[joanie-f]

Something happened in Boston in the winter of 1773 that served as evidence that the final straw had been laid on the camel’s back … and the spark for a revolution against tyranny and aristocracy was ignited.

What happened in Boston spread, and other colonial seaports defiantly followed the example set by Sam Adams (‘It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds’). When the news spread of what Sam Adams and a handful of Boston patriots had done, other seaports all down the Atlantic coastline followed the example and staged similar acts of defiance of their own.

Of all of the signers of our Declaration of Independence, Sam Adams probably best embodies those character traits found in colonial American patriots. He was an eloquent man, determined to keep himself informed regarding the abuses of power that continued to be heaped upon the colonies, and, in addition to sharing his insight and stirring eloquence, he was not afraid to act when it appeared that words would no longer suffice.

In spite of the education garnered, and knowledge shared, on this forum, I believe that most adult Americans could not even tell you who Sam Adams was. And, of those who are aware of his role in the revolution … and beyond … I believe most know him through his most famous declaration, ‘If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.’

Powerful words indeed … and perhaps more powerful now than then.

But another of Adams’ statements may even prove to be more pertinent and providential in America 2005:

Among the natural rights of the colonists are there: First a right to life, second to liberty, and thirdly to property. Together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.

Life, liberty and property were the three sanctified entities that our Founders sought, and sacrifice beyond our comprehension, to guarantee each and every American – not only their eighteenth century contemporaries, but every one of us who has followed in their footsteps.

Yet during our lifetimes alone, there have been countless examples of government gone awry that have represented a direct and destructive assault upon the sanctity of those three God-given human rights that our Founders sought to ensure for us. The government-sponsored murders at Waco, the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, the passage of the McCain-Feingold assault on the First Amendment, the court-ordered murder of Terri Schiavo, and the government land grab upheld two months ago in Kelo vs. New London come to mind. And in between each of those travesties, there occurred dozens more.

What happened in Douglas, Arizona this week deserves to be added to the growing list of what our Founders would have called ‘grievances against the King’.

In America 2005, we are experiencing a growing arrogance on the part of government at all levels … representing by the passing of liberty-restrictive laws and by judicial rulings that all but declare the Constitution a nuisance, and the American citizen a slave of the state.

But not only is government pro-actively trampling on our three most precious God-given rights, it is also accomplishing the same result by simply refusing to defend them when their sanctity is threatened by outsiders.

The illegal immigration travesty is the prime example of death through neglect. We are pro-actively fighting a ‘war on terrorism’ six thousand miles from our shore, and yet an onslaught that is threatening to destroy us, both physically and economically, and that also affords terrorists the ability to find a home and a breeding ground from which to proselytize on our own soil, and in our own neighborhoods, is being allowed to continue unabated. Government efforts to stop illegal immigration have been half-hearted, at best – and entirely unsuccessful.

Alexander Hamilton (and Washington and Jefferson as well) vehemently opposed granting immediate citizenship to new immigrants, writing, ‘To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.’ And he repeatedly warned against allowing masses of immigrants to cross our borders, because he believed that our safety and sovereignty would be threatened by such ‘reckless policy’.

The Founders’ concerns were focused on the deadly threats to our republic represented by failing to limit legal immigration. It’s difficult to imagine what they would think of laws and court rulings that hold the American citizen/taxpayer hostage to the ‘rights’ of illegal immigrants. The fact that the American legal/judicial system would go so far as to seize the property of an American citizen and lawfully convey it to an illegal immigrant would surely be beyond their ability to comprehend, let alone condone.

The dollar cost of illegal immigration is rising exponentially, and consists of (among other considerations), the cost to the American taxpayer of:

• Providing ‘benefits’ to those illegal immigrants who are hired by American businesses looking to make a quick, illegal buck, but who provide no healthcare – thus causing their illegal employees to obtain ‘free’ (on the backs of the taxpayer) healthcare (thanks to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985).

• Food stamps, free education and school lunches, subsidized housing, and seemingly countless entitlement ‘perks’ for their children born on this side of the border.

• The cost to the American taxpayer of supposedly ‘cheap labor’ being obtained by unscrupulous businesses.

• Driving down the wages that American citizens receive in whatever businesses the cheap immigrant labor finds a foothold (generally agriculture, construction and food services)

• Incarceration costs of those illegals who drive uninsured or otherwise get in trouble with the law, pro-bono legal services, and the cost of interpreters

• The drain, sometimes to the point of collapse in the border states, on the healthcare system … indirectly resulting in inferior, and more expensive, healthcare for our own citizens.

All of the above expenses, and more, have resulted in estimates ranging from $10 billion to $40 billion a year pilfered from the American taxpayers’ pockets as a result of our government’s unwillingness to address the immigration issue.

I can think of much better ways to spend our money, one of which would put a major dent in the cause of the US/Mexico border immigration crisis.

Simplistically, here is a layman’s partial solution – a very rough and ‘non-expert’ draft which would, of course require significant ‘fine tuning’ …

Let’s use the ‘average’ of the $10 to $40 billion estimates, and assume that illegal immigrants cost the taxpayer $25 billion annually.

The length of the US (CA, AZ, NM, TX)-Mexico border is approximately 5,000 miles.

Many nuts-and-bolts conservatives (yours truly included) have suggested building a wall and/or stationing armed guards as a reasonable solution to the illegal immigration problem occurring across our southern border.

Let’s look at the potential cost of doing both:

The extraordinarily effective protective wall that Israel has built in West Bank in order to prevent the infiltration of Palestinian suicide bombers cost them $1.6 million per mile.

Using that figure, the construction of a similar wall along our entire southern land border, would cost $1.6 million/mile x 5,000 miles = $8 billion.

Now, if we were to build small guard stations and assign an armed guard at each station every half-mile along that wall, we would require 5,000 x 2 = 10,000 guard stations.

Let’s liberally assume that each small station (something along this or this line) would cost $100,000 each to install (including wiring for air conditioning and a set of outside floodlights, plumbing, communications equipment, etc.). The total cost for all 10,000 stations would be $1 billion.

If we were to station guards at each station so that each worked an 8-hour shift, five days a week – and hired a sufficient number of guards so as to have a guard on duty 24 hour a day, seven days a week -- we would require 21 eight-hour shifts (totaling 168 hours) per week with each guard working a 40 hour week. Therefore we would require 4.2 guards per station.

4.2 guards per station x 10,000 stations = a total of 42,000 guards needed to patrol the border.

Let’s assume a cost of training each guard (in the procedures to be followed and in firearms training, both of which would be done in classes of 100 or more guards per class), and the providing of each guard with a firearm, to amount to $2,500/guard. Then the cost of training 42,000 would be $100 million.

Assume that each guard is paid an annual salary and benefits totaling $75,000. The total annual salary/benefits cost for all 10,000 guards would amount to $750 million.

Now take the estimated $25 billion dollar per year to the taxpayer cost of illegal immigration and subtract the $8 billion cost of an Israeli-like security wall running along the entire border and the $1 billion cost of guard stations positioned every half mile along that wall, the $100 million training costs, and the $750 million in guard salaries and we are left with $15.15 billion dollars (more than half of the figure with which we started) – which could be used for maintenance purposes, insurance, utility costs, additional equipment, etc.

And the large portion of the outlay described above is a one-time – as opposed to annual -- cost (the construction of the wall itself, especially).

Of course, all of the above are simply the estimates of a layperson, who has no expert knowledge in the costs of the physical items involved. But I believe those estimates to be not unrealistic. Neither do I suggest that I have covered all financial considerations that would be involved.

My entire purpose in creating this hypothetical example is to suggest simply that I believe there is a fundamental, nuts-and-bolts solution to the crisis represented by the exodus of illegals coming across our southern border. And I also believe that the financial cost of such a common sense solution would not be anywhere near as prohibitive as the financial cost of continuing to support (and now actually cater to, at the cost of our own freedoms) non-citizens who have committed a crime simply by being here in the first place.

How to address the problems cause by those illegals who are already here is an entirely different issue. But I believe that stemming the source of the problem now is entirely within our power … and entirely possible, dollar-wise.

As for the ramifications of the Douglas, Arizona Ranch decision …

I can’t help but wonder when we citizens of America 2005 will declare that the last straw has been placed on the camel’s back. Are we more ‘tolerant’ of the tyranny of government than Sam Adams and his fellow patriots were? Are we more of a mindset that we will not take action until the abuse occurs in our own backyard? Are we more willing to wear the chains to which Adams referred, because we love the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom?

Back in 1999, Claire Wolfe observed in her book, ‘ 101 Things To Do ‘Til The Revolution’:

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

Considering the atrocities (both by neglect and by overt action) committed by our government in the six years since Claire penned that thought, I can’t help but wonder whether we have been pushed significantly closer to the revolution she envisioned in those last three words.

~ joanie ..

[Travis McGee]

These were the demonstrators who tried to stop the Carlsbad illegal immigration forum from taking place last week.

They represent the true face of the Open Borders Lobby.

This guy equates Old Glory with a Nazi Swastika.

Neo-Communists still peddling "workers of the world unite!"

[betty boop]

What happened in Douglas, Arizona this week deserves to be added to the growing list of what our Founders would have called ‘grievances against the King’.

Except in the American case, the formula would have to read: "grievances against the People," for we have no king -- it is the people who are sovereign here.

And this case is an insult to popular sovereignty, and to, not only individual constitutional rights, but also to the will of We the People.

I still think we ought to just invade Mexico and make it the 51st, 52nd, 53rd, and 54th state of the Union -- and give those long-suffering people a real break, and real opportunities in life.... JMHO FWIW. If you can't "beat 'em," make them "join you." :^)

Thank you ever so much, joanie, for your excellent (as usual) essay/post!

[tet68]

We have not suffered that " long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,to throw off such Government..."yet,
but I'm sure under demokratic leadership such abuses
would soon occur once they get their hands on the power,
having recently lost it, usurpations would soon follow.

Interesting times no?

[Eastbound]

A timely and well-reasoned essay, joanie-f. Thanks very much for the ping.

[FBD]

bookmark.
thanks Joanie!

[FBD]

CLICK ON THIS VIDEO link below:
Listen to and watch the pro-illegal immigrant crowd yell things like:
"DEATH TO THE READNECKS"...
"Zarqawi is a great gringo killer!", "Intifada!", etc.
This is a wake-up call, folks...it's getting very ugly...


http://kirkbytv.com/Video/Teaser3_15fps.wmv

[SiliconValleyGuy]

Joanie, this is one of the most awesome posts I have ever read. Thank you!

I have one addition-

The building of the wall, and the guards that would be required to act as sentries would also provide temporary jobs for those who build the wall, and permanent ones for the 42,000 who work as guards. That's another positive to your plan.

[Minuteman23]

Somehow I knew you would be weighing in on this despicable ruling.

Joanie, your knowledge of our history and your talent for connecting the dots between then and now is second to none.

You have Email.

[ForGod'sSake]

Hi joanie. Excellent write up. A couple of things might need to be revisited??? For example:

Using that figure, the construction of a similar wall along our entire southern land border, would cost $1.6 million/mile x 5,000 miles = $8 billion.

Unless I've missed something, our Southern border with Mexico is roughly 2,000 miles long. Your figures work if you're talking about our entire land border area which would include Canada. So conceivably you could reduce your estimates by more than half if in fact you are just discussing the Southern border.

Another item you didn't discuss(for purposes of brevity?) was the potential for "boat people". If we seal our land borders, the potential could be significant I suspect. Now, surveillance over open water may in fact be a cake walk compared to surveillance over land, but it's something on which I'm not knowledgable enough to really say one way or the other. In any case, it's likely the coyotes will work any new border control to find weaknesses. We would need to be one step ahead, no?

One of my favorites from Sam Adams:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Eloquent thoughts and words from one of our best and brightest. You've asked the question, and I can only speak for myself, but I've had enough. I'm ready, if not as able as I once was, to rein in the noveau tyrant wannabes. The breaking/tipping point may come when we least expect it. A single spark from an isolated event might be what sets the Patriots off. We should all be considering the Boy Scouts motto shouldn't we?

And may God help us.

FGS

[azhenfud]

Your hypotheticals are quite good, but I might add we would also recoup some of the expenditure because undocumented pharmaceuticals distributors would have a harder time sending their goods into the US, therefore helping cut the effort required for DEA, allowing their focus elsewhere.

Also, with a secure linear structure, once a deported illegal alien is drop-shipped on the southern side of the wall, it'd be a while instead of a few days before they make it back into the States. Therefore repeat deportations would diminish, and in essence cost less per case.

One point though, 5000 miles? I think the southern border is closer to half that - BUT I could be mistaken...

[downwithsocialism]

Simplistically, here is a layman’s partial solution – a very rough and ‘non-expert’ draft which would, of course require significant ‘fine tuning’ …

I don't agree. I think your ideas are realistic, as are your numbers; and any "fine tuning" that would have to be done would certainly still have the results fall within the amount we spend on illegals every year.

Adams and Hamilton and the others you quoted were geniuses. They saw everything that we are dealing with coming more than 200 years ago.

Thanks for the excellent post! ForGod'sSake is right, you are one of the best and brightest.

[Smokin' Joe]

Tremendous! Well said! And I agree fully!

An investment less than the annual cost of the problem which would alleviate the problem makes good sense. Even though I get images of the Berlin Wall, we do need to do something, and in contrast to that series of structures, this is not to keep people in, but to keep them out.

If enogh Mexicans (and others) were to be forced to remain in Mexico (and elsewhere), perhaps they would change the government which oppresses them, instead of coming here illegally and subverting ours.

Unfortunately, as those of us who work in the oil industry get our first real raises in a decade, people wail and gnash their teeth over the cost of fuel.

I am no defeatist, but the outcry over the increase in cost of goods and services in the niches filled by illegals would probably be greater than the outcry over the the current illegal immigrant problem.

By and large, Americans have become a self-centered and short-sighted lot.

Sadly, there are few of Sam Adams' fervor present in our modern society; people are too caught up in the acquisition of immaterial material wealth to pay attention to their own families, much less the dangers to our Liberty.

I would wager that even many of the members of Congress, themselves, in some way benefit, whether it be the gardener, housekeeper, or the guy who cleans the pool, directly or indirectly, by the presence of illegal immigrants in the labor force.

That is bad enough, but the theft of Nethercott's Ranch is being done, not just as a "damage" award to the "victims", but a way of definitively punishing someone who has been an outspoken thorn in the side of official agencies on this issue for some time. If Nethercott's ranch forfieture is intended as an 'object lesson' to those who would "take the law into their own hands", I fear that turf battle has only just begun.

Sadly, the man has been roundly demonized in the media, deservedly or not, and will garner little sympathy from those who refuse to see the greater issue at hand. DOubtless, that is no accident.

For starters, we need protection against the award of damages to someone who is injured in the commission of a criminal act by someone seeking to halt or hinder that act, not just to protect landowners in the border areas, but any and every citizen who choses to defend themselves, their property, or their family against criminals.

The ramifications of this would be broad indeed, as it would ensure that the average citizen can uphold the law using reasonable (including lethal) force without fear of civil recrimination by those allegedly injured doing their particular criminal act.

(In this instance, the lesson is that Nethercott would have been better off taking his chances and burying these people, rather than giving them water and a blanket.)

I can not understand why such liability protection is so freely tendered to those who act in an official capacity, but generally withheld from the average person. There is no 'equal protection' under these laws eliminating liability for officials only, which may be a Constitutional issue in and of itself.

As for securing the border, this is one of the Constitutional empowerments of the Federal Government, unfortunately abdicated by the Congress in the aim of securing votes from the numerically increasing and increasingly anti-American groups which espouse thwarting that objective.

Even in the face of the threat (and in some instances, the reality--MS 13 comes to mind) of terrorists infiltrating our nation through the highly permeable arrangement on our borders, these legislators lack the intestinal fortitude to uphold this mandate from the very document they are sworn to protect and defend, the very essence of our government.

For now, the battle is primarily within the system. There are credible attempts to sieze the property of judges who voted for Kelo, which I hope succeed, or at least come close enough to cause the Court to reconsider and overturn the decision. There is an outcry over the City of New London attempting to charge back rent to those whose property they have siezed, a real abombination, and again, a punitive measure, undertaken through the courts, with no doubt the objective of establishing precedent which is intended to intimidate any who would resist such property siezures.

These acts are not only in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, they are arguably criminal racketeering.

I cannot be convinced that those who have pushed these actions to sieze property and redistribute it to other private entities "for the purpose of increasing tax revenues" do not stand to receive some personal gain, whether through increasing the funding for their tenure in their present position through "contributions" or more directly.

Were this 1773, they would likely be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

[Itzlzha]

An excellent analysis, and well said.

The cost recovery alone in the first 5 years, due to the decreased burden on the State/Fed tax system by SEVERELY curtailing, if not outright eliminating the Illegal Infiltrator problem MORE than offeset the start-up costs,and as the wall will not need 8 Billion/Year EVERY year, as it will then be a fixed cost...I rough estimate with your provided figures that within 3.5 to 4 years, The wall, security, and all associated costs will be paid in full by the savings from reduced/eliminated burden!

Then, we can wall off Canada...after offering the Westen Provinces the opportunity to join the US first!

My next suggestion is doing what was done in "Escape From New York"...turn Manhattan into a LIEberal enclave(hell, it already IS), wall it up and mine/cut the bridges and tunnels, and just toss the bastards in as they surface in the rest of America, to fend for themselves and not screw it up for the REAL America anymore! You want to live in a Marxist Utopia...here's your entry pass...good luck!

I can see Krintong and Shrillary as the "Duke and Dutchess of NY...they're A #1!"...I know...a fantasy, but I can dream, can't I?

Back to reality...your final thought is correct, but not far enough along... I predict that we are 12/18 MONTHS from B.I.T.S. ... and that timeframe is shrinking exponentially with EVERY Kelo/AZ decision that comes along, as our "Leaders" dither and show just how meaningless and out-of-touch they are!

I predict that we should invest in comanies that produce things like rope...ammo/arms...feathers...tar....because the past will happen again, and sooner than the Perfumed Princes of Power think.

[Nebr FAL owner]

I strongly suggest that you look more carefully at your map with regard to the distance of the US/Mexican border . Your estimations as to the difficulties & expense of improving the defenses of this nation at its border are at the very best & most charitably described as simply defeatist. I agree that the greatest threat to the liberty of the American citizen is the American govt. through its willing neglect of the borders & corruption of the elected officials but most importantly by the utter contempt that the government has for the citizens from whom they derive their authority. Also bear in mind that the govt. of Mexico has publicly stated that there are regions & cities in Mexico along the border with the US that are at risk of societal/political collapse Nuevo Laredo is rapidly devolving into Mogadishu on the Rio Grande more of these failed cities/states are on the way & does any one truly believe that the trouble from all these failed government's will stay only on the Mexican side of the border? We will have no choice but to refortify the border unless you & the other open borders crowd would prefer to see open warfare on the streets of this country because as it stands now this nations borders are for all intents & purposes nonresistant.

[Badray]

bump for later.