a lot because I lived there up until recently, I can't speak for other states.

> I doubt FEMA money is actually used for the immigrant stunt

An assertion is that money is fungible, so $12mln spent on a stunt in Texas could have been spent on breakwaters, infill, or to move less stable homes from the immediate coast. (Or to have more building inspection before Surfside's incident)

> flying legal immigrants to other states

Can we please not do this flamewar thing? Asylum seekers are technically neither legal nor illegal immigrants yet, but everyone knows this will cause an argument that's completely unrelated to the article.

I think it's a valid conversation to have in parallel when the people/politicians in these places are pulling expensive political stunts that do nothing but stoke the ever-increasing polarization of our nation... only to turn around and shamelessly ask for aide in such a situation.

Sorry, but it's a bad look.

> expensive political stunts

Yeah wouldn't mind losing this $120B if they had saved that $600k, amirite?

FEMA subsidizes all kinds of wealthy people, Florida MAGAs and NYC Davosers alike.

I think the relevance is that it’s solid evidence that: governments make bad decisions

I tried to be very careful about what I said, and how I said it.

As with many others here, I pay a great deal of taxes, by any measure. I do not want my contribution (_our_ contributions) to be used to hurt people for the purpose of hurting people.

This is not a "flamewar thing". DeSantis chose to hurt people to accrue power to himself. Given the gifts and the fortune that we have inherited, if we cannot speak truth to power, then it would be better had we never been born.

Sorry, not sorry?

"Sorry, not sorry" is exactly a flamewar thing. You're not "speaking truth to power." First, as I pointed out you're factually incorrect. Second, who do you think is reading your HN thread that has power over the governor of Florida? So you're literally speaking lies to the powerless. Sick.

Florida is pretty low on federally funding dependency ranking.

I do not see how that could be just from all the old people receiving social security/Medicare benefits.

Yes and despite that they have below average per capita federal aid. Not only that, they had a record surplus in their state budget the last year. If someone were to try and attempt to portray Florida as some fiscally irresponsible welfare state, I would assert they would be quite misguided.

Interesting. I do not know how reliable this website is, but apparently, it incorporates Social security/Medicare spend also:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-spe...

Interestingly, it does not rank them per capita. California receives the highest at $12/person. Florida receives the third highest at $2700/person. Something does not jive

The numbers are net federal dollars received per resident of the state, and they are ranked at the bottom.

California received the lowest compared to how much California paid the federal government. Florida is ranked in the middle.

Although, I clicked on the source and data is from 2013 so I wish I had found a more recent source.

Florida is pretty high on federal funding dependency. https://ritholtz.com/2019/01/makers-takers-states-edition/

The source under the page you cite shows Florida as #32 [Edit: the graphical tool shows it as #35] in per-capita balance payments (in direction towards state) over time. Next time you lie, try not using a source that contradicts yourself.

https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...

https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Balance-of-P... Table 12B

Legal immigrants? The feds flew or bused illegal border crossers who were processed and released to many states, including Florida. Yes it was a political stunt to move them again, but how is it worse than what the feds are doing?

They are asylum seekers, what is illegal about that?

God the fact this comment keeps going gray really bothers me. You're 100% correct and these people are acting lawfully.

I get that HN often swings conservative, but I gotta believe if we were in these folk's shoes some of us would be seeking a better life for ourselves through asylum in America.

Some people respond to inconvenient facts with downvotes.

I am for 100% open borders, I acknowledge asylum seekers are allowed in the country, and I agree your statement they are doing what many of us would do. I see nothing ethically wrong with what they're doing.

That said, anyone who doesn't understand the undertone here, that the great majority will be denied asylum, that a great number are claiming asylum in a way that is coached/contrived/embellished, or that they couldn't have stopped and claimed asylum in another nation along the way (such as Mexico) is just completely naive. A great number of poeple here are game the system. That's fine, whatever, fuck borders, I'm on board. But I'm gonna call a spade a spade. A great number are here to play the system, often with lies, and the idea that all these people are 'acting lawfully' is not only factually incorrect I assert you KNOW it is factually incorrect and use it here as propaganda. In fact it is not lawful to lie to federal authorities in your asylum claim, but many are doing it.

These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles.

I applaud their efforts, but I aint no fool.

> These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles.

You're spending the majority of your comment saying "great numbers" of these folks are claiming asylum in bad-faith. You imply "great numbers" of them are here to game/play the system. You call a "great number" of them liars. You imply that they're criminals (not acting lawfully).

> I applaud their efforts

No you don't. You're painting "great numbers" of these people out to be untrustworthy to the point of preemptively calling them criminals.

---

> and the idea that all these people are 'acting lawfully' is not only factually incorrect I assert you KNOW it is factually incorrect and use it here as propaganda

Instead of asserting what I know, maybe provide sources for your argument. I take it as an outright aggression toward me that you posit I am spreading propaganda.

Regardless. I rebut:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

> We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.

It's common sense that if you're looking to immigrate somewhere that you're not out there looking to break the law. Every study I have come across in regards to this seems to have similar outcomes. They know if they break the law they will likely be deported; and they typically act accordingly because they want to live, work, and raise their families in America.

I take great issue with you claiming I'm spreading propaganda. In good-faith I assure you, I am not.

I'm fine calling anyone who lies to immigration a trustworthy patriot. Believe me, I've been fucked with endlessly by DHS/CBP. They even got a federal search warrant and cavity searched me, and racked up thousands in medical bills in my name by cuffing and dragging me to hospitals and lying to doctors claiming there were drugs up my ass. They (CBP) has threatened to deny me entry to the country (with a US passport), to revoke my passport (with no legal mechanism), and all sorts of bullshit -- they're the biggest liars in town! I think people who don't cooperate with immigration services are the trustworthy ones. Hell I think the asylum seekers are probably 'trustworthy' as anybody else -- just often not in their claims.

I understand 'bad-faith' is practically a requirement for many people claiming asylum. I get it.

I readily acknowledge they are generally more law abiding. I only contend that a great number of 'asylum seekers' are gaming the system. I find that perfectly moral, but I aint no fool about what's happening.

>Every study I have come across

The (2/2.5/4x) you cite from the study is undocumented immigrants, not people formally documented as asylum seekers and permitted into the country.

I appreciate you taking issue with my claims. Hopefully this feedback correct your behavior.

> Hopefully this feedback correct your behavior.

What behavior?

No they were lawful asylum seekers.

This kind of feels like doublespeak. Most migrants come for work, not to escape persecution. Economic migrants use asylum as a way to avoid being deported.

From a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Until their asylum case is adjudicated, they are here legally.

all immigration is legal if you claim to be an asylum seeker. It’s not intended to be a deportation-delayer for economic migrants.

Cool. How do you decide who is an economic migrant?

If they traveled through another country (Mexico) which could grant asylum, but chose not to stay there.

If it were that easy, why aren’t they doing that?

I can't speak for these people but I do know why this happens in Sweden (where I live): because the Swedish state provides lavish benefits, a lot more than neighbouring countries. This fact is taken by human smugglers, blown out of all proportions where they promise migrants that they'll get a house and a car and a girlfriend (not a joke) if only they pay them €€€€ to be dumped into a leaky boat across the Mediterranean.

Because they arent seeking asylum!

They want jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't precise enough with my language. I was saying if it is that easy to determine who has a legitimate asylum claim, then why don't the courts do so?

When they actually show up to court, they're usually not granted asylum. But we have teens of millions of people living here illegally, it's not hard to avoid the authorities.

This is exactly what I’ve been saying. Many migrants don’t even show up to their asylum hearings.. they just use it as a deportation delayer. You’d think 100% of migrants would show up if they were serious but its only like 80%.

For some reason we keep talking past one another. I’m talking about why CBP doesn’t just turn away asylum seekers that transit via Mexico if it is so easy to determine in advance that their asylum claims are not legitimate.

For some reason you keep railing against illegal immigrants instead of actually engaging in productive discussion.

CBP is not authorized to do so. Asylum must go before a judge.

Then change the law, you can't have it both ways. Also - if they weren't here legally before the stunt then the governor of Florida literally smuggled people into the country, which he cannot do as immigration is the federal government's purview. The thing is, there is a decent point that border states bare the brunt of illegal immigration issues but to draw attention to it at the expense of poor humans is just despicable.

Sad how we ended up in a world where capital is the only thing that gets the right to travel the globe freely.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-trut...

“The passport as an instrument of state regulation was born of the French revolution of 1789. At first, ordinary people were issued passes to control internal movement, especially to Paris. But after the king tried to escape, and foreign aristocrats attacked the revolution, the authorities started requiring such papers for exit and entry to the country. The revolution created one of the world’s first “nation-states”, defined by the “national” identity of its people rather than its monarchs’ claims.”

“But as the industrial revolution snowballed in the 19th century, there was pressure to allow free movement of all the factors of production – money, trade *and labour*. Passport requirements were widely relaxed across Europe — in 1872, the British foreign secretary, Earl Granville, even wrote: “all foreigners have the unrestricted right of entrance into and residence in this country”. The situation was similar in North America.”

https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-meas...

“In 1947, the first problem considered at an expert meeting preparing for the UN World Conference on Passports and Frontier Formalities was “the possibility of a return to the regime which existed before 1914 involving as a general rule the abolition of any requirement that travelers should carry passports.””

I wonder how much public benefits has to do with strict immigration control. Before 1914 public benefits were practically nil, so it's not like you were likely to become a public charge as an immigrant. US seems to have 'solved' this by tolerating illegal immigration but then giving them the boot if the wheel ever squeaks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com