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 ..

[Stellar Dendrite]

looks like the problems the democrat party is experiencing with the crinton's lock could be the same we experience if the bush family does the same. jeb bush gets touted a lot around here for pres, "oh but he's the most conservative of all the bushs!" THAT AINT SAYIN MUCH!!!!

[afnamvet]

....I can’t help but wonder whether we have been pushed significantly closer to the revolution she envisioned in those last three words.

Paying attention to those last three words, I ordered some more Acurrate© No.5 smokeless double base. ; )

[Eighth Square]

The only thing wrong with this approach is that I now believe that the 'Illegals' mess is intentional and short of insurrection, nothing will work. It is apparent that the greater 'Americas' economic block will expand to include the elimination of all borders. I leave it you to imagine the results.

[Map Kernow]

Build the wall. It's not just a "feel good" measure, as some insincere "proponents" of "border security" have claimed: the wall segment built down by Chula Vista in the San Diego area by the Clinton Administration after enough political pressure was put on it through Prop. 187, works just fine. In fact, it's a major reason why Arizona now is having such problems: the Chula Vista wall's diverting illegals east. It's time to close the gap.

It's not "too expensive," either, considering what illegal immigration is costing us now, and the toys our so-called "representatives" choose to spend our tax dollars on. "Enforce employer sanctions instead," some "border security advocates" assert. Fine, impose sanctions on scofflaw employers, just like we the people were promised 20 years ago in exchange for the amnesty back then. Only this time, make the sanctions not simply costly but ruinous. And use the sanctions collected---not for some "diversity" museum, or bilingual education, or health care measure---but for BUILDING THE WALL, from the Pacific Ocean, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. End of story.

[seemoAR]

They only want to turn our country into the hell hole that they grew up in. Give them a break.

[Map Kernow]

Sam Adams, Warren, Hancock and the rest were men of their time, men that we are now lacking.

Amazing what a bunch of middle class folk can do that are all P.O.'d over taxes, gun grabbing, unresponsive government, etc. Maybe the people in Washington think times have changed so much that events such as those occurring in 1776 can never happen again. There's a lot of irony in that presumption, and there'll be even more irony when they find out that the "Spirit of '76" has never left the bosom of American patriots.

[Mini-14]

The construction of the wall would surrely employ thousands of Americans in the process.

I disagree with the the notion that Americans should be employed to build the wall. We have a pool of cheap labor that can be employed at a cost of zero/dollar/hour to build the wall -- the illegals themselves. Each illegal should be rounded up to serve a three month stint on building the wall, and then dumped off in Mexicon on the OTHER side of the wall.

[hosepipe]

Illegal immigration aided and abetted by both democrat and republican politicians, especially republicans ones... Hmmm.. what would be gained.?. What would "they" gain allowing it ON PURPOSE.?. by inactivity or at least by any real salient activity.?.

The only thing that comes to my mind is Globalism.. It serves a globalist agenda.. To wit; a massive influx of people that could care less about border boundary's(illegal aliens of all nationalities).. i.e. borders.. Would water down Americas bent for national sovereignty.. and demographically skew the populace toward a globalist agenda.. AND it is doing just that.. not a short term strategy especially after the illegals are made legal which WILL happen eventually..

Pretty smart really.. Treasonous but smart.. Is George Bush stupid.?. I say not.. I say hes a globalist.. as are most of his detractors.. Dubya is Not the Manchurian Candidate but the Mariachi Candidate.. Mexican illegals are most obvious but by means not the only illegal demographic.. some say 20 million Mexican(latin) illegals, I say more.. and with ZERO talk about other nationality's.. say CHINESE, Islamic, and African..

Something is up.. Globalist wise.. and zero talk about it is suspicious.. The eyes of "America" is on other things.. The easiest way to overthrow america is from within.. by demographics.. not by Socialist hanky panky.. THEN the "people" will VOTE IN the "overthrow'ers" THEMSELVES..

Looks like illegal immigration has its roots in America aborting "in mass" their next generation as "WE" have already done.. And we are IMPORTING the next generation.. to make up for the "ABORTION Holocaust".. Which seems to coming home to roost as massive illegal immigration.. NOT the only problem America has, but its a damn well BIG ONE... Abortion has its costs.. Who would have suspected it as raping the demographics of a sovereign america.?. By watering down the base of nationalistic citizens and replacing them with a globalist community.. I think Pat Buchanan of all people wrote a book on this subject.. kind of.. At least he attempted to highlight this problem.. Pat is not always right but a broken clock is CORRECT TWICE A DAY..

[EternalVigilance]

You have one of America's best minds.

And even better, you've got the heart to go with it.

[SwinneySwitch]

BTTT, ping!

[EternalVigilance]

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

Ain't that the truth!

[Aliska]

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?

The Indians didn't have a legal system or property rights (territorial rights maybe) such as the Europeans brought with them, but an awful lot of them let us know we were not welcome with bows and arrows and then rifles and ammunition they traded or confiscated on raids.

We just came and took over the whole Northern and Southern Hempspheres. We had superior force and won. Nevertheless, we "invaded" the New World with shipload after shipload of unwelcome immigrants as far as most of the natives were concerned.

They did help Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers survive the first winter, but relations tended to go downhill shortly after that. Skirmishes led to the Pequot and subsequent wars and injustices against the Indians. Were they right in defending their territory?

We had the might, did that make it right?

[Minuteman23]

Joanie, I second Eternal Vigilance's comment. You have one of America's best minds, and the heart to go with it.

[Minuteman23]

What are you doing posting on a conservative forum? Your ideas belong on a forum hosted by moveon.org or People for the American Way. Somebody must have given you wrong directions. Walk to the nearest wall and turn left.

[Map Kernow]

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

I give that one the "Oscar Wilde 'wish-I-had-said-that...' award."

[The Westerner]

Ping to read later. Joanie, thanks for the effort. It was a terrible mistake with centuries long consequences that the Founders decided to change "life, liberty, private property and the pursuit of happiness" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

[F16Fighter]

Your post definitely deserved it's own thread, Joanie....Great job indeed!

"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."

For those who've done nothing but demand a "solution, " I say HEAR HEAR! Please submit your post to various newspaper ed-ops and politicians if possible.

But then again, our major politicians appear to have an agenda that supercedes our national interests.

"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."

Many of us have been flabbergasted and shocked at what a GOP dominated gub'mint has NOT done to preserve American sovereignty, promote conservatism, and reverse and cripple the momentum of leftist policies implimented by Democrats since 1965.

America, 1773?

Let me put it this way: There're a few more boils that need to be removed ;-)

At which time THE question is (rubbing chin) -- when and what will be the "last straw"?

[Map Kernow]

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?

Can you make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal"? "Legal" and "moral"? If emigrants from the "Old World" were "authorized by the king" to leave, and there was no political or legal authority in the Americas which declared their immigration into the Americas prohibited, in what sense were those emigrants "illegal immigrants"?

The other part of your garbled point appears to be that it was "immoral" to "waltz in here and divide up the land as we pleased." Is that not what the Indians did? The remains known as "Kennewick Man" appear to have been Caucasian---perhaps inferring that the Indians had displaced earlier settlers. But whether they had displaced earlier settlers or not by their settlement, did the Indians have a superior right to land simply by settling it first?

The Indians didn't have a legal system or property rights (territorial rights maybe) such as the Europeans brought with them, but an awful lot of them let us know we were not welcome with bows and arrows and then rifles and ammunition they traded or confiscated on raids.

You talk of the Indians as if they were a monolithic group or duly constituted nation, notwithstanding the fact that as you acknowledge, they "didn't have a legal system or property rights." In fact, they were disparate and linguistically and culturally diverse tribes of hunter-gatherers and subsistence agriculturists that fought and massacred each other for centuries before the white man came. They didn't occupy the whole land and they certainly weren't making the use of it that European immigrants later did.

We just came and took over the whole Northern and Southern Hempspheres. We had superior force and won. Nevertheless, we "invaded" the New World with shipload after shipload of unwelcome immigrants as far as most of the natives were concerned.

I think you mean "North and South America," not "whole Northern and Southern Hemispheres."

They did help Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers survive the first winter, but relations tended to go downhill shortly after that. Skirmishes led to the Pequot and subsequent wars and injustices against the Indians. Were they right in defending their territory?

Two points. One, don't you think the settlement of North America by Europeans (and Asians and Africans), made the "New World" more "diverse," and isn't that a "good thing"? Two, if you posit that the Indians were right to defend their territory, would you deny that same right to the remote descendants of European (and African and Asian) settlers in North America?

We had the might, did that make it right?

Even if it wasn't "right," what does that have to do with enforcing current immigration laws? Does the fact that you think we "stole" the Western Hemisphere from the Indians make our residence here "illegal" and "immoral," and serve as an absolute impediment to enforcement of our laws and our borders? I think your proposition is too absurd to be entertained.

[Aliska]

What are you doing posting on a conservative forum?

It was strictly a rhetorical question. What some Indians did to my ancestors would not fly at moveon.org. They would say they had it coming.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Thank you for pinging me, joanie-f. Great article! You and others like you are why I signed onto FR.