A Citizen's Suggestions (to a Reluctant Government) to Stem The Crisis of Illegal Immigration

self | 08/21/05 | joanie-f

[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 … represented 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 2,000 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 the 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 2,000 miles = $3.2 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 2,000 x 2 = 4,000 guard stations.

  Let’s liberally assume that each small station (something along the lines of this or this ) 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 4,000 stations would be $400 million.

  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 4,000 stations = a total of 16,800 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 16,800 would be $42 million.

  Assume that each guard is paid an annual salary and benefits totaling $75,000. The total annual salary/benefits cost for all 16,800 guards would amount to $1.26 billion.

  Now take the estimated $25 billion dollar per year to the taxpayer cost of illegal immigration and subtract the $3.2 billion cost of an Israeli-like security wall running along the entire border and the $400 million cost of guard stations positioned every half mile along that wall, the $42 million training costs, and the $1.26 billion in guard salaries and we are left with $20.1 billion dollars (a full 80% of the figure with which we started) – which could be used for maintenance purposes, insurance, utility costs, additional equipment, etc, with a sizeable surplus left over.

  The large portion of the outlay described above is a one-time – as opposed to annual -- cost (the construction of the wall itself, especially). The construction of the wall would surrely employ thousands of Americans in the process. As would the guard positions, which would presumably be permanent, unless and until the exodus were to subside.

  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 be nowhere 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 ..

[hosepipe]

[ In any case, "W" has let this problem get out ahead of him. He should have known better, but his apparent lack of interest in a non-critical issue will reach critical mass in the near future....with or without his attention. ]

You assume Dubya is not doing this ON PURPOSE with malice afore thought.. Ochhams Razor DEMANDS that he "IS"...

[SiliconValleyGuy]

Something half begun is not done.

I see. So the Normandy invasion shouldn't have occurred until we had the plans in place for all that happened afterwards until the very end of the war? You're being ludicrous!

When dealing with a problem as huge as this you take first things first. Most illegal aliens are flooding across our southern border (several million a year), so we deal with that first.

As for your contention that her estimates are all low-ball, I haven't seen any research or reasonable estimates of your own to prove that. And even if you did provide them, they probably wouldn't amount to the $25 billion total that she was working with. And I know THAT to be a pretty accurate estimate, if not too conservative.

Your closed-mindedness is obvious in so much of what you say, and your inability to think "outside the box" is obvious in your ridiculous comment that we couldn't build a wall in the shore areas because people like to go to the beach.

No one here (especially Joanie) would suggest walls being built to monitor our seacoast. Talk about ludicrous! That monitoring would obviously require a different strategy. But, as I said before, blocking the land routes from south to north has to come first.

[Dad yer funny]

bookmk ping

[judgeandjury]

This is the future for securing our borders, not brick and mortar fences, but the anti-illegals will not be happy with it and they will continue to say that President Bush is a traitor for not protecting us from terrorists…….

So, should FReepers take this to mean that you are admitting to being pro-illegal immigration and that you condone lawbreaking by illegal aliens?

[Stellar Dendrite]

Hi, did you miss this gem that FDB found? the post is long but i've included the "important" pharases

To: tertiary01
"Since you have so much compassion for Illegal Mexican immigrants "

Not me. As I've posted before, I have no affinity for Mexicans or Americans of Hispanic descent.

To recognize that foreign laborers are essential right now to sustaining our economy does not mean that I am particularly fond of Hispanics.

If I had my personal preference, instead of Mexican laborers, we would have Western European laborers with blond hair and blue eyes pouring across our borders bringing their beautiful daughters. But that isn't reality. Neither is "sealing the border".

However all my relations with Hispanics have been good. Can't say that about Nigerians and half a dozen other types.

72 posted on 07/24/2005 3:47:25 PM CDT by bayourod


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1449544/posts?page=72#72

[ForGod'sSake]

Ochhams Razor DEMANDS that he "IS"

Understood, and may be true. And while I don't think "W" is necessarily a doofus, there's another jewel that may be just as accurate, "Never attribute to malice that which can best be explained by stupidity".

Anyhow, I think it is fast becoming a political hot potatoe will have to be dealt with regardless. This issue is going "hot" and I don't think our politicians can even afford to ignore it forever.

FGS

[Euro-American Scum]

I might add that the current border patrol personel should be re deployed to seek out, arrest, and fine the businesses and individuals that hire the illegals and deport the illegals purging the nation of the disease that is killing us.

Great idea. But the president would never allow such a policy to be put into effect.

[judgeandjury]

Hi, did you miss this gem that FDB found? the post is long but i've included the "important" pharases

Hey, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've got a file of classic posts by that despicable bayourod and I'm going to add this one to my file.

[XpandTheEkonomy]

Weren't out ancestors illegal immigrants? They were legal in the sense that most ships leaving from Old World ports had to be authorized by the king to leave, but did we have a moral right to waltz in here and divide up the land as we pleased?

Well, there is a direct connection between your comments and Ronald Reagan announcing back in the 80s that "...this country has lost control of its borders".

When you strip of nation of its moral authority a loss of control at the borders will be one obvious result. The line of questioning you posted is a caculated effort to achieve this stripping of moral authority. No, I'm not accusing you of that exact motivation [unless you admit to being an Ivy League professor].

When I heard that professor in Colorado express pride in his [phony] Native tribal heritage this past spring all I could think of was how as a happy member of that tribe...you couldn't safely travel anywhere outside the confines of your territory; you didn't have the wheel; you didn't have books; and on an on. What you did have was an extremely brutal life; slavery of neighboring tribe members; women as chattel; chieftain dictatorship; and on an on.

The point is American moral authority is legit and deserved. People flock from all over the world to experience it here as citizens. The Cherokee, Apache nations etc never could be magnets for the rest of the world. It would be seriously delusional to think otherwise.

Native Americans need to roll with punches just like the aforementioned Celts did vis a vis the Romans. Adopt the best qualities of your conquerors and charge on down the road to bigger and better things.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

1. The FY runs from 1 October to 30 September.

2. The number of deaths has remained steady as a percentage of estimated crossings. Do not believe everything you hear from MeCHA.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"I see. So the Normandy invasion shouldn't have occurred until we had the plans in place for all that happened afterwards until the very end of the war? You're being ludicrous!"

We DID have a plan for handling what came next in Normandy to the end of the war. We didn't in Vietnam--that's part of why we lost.

"When dealing with a problem as huge as this you take first things first. Most illegal aliens are flooding across our southern border (several million a year), so we deal with that first."

First, I've pointed out the deficiencies in joanie-f's proposal when it comes to accomplishing even that limited mission. Second, joanie-f's proposal does absolutely nothing about people who overstay their visas. Third, joanie-f's proposal does not address probable countermeasures by the illegal aliens. Finally, the only way that such a plan would be put in place on the southern border is if it's sold as an antiterrorist measure; the uncovered 17,000 miles then becomes a rather glaring hole in the proposed concept.

"As for your contention that her estimates are all low-ball, I haven't seen any research or reasonable estimates of your own to prove that."

You also haven't seen any proof that her estimates are NOT low-balled.

First, her personnel assignments make no allowance whatsoever for guards who get sick or want to take vacation. In other words, if a guard gets sick or (subtle hint of what the smugglers might do to adapt to the situation) injured/wounded, there's nobody on that post until the next shift.

Second, there are many places on the border where one can't see fifty yards, let alone a quarter mile. An unattended wall encourages people to climb over it. So the number of guards per watch will only go up. The East Germans put machine gun posts every 100 yards or so, and they also had a lot of people assigned to reaction forces so that the machine-gunners would not have to leave their posts. They also used minefields--something that we're not willing to do (or will not do after CNN runs the first pictures of Paco and Jose thrashing around with their legs blown off).

Third, that $150K a year is the average cost of one federal employee minus equipment. (That figure, incidentally, is about 10 years old, so it probably understates the actual cost. But in the absence of an updated figure, I'll use it.) $75K means you're paying one border guard about half of what the average federal employee makes. Low pay for doing a s**tty, thankless job encourages extremely high turnover and/or corruption.

"And even if you did provide them, they probably wouldn't amount to the $25 billion total that she was working with."

My estimate: at least 40 guards per mile per watch, more likely 60 once you include reaction forces and supervisors. That works out to 200-300 guards and other personnel per mile (you need five people per watch to man one post 24/7). That's 400,000-600,000 new federal employees, at $150,000 per head...$60-90 billion dollars per year...just to close the Mexican border. And once the smugglers go around and under the wall, you're back to the extra $25 billion a year in social services PLUS the cost of the wall.

"Your closed-mindedness is obvious in so much of what you say, and your inability to think "outside the box" is obvious in your ridiculous comment that we couldn't build a wall in the shore areas because people like to go to the beach."

People DO like to go to the beach, and they are unlikely to appreciate the benefits of a big concrete wall with armed guards closing off their beach.

"No one here (especially Joanie) would suggest walls being built to monitor our seacoast."

In other words, you'd leave about 12,000 miles of border completely uncovered.

"Talk about ludicrous!"

Leaving 12,000 miles of border uncovered and calling it "border security" is ludicrous, yes.

"That monitoring would obviously require a different strategy."

Which would be much more expensive per mile.

"But, as I said before, blocking the land routes from south to north has to come first."

And then the smugglers simply use the coastline that you so thoughtfully left unguarded.

[marway]

Great post, Joanie... I've passed your thoughts to many of my friends... someone suggested that if everyone who was against illegal immigration donated a brick or two, we'd have a wall up in no time and it wouldn't cost the gubmint nuthin'...lol Sounds like a good campaign to me... The "Donate a Brick for a Safe America" campaign....lol

[Aliska]

No, I'm not accusing you of that exact motivation [unless you admit to being an Ivy League professor].

Heh heh. Good one. I have a spotty college past which was more or less useless, graduated from a technical school, and studied extensively my family history, and learned a lot of things not taught in schools, even when I was in school by a lot of reading I have done on my own. There are gaps in my knowledge, and new theories are surfacing all the time.

There may have been a Norse or other presence here for a short or lengthier time, I don't know at this point, but my simplistic view of history is that Columbus discovered America, the earlier Jamestown settlement was wiped out (by Indians and/or disease), and the William Brewster bunch gained the foothold from which all else unfolded regarding immigration, settlement and expansion.

Then I like to climb outside of my usual box, the sky is falling, they're coming in here in hordes, yes, I've been angry that they break our laws with impunity, no effort is made to stem the tide on our side except to make more laws that aren't going to work, then the distressing criminal and drug element freely enter right along with the ones who are coming here to work at jobs some American would do but demand better pay than minimum wage for the harder work. Cement finishing in the summer on highways is grueling, hard work, and people aren't going to do it for $6.50/hr and I don't blame them. Roofing is very hard work, too, as is working on the kill floor and cutting areas in meat processing plants.

Not too long I had a thought. If I were in one of those countries, and my children were starving, I would *like to think* that I would try to leave them with a trusted relative and go el norte and send money home to feed them. I'm not going to lay down and starve to death if there is any other way, including stealing a loaf of bread like Les Miserables main character did, although Victor Hugo was what I would have considered a humanist and interesting writer who didn't have any particularly strong religious beliefs; he may have been an atheist. One of his daughters had a sorry experience in Canada, ended up insane in Barbados, was rescued and went back to Europe to live an isolated and protected life to the end of her lengthy days.

Also, I do have a humanitarian side, and while I do not excuse everything, they are human beings who yearn for a better life, just as our ancestors did. No, I don't have any solutions other than some of the ones being kicked around now.

And to really add fuel to the fire, I often like to imagine what this country looked like (minus the savages and wandering into their territory where as a woman I know my fate would have been death, slavery or whatever else they chose to do to me). So much for peaceful nature walks in the forest or virgin prarie - which I can't really safely do by myself now anyway for various and sundry reasons.

The leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony had trouble believing that arrows shot from bows could really kill until they were finally convinced differently and sent troops to help fight the Pequots in southern CT where the colony was very small and isolated, and facing extinction by starvation and hostile Indians.

I wouldn't be here being such a nuisance if one great+ grandparent hadn't made it to the fort on horseback with her newborn, if another great+ grandparent hadn't reproduced before he was brutally murdered by the Indians, and the CT one may have already reproduced (I don't think so but no proof at this late date) where he was injured in the thigh, aimed differently he would be dead or the wounds infected which would have killed him. And I have no clue what my Virginia ancestors went through vis à vis the Indians there.

One interesting aside is that the Indians were fascinated with glass windows and my patrilineal ancestor was a blacksmith who put some nails in planks, and when the Indians came up too close in the night, presumably to attack the sleeping settlers, there were bloody footprints beating a hasty retreat.

So, yes, terrorist threats aside, we need to somehow protect our borders, I suppose we have a moral and legal imperative to do so and let the past sort itself out, and adapt or die or become completely marginalized from mainstream society.

That will have to serve as an answer to all the posters who came back at me, some with some with relatively cordial, interesting perspectives, the flamers are counterproductive to a rational discussion so I ignore them, and I'm going to try not let a beautiful day be ruined and not let guilt over past rights and wrongs tear me down which is beating a dead horse at this point in our history.

A few months back, I cooperated with a phone survey, and at the conclusion, when asked my race, I said I was a Native American; I was born here. That didn't go over too well, but I didn't budge. They probably threw my input in the trash after that one.

[Czar]

"So, should FReepers take this to mean that you are admitting to being pro-illegal immigration and that you condone lawbreaking by illegal aliens?"

Whether he admits it or not is a moot point since it is plain as the ass on a goat that he is. He can't run from the posting record he has created on FR. From that, one can only conclude that he is an enthusiastic pro-illegal alien quisling and a member in good standing of the GOP Hispandering Big Tent of RINOs, liberals and moderates.

Think of it this way. He is the total opposite of a loyal American conservative.

[judgeandjury]

Whether he admits it or not is a moot point since it is plain as the ass on a goat that he is. He can't run from the posting record he has created on FR. From that, one can only conclude that he is an enthusiastic pro-illegal alien quisling and a member in good standing of the GOP Hispandering Big Tent of RINOs, liberals and moderates.

Think of it this way. He is the total opposite of a loyal American conservative.

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that the despicable, race-baiting coward otherwise known as bayourod is pro-illegal immigration. I'd just like for bayourod to make it official by stating that he is indeed pro-illegal immigration. As you said, anyone who reads his posting history on Free Republic can only come to one conclusion, and that is that bayourod is staunchly and undeniably pro-illegal immigration.

[Seadog Bytes]

[FOG724]

Like it.

[Minuteman23]

I'd like to add to your comments that the drug trade and prostitution contribute MILLIONS ANNUALLY to "our economy," as does almost certainly theft.

The point being that just because there is an economic "contribution" involved does not make an activity moral, right, acceptable to society (most of us), or even legal by way of our laws in the country.

Excellent points.

[cartman90210]

joanie-f:
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.

bayourod:
Inconsequential compared to the $800 Billion that illegal immigrants contribute to the GDP according to last month's Business Week, or for example $16 Billion to Southern Nevada alone.

That's funny...last week you posted an article with this quote:

Nationally, Hispanics boast an estimated $700 billion each year in consumer purchasing power, according to the Hispanic Chamber. The figure excludes revenue from undocumented workers.

So that's $800 billion from the illegals, and another $700 billion from the "other Hispanics," so that's $1.5 trillion? Jeezus H, we're rolling in dough! Hey everybody, it's Morning In America!

[janetgreen]

800 billion contributed by illegal aliens? Rod's having a wet dream again...