From ABC News:
Minuteman border watch leader Chris Simcox has a message for President Bush: Build new security fencing along the border with Mexico or private citizens will.
Simcox said Wednesday that he’s sending an ultimatum to the president, through the media, of course “You can’t get through to the president any other way” to deploy military reserves and the National Guard to the Arizona border by May 25.
Or, Simcox said, by the Memorial Day weekend Minuteman Civil Defense Corps volunteers and supporters will break ground to start erecting fencing privately.
“We have had landowners approach,” Simcox said in an interview. “We’ve been working on this idea for a while. We’re going to show the federal government how easy it is to build these security fences, how inexpensively they can be built when built by private people and free enterprise.”
Simcox said a half-dozen landowners along the Arizona-Mexico border have said they will allow fencing to be placed on their borderlands, and others in California, Texas and New Mexico have agreed to do so as well.
“Certainly, as with everything else, we’re only able to cover a small portion of the border,” Simcox said. “The state and federal government have bought up most of the land around the border. I suspect that’s why we’ll never get control of the border.”
But he said the plan is to put up secure fencing that truly will be an effective deterrent, and to show how easily it can be accomplished.
So long as the landowners approve of this, I have no problem with the effort.
I am still ambivalent about the fence idea—though I am leaning toward the Krauthammer position that, if we are talking about earned amnesty and guest worker programs, the compromise would be to tether such things to a secured border. And a security fence is the easiest way to accomplish such a thing.
On the other hand, placing the National Guard troops on the borders seems to be a stunningly stupid idea—one that will almost certainly place us into a state of war with Mexico once the first couple illegals are shot dead.
I have written that, while I am not at all happy about amnesty (insofar as it rewards la breakers and punishes those who have attempted to enter this country through proper channels), we have allowed the situation to go on so long that the idea of deporting 12 million illegals is simply unworkable. Not to mention that the children of illegals who were born here have US citizenship, and ripping apart families is not what many of us are about (and before you climb up on your high horses, I caution you to remember your Elian Gonzales complaints).
So the fence—along with tougher penalties for illegals caught committing felonies (including, you know, being able to ASK them if they are legally inside the country)—seems a fair compromise between securing our borders and dealing realistically with the situation we now have.
Bill Quick writes:
One of the most appealing aspects of the traditional American spirit has been willingness to do what is necessary, even in the face of government indifference or open hostility. We are a can-do people, not a whine, bitch, and moan self-pity party puling that “the government won’t do it, oh, how helpless we are.”
This, naturally, terrifies and enrages government, which lives in unending fear that the people it purports to represent will discover just how bloated, stupid, and useless most of it really is.
Look for George “Amnesty” Bush to start bleating about vigilates again any minute now.
While I don’t share Bill’s obvious distaste for Bush, I agree with his sentiments with regard to applying pressure to an indifferent or hostile government. Any president, it seems to me, would find himself (and maybe soon, herself) in a precarious political position with regards to the immigration situation on the southern border. Pressure from business and farmers and human rights activists, etc., to look the other way is strong.
But this doesn’t excuse kicking the can down the desert floor and waiting the problem out. So if the initiative by the Minutemen serves to highlight popular displeasure with official policy—particularly among those who are closest to the problem, I’m willing to give it my support. For what that’s worth.
(h/t Tom Pechinski)
NOTE: Not an official opinion of the Illinois National Guard, the National Guard Bureau or the US Army. Nobody but me shooting my mouth off – ‘kay?
Jeff,
I think you are correct about putting the Guard on the border. But unless they are Federalized, it is up to the Governor of each State how to use their State’s militia. I am curious as to what you think a “token deployment” by an ambitious person like Bill Richardson would yield? By “token deployment” I mean sending out some general purpose units with lots of medical and engineer assets to build some lovely shelters, take care of the people that are … uh, met at the border and the like. Looks tough, is compassionate and makes for one heck of a lot of TV and radio interviews. What say you?
I say build – build like the wind!
The new Gallup poll has immigration cited as the most important problem at 19% in April as opposed to 6% in march.
Iraq war went up from 20% to 25%.
What wages are they going to pay their builders?
They could probably get the fence built dirt cheap using Mexican labor.
How about hiring illegals to do the work, then stiffing them on the payment by deporting them.
Obligatory ignore acthole comment.
Please do not feed the acthole.
Jeff… I’m happy that “ripping apart families” is not what you’re about. But this is appropos of what exactly?
Who said anything about ripping families apart? Where exactly in any of the proposed immigration measures has it been suggested that the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants must remin in the US and will not be allowed to accompany their parents back to the parents’ country of origin?
Fact is, I’m a US Citizen, and while I was a minor, my parents could have picked me up and moved me anywhere in the world and I would not have had any say in the matter. As far as the US Government is concerned, its invovlement would’ve begun and ended with issuing me a passport.
If illegal immigrant parents want their children to stay in the US, that’s entirely up to them. Nobody is “ripping apart families.”
Please stop recycling this red herring.
How about hiring illegals to do the work, then stiffing them on the payment by deporting them.
Excellent news. But I disagree about the Guard: ultimately such a policy has to consider that soldiers will face the possibility of having to shoot at people. This is not good.
Citizen pressure such as the fence building on private land is the way to go IMO.
After two more years of enforcement such as the recent “show raids” illegals with no ties here will self-deport. When we regain control of the schools and medical care and the streets FOR REAL, I would support a bill that would let thousands in per year legally. But they have to pay taxes and follow the laws of the land!
This mess was created by the Bush administration. Look at Malkin’s site for the incredible lack of enforcement statistics. I think the free spending and tax cuts have to be supported by a growing economy, and the only way he can grow the economy is to pump it up with increased demand for homes and goods–so bring in the illegals! If nothing else, the 2006 elections will end the spending spree, the massive tax evasion, and the free-for-all that is immigration policy.
Making a parent move, but not the child, is ripping apart a family. If someone takes your kids, or your family members, and moves them somewhere else, the fact that you can go there too doesn’t change that the government is ripping apart your family.
Another way the house bill rips apart families is by criminalizing family members who assist undocumented members of the family.
Uh, well, I don’t think it is a red herring.
It’s possible many of these children know nothing of Mexico—perhaps not even the language.
The sad thing is, many of them will undoubtedly remain with the rest of their family. Which, to me, amounts to the de facto deportation of American citizens in order to bring about the deportation of illegals.
I’m of the opinion that there has to be a better way. But the horse you’re after left the barn long ago.
Sorry if we disagree, but to me, I’m dealing with actual likely conditions of what you seem to be proposing—not just some theoretical, wherein we are able to get rid of every illegal who has already set up shop inside the country.
Similarly, think of the effects on the immigration reform movement of the press nightly showing crying children and their parents forced to choose between leaving the country or splitting up. Such emotional appeals will absolutely destroy the reform cause.
I think you’re being short sighted here.
The “deport-em-all” crowd really doesn’t want 11 million elians. Which is what they’re asking for.
I don’t think that anything can be done about illegal immigration until the border is locked down. Once that happens we can deal with those that are already here. My proposal is:
1.) Set up a “fast track” to legal immigration in Mexico, properly staffed, to quickly process entry, giving priority to the following (in this order):
Illegal immigrants who have US citizens as children.
Illegals that own homes in this country.
Illegals that own commercial property or other real property in this country.
Illegals that have been in this country 5 years or longer.
All other illegals.
2.) Announce repeatedly that any illegal immigrants that wish to stay here must return to Mexico and go through the process.
3.) Announce repeatedly that any illegal immigrant caught in this country illegaly will be deported and never allowed to enter again.
4.) Enable local law enforcement to challenge status in the normal course of their duties
5.) Let time do its job.
What about the Mexican military making incursions into the US? WhyTF hasn’t that placed us into a state of war?
Because, frankly, if a foreign army sending armed men into your territory isn’t the definition of “invasion”, I don’t know WTF is.
Hmmm.
I am utterly disinterested in any form of reconcilation or accomodation on the issue of illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration will stop. It will stop either because the Republican party makes it stop. Or it will be done by their replacements.
Hmmm.
Yeah like anyone would believe that.
Here ya go. Here’s an amnesty for you. And for the rest of you, bad illegals! Bad bad bad illegals! No citizenship for you!
…
Well until the next time when it’s not 20 million fucking illegals and it’s 50 million instead.
Hmmm.
Sure I do. Want to know why?
Because one Elian is a story.
11 million Elians is a statistic.
Break out the submachineguns then.
Do 216 Mexican Military incursions over 10 years count?
How about Mexican Military unable to identify the river that separates the two nations? Somehow that just doesn’t work for me, but maybe it does for you…
How about Mexican Military shooting at US law enforcement officers?
The list does go on and on and on…
So, what part of being at war has not been fulfilled? The lack of the US showing up does not mean that we are *not* at war, just that our response is so incredibly lax that we may be looking to concede the end of our National Sovereignty and border enforcement.
And cease being a Nation altogether.
RE: “If someone takes your kids, or your family members, and moves them somewhere else, the fact that you can go there too doesn’t change that the government is ripping apart your family.”
Actus:
What part of the word “apart” are you having trouble with?
Does it disrupt families? Does it create a hardship for families? Sure. Enforcing the law will quite often have that effect.
***************
RE: “The sad thing is, many of them will undoubtedly remain with the rest of their family. Which, to me, amounts to the de facto** deportation of American citizens in order to bring about the deportation of illegals.”
Jeff:
Why is it sad that families, exercising free choice, will choose to stay together? I thought that families being apart was what was bad? I’m sure that its no picnic when kids go visit Dad in prison, either. But what else can you do if you’re going to have laws and enforce them? Incarceration/deportation are acts of confinement and there’s no getting around that. So if keeping families together is allowed to trump all other considerations, then your choices are limited to: forcing kids into jail with Dad (unconstitutional, dangerous, bad, etc.); allowing visits to Dad (sad); banning visits (sad); and never incarcerating anyone with kids (happy and disastrous).
Those really are our choices here when it comes to the immigrant-with-US born-children dilemma.
Force the kids to go.
Force the kids to stay.
Let the family decide whether the kids go or stay.
Allow the parents to stay.
It’s a sad choice but an easy one.
Saying that the immigrant-with-US born-children dilemma makes deportation “unworkable” means that the kids are a “human shield” to enforcement.
We either allow ourselves to send people back or we don’t.
Enforce or don’t enforce.
Sad choices or open borders.
At bottom, there really isn’t another option. If you can think of one, I’m all ears, because I don’t like being limited to sad choices either.
Respectfully yours.
** I am a bit dissapointed in your resort to the “de facto” formulation. As you know, its a favorite tool of dissembly for the left. (See, e.g., forced bussing). Just substitute “free choice” for the term “de facto” and you usually won’t change the meaning, but you’ll have done your reader the service of being honest… “De facto” segregation readily springs to mind.
The part where you take one member of the family away from the rest. US citizen kids aren’t automatically mexican citizens with mexican paperwork.
Also, its just plain old apart. If someone takes a member of my family from the east coast city I live in and dumps them off in a country road in Kansas, we’ve been torn apart.
We can try to get back together, but we’ve been torn apart.
Oh, they have frree choice? Never mind then. No problem with what people freely do.
And I thought this thread was about the Minutemen building a fence…
Guvnah—I use “de facto” to mean “in actuality”. And as much as hate to agree with actus, I don’t see a free choice here; I see forcing US citizens to decide if their loyalty resides with their family or their country.
I note, too, you didn’t address my point about how your strategy would hurt immigration reform—which I am for. You call it a human shield defense, and in a sense it is. But if you don’t compromise, I fear you’ll lose the PR battle. The media, like it or not, is not on your side and is ready and able to depict you as xenophobic and heartless family wreckers.
As I noted, I take the Krauthammer approach: I think we should build the fence if we are going to talk about earned amnesty and guest worker programs. I also think we need to toughen our current laws for dealing with illegals.
What I don’t think is that we can reasonably expect to deport 12 million illegals—and ask their legal family members to make the choice you seem to think is a “free” one (rather than a coerced one)—and sustain any kind of support for tough reforms.
I’m as idealistic as the next fellow. But here, my idealism is telling me that pragmatism is the better tactic for winning the larger battle, which is what we are both after in the long run.
Jeff:
RE: “We have allowed the situation to go on so long that the idea of deporting 12 million illegals is simply unworkable.”
This is what I call the <objection (taken from the McKenzie Brothers movie* of the same name), and I think it is simply a false choice in this debate. No other law is ever opposed on grounds that attaining 100% compliance or 100% effective enforcement is impossible, becuase <i>every law</i> can be opposed on those grounds.
Is there any evidence that we have to deport all 12 million in order to satisfy people’s concerns about illegal immigration?
I don’t think there is.
We certainly don’t capture and convict 100% of those who commit crimes in this country. And we don’t delude ourselves into thinking that we could possibly do so with any expenditure. Indeed, we somehow manage to pass multitudes of laws that set forth penalties for certain behavior, knowing full well that we won’t catch every criminal or stop every crime. Even more amazingly, we are able to rationally devote that measure of resources to criminal law enforcement that reduces crime to levels that we can evidently tolerate.
Can’t we do the same with illegal immigration?
What the “deport-em-all” crowd out is asking for is vigorous enforcement of a law whose penalty for violation is deportation. They’re not literally asking that the government be 100% effective in apprehending every illegal alien, and there’s no reason to believe that there isn’t a number far short of 12 million that would make most people happy and alleviate the problems associated with immigration of this massive scale.
Surely we can create an enforcement system that—while unable to deport 12 million people—could reduce illegal immigration to a level that we can tolerate.
—
* At one point, while traveling down the hill in a sabotaged van, one of the McKenzie brothers decalres: “The brakes are out. Oh well, no use steering now.”
Unfortunately, Jeff is right regarding the PR battle. The media is going to shove it down our throats. Think of the children! Nevermind that the parents made the decision to illegally enter the country. Nevermind that the parents made the decision to start a family – knowing full well that one day they may face deportation. Nevermind that the parents, by their own knowing and intentional acts, created the entire situation. We must think of the children. Anything to take our eyes off the ball …
So, how about that wall? I like it.
Sorry… that shold’ve been the “Strange Brew” objection, taken from the McKenzie brothers movie….
Guvnah —
Again, I’ve called for tougher penalties—including deportation—for illegals caught committing felonies. I just don’t think round-ups are a good tactic.
However, we do need to, as noted in the original post, loosen restrictions placed on law enforcement regarding their ability to handle illegals as illegals.
That is the compromise. Along with the fence. It is, in my opinion, the best way to keep the reform movement going by showing itself to be tough on offenders without going out of its way to separate families.
And that, along with a fence that prevents a new influx of illegals, is the best way I think to proceed.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. But make no mistake: I’m a big free trade guide, but I’m also, as any regular reader of this site knows, quite adamant about protecting our sovereignty.
This to me comes down to tactics. And I think we have to concede certain things in the short run to get the outcome we’re after in the long run.
Jeff:
You’re right, I didn’t tackle the teary-child PR problem, but I think my criminal law analogy is still instructive.
It’s certainly not uncommon to see TV footage of criminal trials where truly anguished family members cry as their sons/fathers/brothers/ etc. are led away to serve their sentences. And I think most people of good will, when presented with such a scene, have feelings of pity.
And yet, no serious person points to that pitiable state of affairs and says, “This is just too awful… We must abolish incarceration.”
Indeed, if the experience of the criminal law system has taught us anything over the past 40 years, it is that the American public let its own sense of compassion get in the way for a while and learned the lesson of this soft-heartedness. It has since developed a very stiff upper lip when it comes to law and order issues like this.
This is a country where there has been, for the past 15-20 years or so, a movement to increase criminal penalties for children, and where a Supreme Court decision outlawing capital punishment for children was widely condemned by vast swaths of the public.
I don’t disagree that there’s a place for pragmatism in trying to find a solution to this issue… I just think you’re badly misjudging the effect that media coverage of strong enforcement would have.
You’re right… we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’d be willing to bet that vigorous enforcement—including round-ups and deportations—would make whichever politician or party could most credibly take credit for it an instant hero with about 60% of the American public.
I also think that such a person would be ideally positioned to push for a policy that included high numbers of guest workers and a path to citizenship.
The self-styled “Minutemen” are wasting their time. This is really a moot point. It has been amply demonstrated that the elected officials of both parties have no interest in slowing the parade across the border of “undocumented” Mexican migrants. Period. The Republicans have been convinced by Agribusiness and real estate developers that 12 million illegal immigrants are required to fill a half-million farm jobs and maybe 2 million construction jobs, jobs, naturally, “no American would do”; and the Democrats see an unassimilated, permanent underclass dependent on the public largess, thereby Democrat voters for life.
They’re just beating their heads against a wall, and being vilified for their trouble.
I’m late, and someone may have said this already, but:
Actus, as to the wages to be paid to the workers who will build the afformentioned “private” border fence? Well, give me travel to and from the site, cheap boarding and grub, and I’ll pitch in during my vacation for nothing else. If I could find otherwise gainful employment in those parts, I’d donate my weekends too. The company alone would make the experience more than worth it.
Now, if the government needs help to build a “public” fence, my usual rates will apply.
Hmmmm.
1. If you reward bad behavior you’re going to get more of it.
2. The fiction of an amnesty is more than sufficient to effect the same result as an actual amnesty.
3. Failure to deport the current illegals will result in the view, right or wrong, that an amnesty has been granted.
4. There is no fucking way the current immigration process, which is barely functional in dealing with a couple million legal applicants, could possibly handle 20 million more.
5. Guest worker programs intentionally create a subclass of people within America, which we fought both the Civil War and the Civil Rights war to eliminate.
6. Our current pathetic voting system would be unable to prevent 20+ million from voting.
…
I could go on and on. While some of you are entranced by visions of 11 million Elians I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Americans won’t be all that affected.
In addition you simply cannot allow the existing illegals to remain in any way, shape or form because it will be interpreted as a defacto amnesty. Regardless of intent. And as such it will simply make a bad problem even more impossible. Particularly without a wall and/or sufficient armed guards and absolute enforcement.
And last, but not least, there is an element, however large or small, within the illegal community that believes that they have a RIGHT to be here. If you don’t deport them then you’ve just reinforced this belief which may cause serious problems where they try to make their belief a reality. If you do deport them then you’re going to risk having open warfare in every neighborhood in America.
Honestly: all of you wall proponents, what makes you think a wall will work? Arguments please.
yours/
peter.
No National Guard. They can’t simply shoot people who try to cross, and as Americans we don’t (or shouldn’t, anyway) want that.
No fence. Any clue how much a security fence would cost? Especially one that would actually work?
Why are the illegals here? They want work. Here’s a solution that’s too simple and too effective to ever actually happen. Take the money that you’d spend on A) border enforcement to prevent a single illegal from crossing; B) a fence to prevent illegals from crossing. Distribute that money to Mexican families living between the US/Mexico border and, say, the 24th parallel. Direct payments, not “services” or a loan to the Mexican government. And give it in real American dollars.
A direct injection of that much capital into the veins of the northern Mexico economy would spur crazy growth. Mexicans come to work in the US because Mexico is a shithole. Unfuck Mexico, and many illegals will go home.
Guvnah,
But the widespread flaunting of Prohibition and the criminal class it created at least partially caused its repeal. So sometimes we do need to consider that a policy (like mass deportation) can be so unworkable with so many unintended consequences it does defeat its original purpose.
Like I said before, crack down like in earlier administrations, build a wall, and people will self-deport. Illegal entrants will go down to a manageable level again.
Question 2: if you support a wall on our southern border, what about our northern border? It’s far more porous than our border with Mexico and unlike Mexico, we know that terrorists have actually used Canada as a transit point. So how about it? another 5000 miles of fence?
yours/
peter
2. One problem at a time, Peter.
1. The simple fact that it is a visual and physical deterrent will doubtless reduce illegal crossings. Kind of like a “Beware of Dog” sign, or a “This House Protected by ADT” stickers.
More to the point, though, this seems to be the wish of the property owners. And in areas where the border land is government-owned, the voters should be able to decide, as they face the strain on local resources.
– The whole deportation argument is a non-starter. the 700 pound Gorilla grazing in the back of the room that people with some agenda in this fight are studiously ignoring, is whats keeping that empty meme alive.
– You don’t have to deport anyone, unless they prove anti-social in some way. You just have to identify them. A true National ID system run bu American Express/Visa/Master Charge would put the teeth in the entire immigrent problem. But.
– Employers that use Mex labor sure as hell do not want it. They’d lose their one and only excuse that “We just have no way of checking”, which is total bullshit.
– Democrats, and more and more Republican politicians, sure as hell don’t want it, with the possible loss of all those illegal votes. Not because the people went back to Mexico, but because you couldn’t vote without one.
– Then when someone couldn’t produce the card and got shipped home, refused jobs, credit cards, rental agreements, big ticket purchases, even the simple ability to wire money home, the flood would stop.
– The 12 million that are here (BTW that number is also total bukkshit, theres more than that in the LA basin alone, but the gov doesn’t want to alarm the public) are told go through the ID process or go home. No breaking up families, no need for a wall.
– If they do a felony, or duck getting a card, they go to the slammer or back to Mex.
– Jeff we have to start acting like a soveriegn country again. Thats the real pragmatic truth. If we don’t do something, and soon, we’re going to have a problem thats a crisus, if we don’t already. Here in San Diego, just since all the dustup and actions/words of the gov, and Congress, the flow of Illegals has surged to 5 times the normal rate. If you’re not in a border state you just don’t understand the magnitude of the problem or the potential for disaster.
Well Jeff, I think it’s a pretty damned expensive “Beware of Dog” sign. But be that as it may, what I want to know is why people think a fence will be any more effective than actual signs. Nobody in favor is answering this obvious foundational question.
yours/
peter
Lots of expense goes along with the 12+ million (I tend to agree with BBH on the number) illegals, too, Peter. Not sure a fence wouldn’t save us a bundle.
And I believe we need to regain control of our sovereignty. How is a fence different from a sign? You don’t need to climb over—or cut through—a sign, I guess. Plus, it gives you a specific point of entry to surveil, which I suspect makes enforcement easier.
I’m with you on the felony, BBH. But I don’t like the idea of national identity cards. At least not yet. Though again, if they could pass constitutional muster, and certain border states voted to issue them, well….
Big Bang Hunter!
I live in the largest border state, and I’ve yet to see any evidence suggesting that illegals are voting in any significant number. I personally don’t believe they care, and really, why should they? Although the percentage is lower than it’s been in years past, most of these folks are sojourner workers and have no intention of becoming a citizen or permanently relocating here.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans would do well to worry about the opinions of the tens of millions of Mexican American citizens who legally vote than the relative handful of illegals that might try. And that’s another thing to add to your excellent list: who’s willing to alienate or even unintentionally oppress 40 million US citizens in the process of deporting illegals?
yours/
peter.
Peter,
Uh, try googling Loretta Sanchez. You may wish to amend that statement: anyone in the most populous border state is well aware of what went on in Orange County.
With a little research you will find that legal residents of Mexican heritage are none too happy about the flood of illegal immigrants, either.
– I didn’t mean to imply in any way that its true Peter. Its most probably just the preception inside the beltway. But as slow as our side seems to be in picking up the pulse of the public, maybe Deaniacs words today will finally wake them up. Washington seems to have grown a wart over their brain pans on this issue. I generally agree that polls are for the “out” party, but this is one of those issues thats truly non-partisan, as much as both sides would like to make it one.
– I don’t see any other viable option than Ident. I’m not real found of all the profiling we already have to put up with as citizens, but if we’re going to go on being an “open” country, I honestly do not see any way around it. And btw.
Just how and when did Illegals get constitutional protections Jeff? Don’t tell me you’ve fallen for that “Goal post move” by the left and the champions of the “down with immigration laws” group. Last time I looked people in this country illegally are covered by the humanity laws of the Geneva Convention. When and where did that change. If we extend all the same exact rights to all comers then whats the point of citizenship at all. Problems problems problems.
Step 1 has got to be to secure the borders so that we stop letting more people in illegally.
What to do with the parents, who aren’t here legally, of minor US citizens? That depends on their behavior. If they’ve engaged in criminal activity that places them in prisons at our expense, they might just as well be sent home instead.
On the other hand, if they’re working to support those minor citizens, and saving us the expense of paying to house them in institutions, foster families, etc., then offering those parents visas makes a lot of sense.
On the gripping hand, if they participate in protests against the enforcement of the law, then there’s not as much reason to renew those visas, now is there?
First off, they’re talking about a fence, not a wall (and you can shove your subtle Berlin Wall analogies up your ass), but then, honestly, is there any reason we should not throw open the border and let in anyone and everyone who wants to come here and document them later (which is the de facto current system)? Arguments please.
A nice boost to the local construction industry.
So you’re proud to be a Stalinist?
I don’t want a national ID system. I don’t want to give cops to stop me and ask me for my papers. I want government to stay the hell away from me. Freedom is more important than avoiding contact with mexicans.
If we should deport anyone it’s the people who are willing to enslave themselves to government over an issue so trivial.
America wants the best and the brightest.
What about 1/2 mile wide paintball arena at the border? If you can make it across without getting tagged – youre in.
That would be the best and elusive…or best and agile?
I worked the polls in Sanchez’ district ten years ago when a friend of mine was running. We had to beat people with a stick to get them off the couch and to the polls, and very few Hispanics voted at all, so I think fraud was low. That may have changed, but believe me, the Republicans are all over them about illegals voting. The Dems are waiting gleefully, though, for the anchor babies to grow up and register Democrat.
As for numbers coming in now, I don’t know–for some reason the groups of unemployed men hanging around the local crappy apartment houses have disappeared and For Rent signs are up. Maybe they went home for Christmas and decided not to come back until the heat’s off. Works for me!
Trent Lott condemned the proposal today, complaining that letting the private sector build a border fence would “play merry hell” with the Homeland Security Earmarks Program…
spiny!
Fence, wall, whatever. Does one work better than the other? You tell me. I’m sorry if you got yourself a little moral dilemma there, but hey, that shoe fits in your ass, not mine.
I see, so we have to either have a fence or zero border regulation? What about if we just find out what the cayotes charge to smuggle someone over and then charge half that at the border for a two year work visa? We can fingerprint them, take their picture, and give them a cool little ID card that will enable them to open bank accounts, get driver’s licenses and even W-2s.
And who died and said that work visas have to lead to citizenship? That’s like saying we shouldn’t let people purchase admission into Disneyland without giving them Disney stock.
So, now that I’ve provided a counter argument, go ahead and tell me why you think a FENCE is going to keep Mexicans from jumping the border to find low-paying (from our perspective) work in the US.
yours/
peter.
<a href=”http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-fonte032102.shtml” target=”_blank”>
Mexico explicitly recognizes and encourages dual-citizenship, including Hispanics born in the U.S. to parents of Mexican heritage. These dual citizens are encouraged to vote in Mexican and US elections, and promote Mexico’s interests in the US.In fact were I to move to Mexico and acquire Mexican citizenship, these US born “Mexicans” would still recieve preferrential treatment to me in Mexico under Mexican law.
actus, you asked “what wages are they going to pay their builders?”, and I responded to that. You said of my proposal: “a nice boost to the local construction industry.”
Check my mad emphasis style:
People care enough about this issue to want to pay for it themselves. The property owners are merely allowing the fence to be built; they may or may not be contributing to the cost of the fence. So, some people who care have formed a company (I used the term above in the sence of camaraderie, but both meanings apply), they are going to donate their time and/or money for the task of building this fence. If I were involved, I’d leverage my motivation and that of everyone else involved to create a profitable enterprise in the region that would support those who want to build the fence, and that would build the fence as a side-project, possibly but not necessarily at a profit. To be successful, the fence-proponents will need to be profitable in a manner such as this, and thus they will become the “local construction industry”.
Anyway, I was trying to be civil, but I had thought that your question was in the context of the post, this being the comment section to that post and all. So, the correct answer to your question is “more than the builders ask for”, that is to say, “more than you are worth”, and more precisely, “generally nothing”.
I for one look forward to your comments here, actus. I am constantly surprised by the depths of your ignorance, and delighted by your comic avoidance of wit. Nothing could make my days more complete than your continued participation here.
Well, except for maybe some dancing armadillo.
I’m sure they’re entitled to mexican citizenship. I’m just not sure that for any given US Born kid, he has the paperwork ready when we tear their parents away from them.
I know. You’re going to work for free. That’s sure a nice boost to the local industry.
Jeff,
The Krauthammer solution is the best one. Once we have control of the border we can then set legal immigration at a level we find beneficial—probably high given the country’s median age—and on terms we find beneficial. We shouldn’t stop immigration, though.
Also, I agree that militarizing the border is stupid as well. In addition to what you said, it’s a hideous waste of military resources.
It isn’t necessary to put the military on the border, you simply make their lives so awkward and uncomfortable here that they want to leave on their own. They’ll deport themselves.
That aside, securing the borders of the United States should be the first responsibility of the US Government, if there is no other way to do it. The Southern border is more important than Camp Casey or Ramstein.
Insofar as Mexicans are concerned, their government recognizes dual citizenship to those born to Mexican parents in this country. By removing the anchor baby gimmick it is hardly us ‘tearing the children away from their families.’ If they want to take them home, they’re free to do so. If not, they can leave them here with legals. Their faulty family planning is hardly our responsibility. Our excessive generosity is what often makes us such international suckers, and it is something the Mexican government is counting on.
Oh NOW we’re supposed to worry about paperwork………..
Peter,
So, not only are you a pompous ass, you’re completely ignorant of US immigration policies of the last 20 years. The scheme you are suggesting has been tried on multiple occasions and has FAILED every time, for the simple reason the illegals have no desire to be identified. They do not trust the government – ours or their own. What makes you think those “temporary work visas” will succeed this time? When the two years is up, they’ll head home? Are you that naïve?
And where did you get the idea that every border crosser uses a Coyote?
A fenced border will be far easier to patrol. The areas with fences in place (San Diego County is a prime example) have seen dramatic decreases in illicit crossings. Why do you think the migrants have moved east to the Imperial County and Arizona deserts, a far more dangerous journey? Your “Largest Border State” of Texas sees a tiny fraction of the illegal immigration that California gets: of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the US, about 2/3, as many as 8 million, are in California, and many more crossed here over the past decade and then moved out to other states where the job market is not so saturated.
Spiny? Peter? Manners! We are supposed to be better than this, right?
Norm!
Sticks and stones.
Your first error: the United States has NEVER, EVER had a work visa program since 1924 that wasn’t 1) severely limited in number by quotas, 2) carrying rediculous, socialistic restrictions tying the worker to a particular employer or industry, 3) carrying rediculous, onerous restrictions regarding when the worker can be in the US, forcing the holder to travel back and forth from the US to his native country several times a year. Should you have any evidence to the contrary, I’m sure you’ll post a link.
Your second error: before 1924 we never had a problem with border jumpers because there weren’t millions of unskilled jobs available to draw them over. The problem we see today is entirely self-inflicted, driven by labor market disequilibrium caused by generations of the restrictions you’re so fond of. And I’m sure if you have evidence to the contrary you’ll post a link.
Yeah, right: Tunnel Found on the Mexican Border
The truth is that they find tunnels in San Diego all the time, and San Diego is arguably the most secure part of the US-Mexican border, FENCES and all.
yours/
peter.
Peter – I’ve followed most of what you’ve said, but the tunnel thing is ass backwards. No drug cartel is going to risk a multimillion dollar operation trafficing in illegals. Yes they find tunnels. But they are drug pipelines, never used for illegals. Sometimes they do use runners, who have “body packed” with various drugs, but this is a tiny exception compared to the mass movement across unguarded portions of the border. Your arguments are pretty good, but stick to things you know about.
Eric (provided you’re still reading this):
Any contact information for that fence-building endeavor? Sounds like an interesting way to spend some of my accumulated vacation time.
Peter,
Do you lock your car? Why? People steal locked cars all the time. Do you lock your house? etc…
Just because certain people will do what they can to circumvent the rules, doesn’t mean we are not justified in taking reasonable precautions to keep that from happening….btw, the people who circumvent the rules are called criminals. The more and more I listen to this debate, the more I come to the realization that the people who object to border defense have come to the conclusion that we have NO RIGHT to protect our national sovreignity, and to expect the people who come here to abide by our law.
Patricia:
I absolutely agree that sometimes laws are bad and unpopular and need to be repealed. Show me the drug legalization petition and I’ll sign it.
But here you’re talking about an existing law (under which illegals are supposed to be deported) that – completely unlike prohibition – is enormously popular among the American people.
This is where I think you and Jeff make the same mistake. You act as if one of the reasons that seriously working to deport illegals is “unworkable” as policy is that doing so creates a PR problem, i.e., the American public won’t support it.
To which, all I can say is, “Wha..!?!?!”
But let’s set aside the PR issues and take a closer look at the logistical roadblocks to see if they’re really that insurmountable. Let’s throw out a theoretical program to see how really “unworkable” it would be…
Take, for instance, the big show-pony round-up from yesterday… Multiple cities, something like 1,100 people detained, including business managers.
Why can’t we do something like that virtually every day?
Imagine if the DHS/INS decided it was going to do two things: build a fence; and get serious and start targeting:
a) day-labor sites; and
b) companies in the hotel, construction, meat packing, and agricultural industries that have more than 50 employees.
Imagine that they conducted a raid of one such business, every day, in every city with over 750,000 people. And imagine that managers got arrested, too.
Imagine that they conducted a similar raid twice a week in every city that has between 250,000 and 750,000 people.
What do we have… maybe 25 cities that fit the first category? maybe 100 cities that fit the second category? (getting the numbers exactly right isn’t that important)
Using those numbers, we’re talking about 325 raids a week. Suppose it takes 50 agents & support employees to prepare for, execute and complete the post-arrest work for each raid (that’s awfully conservative, I’d say), and that each 50 person team can conduct one raid a week. That means that in those big cities, we’d need 5 teams or a staff of 250 people to carry out the raid-a-day program. The entire program could be carried out, nationwide, with 16,250 people.
Suppose that, on average, each raid nets just 15 illegals (again, conservative). That’s 117,000 illegals a year.
And remember, yesterday’s raid went after managers, too. Going after them is key to drying up the demand.
What’s that in terms of cost? Well, let’s be generous and say 5 billion for the fence. That’s over $450 per lineal foot for 2000 miles. Now lets figure on $100,000 per year, per employee, in salary and overhead to conduct the raid-a-day operation. That’s $1.625 billion.
Now this is an incredibly inefficient program. It means that we spend almost $14,000 to deport each illegal.
But not really. Like you’ve said there is the self-deportation effect.
And even with this inefficiency, we’re still only talking about an initial investment of $5 bilion and a yearly outlay of $1.625 billion.
You can say that this is expensive… you can say that it’s not worth it.
But there is simply nothing unworkable about enacting such a program.
We could do it in a heartbeat, and the vast majority of the American people would LOVE IT.
Before 1924 there was no government entitlement system to leach off, and the standard of living for the working man was not significantly better in the US than in Mexico.
BBH!
This isn’t true according to the articles I’ve read (Google: San Diego tunnel). But brother, they’ll hump ballpoint pens, midget lesbian wrestlers and appliance parts through those tunnels if the price is right. And that’s a big part of the problem. Like with illegal drugs, the more successful we are in lowering the supply of Mexican workers, the more we succeed at merely driving up the price (wages) paid for work, producing that much more incentive for them to risk breaking our laws by coming here.
ziske68!
Well I don’t lock my car. But I lock my house knowing that any burglar will simply go to another house if it’s too difficult to get into mine. But Mexico only has one nation paying relatively high wages for low-skilled work on her border, so unfortunately your analogy falls apart (as all do at some point) before it can really be useful.
And this isn’t an argument about whether we should or should not defend the border, it’s about how to defend the border in a way that will actually work.
Currently, our border is overwhelmed:
o·ver·whelm (vr-hwlm, -wlm)
tr.v. o·ver·whelmed, o·ver·whelm·ing, o·ver·whelms
1. To surge over and submerge; engulf: waves overwhelming the rocky shoreline.
2. To defeat completely and decisively: Our team overwhelmed the visitors by 40 points.
3. To affect deeply in mind or emotion: Despair overwhelmed me.
4. To present with an excessive amount: They overwhelmed us with expensive gifts.
5. To turn over; upset: The small craft was overwhelmed by the enormous waves.
As long as their high-paying low-skill jobs going unfilled in the US, the border is going to continue to be overwhelmed, submerged in a sea of workers seeking to fulfill that demand by coming over border and living quietly amongst the 40 million Hispanic Americans in our country, fence or no fence, exactly like the demand for cocaine which we’ve spent well over a TRILLION dollars trying to keep outâ€â€keeps cocaine available within our very prisons in spite of all of our efforts.
Do you know what you get when you pit sovereignty against the laws of supply and demand? The laws of supply and demand.
Say you’re driving through fog, you swerve to avoid a deer and wind up sitting in your car at the bottom of a pond. You try to open your door but you can’t because the water pressure on the outside is greater than the air pressure of the bubble you’re sitting in. At this point it doesn’t matter what the car’s warranty says, it doesn’t matter what the user manual says, it doesn’t matter what the government automobile regulations say, you aren’t going to open that door without rolling down or breaking a window and equalizing the pressure on both sides of the door. And that’s all I’m talking about, equalizing irresistable pressures. If we equalize the economic pressure on our southern border by allowing the supply of workers needed to meet demand for work and we won’t have to build a fence because we will no longer be overwhelmed, yet we would be in total control of our borders because they would finally be controllable.
gahrie!
When it comes government entitlement programs, everyone is a leach. And I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I oppose being forced to subsidize wealthy Californians’ outrageous, self-inflicted entitlement systems by paying to secure their system. Build a house out of shit, expect flies. Build a generous welfare system, expect free riders to come out of the woodwork. And I must say, I find it pretty ironic how this issue has transformed so many conservatives into great white defenders of the welfare state.
yours/
peter.
Law, policy…I meant the same thing. By deportation, though, I mean an announcement to the effect that “on Day X we are going after all you.”
I agree, but only until a manageable level of illegals remain. So maybe we agree somewhat.
But I agree with Jeff that we don’t want to hunt down every last one, no matter the cost in time, effort, or PR. I think we want to start by enforcing obvious laws: bust some big corporate employers, deport known criminals, and see how it goes. Let the rest of folks leave who choose to leave–which I think will be many–and see what society looks like then. Win-win.
I finally figured out what bothers me so much about these “minutemen” assholes. They’ve offended somethiing southern in me. They have no authority, they represent no authority, they don’t own any land on the border themselves and so essentially have no stake in the outcome of their actions. Yet there down here anyway, essentially butting into other people’s business.
And I don’t care if some land owners on the border cooperate with them. Those landowners didn’t seek out the assistance of this group. There’s something about them that conjures the image of the Ku Klux Klan riding in on horseback into some little backwoods antebellum town and telling the Sheriff that they heard he had “nigger problems.”
yuck/
peter.
If there’s anyone left reading this thread and is interested, I put it all together here
yours/
peter.
On cue, here is the first “family torn apart” piece from our pro-illegal press. Note that the illegal Dad is so “frightened and living in the shadows” that he had his picture taken while declaring he’s smuggling Mom back next week! Also note how the facts about the actual theft which precipitated the arrest are ignored.
Theft and Deportation