That's the only way to deal with illegal immigration. Until the Mexican government has to start pitching in, there will be no changes. As long as Mexico is allowed to fund its entire corrupt socialist state on the income made by Mexicans in the US without contributing a dime to assist them (in fact, it will not even repatriate Mexican criminals at its own cost), the border will remain out of control.
My feeling has always been that the heat has to be turned up on the Mexican government. Heck, if I lived in Mexico, I'd be crawling across the Rio Grande, too - it's a dysfunctional country, and we've enabled it.
"$30 billion a year flows out of the United States just to Latin America in the form of remittances. There are seven or eight countries in the world that have more than 10 percent of their gross domestic product coming to them in the form of remittances from the United States or countries outside their boundaries, but primarily from the United States; $30 billion alone to Latin America.
Where does this money come from? It comes, of course, from the people who work here; who, if they were not sending that money home, they would be investing it in the communities in which they live. But since they are not, those communities are denied the benefits of that multiplier effect. The jobs are not being created, the economy is not being stimulated in these communities, and the money is going primarily south.
So, I have been thinking about this for a while, and when I saw this report I felt that maybe something could be done in the following manner: We every year send billions of dollars overseas to many countries in the form of foreign aid. Much of this money, as everyone knows, ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators or corrupt governments, even if they call themselves democratically elected, and it oftentimes never, ever, ever gets to the most worthy recipient. So I am going to propose an amendment to the foreign operations bill that says that every dollar that we send in the form of a remittance to some other country will be deducted from the money we send them in the form of foreign aid.
Now, this will be quite controversial, of course. It should not be controversial to any Member of the Congress of the United States. It will certainly be opposed by the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan and Haiti. All of these countries will be furious at the possibility that their check will be reduced by the amount of money that their nationals are sending back to people in their country.
But, after all, Mr. Speaker, if in fact foreign aid is simply the transfer of wealth from one country to another, then why is a remittance not that same thing? In fact, it is going to people who probably really need it, and it is far more efficient, far more efficient than the check we send to corrupt governments in terms of the usage."
--------------------------------------------------------
Why stop there? Not only cut their aid for remittances, deduct the outstanding balance for services rendered. Heck, when you add it all up those countries would have to pay us. End the parasitic dependences that perpetuate those governments' corruption in this manner.
Just one more marvelous disincentive (along with denying driver's licenses, recognition of matricular consulars, housing assistance and loitering plus crackdowns on document fraud and employers) that has to be dragged over the Democrat Party's figuratively dead body.