[RavenATB]

"My reasoning is this: illegals aren't typically among society's more affluent and they (like most poor people) spend most of what they earn on basic necessities. Sales taxers hear this all the time as an objection to sales taxes being "regressive". Illegals still have to pay for a place to live, clothes to wear, food to eat, transportation, etc."

Remember, many of these people...particularly the unmarried men...are willing to live with 30 of them to a home that would typically house a family of 3 or 4. When you have 30 adults earning an income to "maintain" (and I use that word loosely) a home that's typically maintained on the income of one or two bread-winners, the financial impact is far different.

I used to drive past a handful of these sort of "rental homes" on my way to work a couple years ago. One that I remember most vividly was a home that was probably no more than 800 square feet. In the evenings it was typical to see more than a dozen men in the yard, with a few of them tending a turkey fryer. I don't know about you, but I only use my turkey fryer a couple times a year...not every night.

I'll bet that many of these illegals don't spend more than $25 a month on housing. They probably didn't spend much more than that amount on food.

Many of them have, however, learned the trick of checking the dumpsters behind business that sell "Krispy Creme" dough nuts, because the boxed "day-olds" get dumped every morning when the Krispy Creme truck makes their delivery.

[phil_will1]

"Remember, many of these people...particularly the unmarried men...are willing to live with 30 of them to a home that would typically house a family of 3 or 4."

I own an investment property in a neighborhood which has a significant presence of latinos, some of which I assume are illegal. I don't know of a single instance of 30 or 40 (or even 10) residents in a SFR. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. Is it the rule or the exception? Based on my observations, it must definitely be the exception.