Securing America's Borders (Finally)

Front Page Magazine ^ | 10/28/05 | John Zmirak

[Zmirak]

Given that the terrorist assaults of September 11, 2001, were conducted by foreigners on our soil, you might have thought that one of the central measures the U.S. government would have taken would be to tighten up its borders, to establish strict security both at our airports and all along the numerous crossing points into the U.S. from our two contiguous neighbors. Progress was indeed made when it came to detaining, interrogating, and deporting illegal entrants at international airports, but along the U.S. land borders, especially the border with Mexico, the situation has remained one of lightly supervised chaos. Immigration reformers and residents of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas have been complaining of the inadequacies of border patrol for many years – to the point where patriotic volunteers, the Minutemen, organized and volunteered to help the overwhelmed professionals of the U.S. Border Patrol. Their efforts met with resounding, if temporary success – and provoked the squeals of multicultural activists and employers addicted to cheap, illegal labor. Following a tired script, Open Borders advocates screamed “racism” and “xenophobia” at those who want to enforce our laws. But such attacks have begun to ring a little hollow, now that two generally open-borders U.S. governors – of New Mexico and Arizona – have declared the border situation in the their states are “emergencies” demanding federal attention....

[Zmirak]

Please check out my new article on immigration at Front Page. John Zmirak www.badcatholics.com

[tarepeter]

Listening to Paul Harvey yesterday--he reported 66,000 plus have been detained at our borders this year. All are given some sort of citation "to appear" for a later immigration hearing date. He reported that to date---exactly ZERO have made that appearance. I would suppose all are too busy gainfully employed robbing banks, carjacking, clogging emergency rooms and working other odd jobs Americans will not do.

[calrighty]

"All are given some sort of citation "to appear" for a later immigration hearing date. He reported that to date---exactly ZERO "

R O T F L M A O


What thet hay do you expect a criminal invader skip/trace to do?? Why, they SKIP!

[calrighty]

"The United States, not to be outdone, is sending two million replacement Mexicans."

Nah, they will send 2 million white and black construction workers whose jobs have been stolen by the illegals!

[A. Pole]

"[...]
The dominant factions among the Republican Party – by which I mean the large-dollar donors – see in the helpless economic refugees who risk their lives to enter America nothing more than strong backs and busy hands. Agricultural interests have come to rely on illegal immigrants to harvest our vegetables and fruit. Computer giants such as Microsoft avoid paying competitive wages to American software programmers by abusing guest worker programs such as the H1-B Visa – buying political cover by hiring lobbyists such as Grover Norquist to push for ever-laxer immigration policies in Congress. The "Temporary Worker Program" revived by President Bush would codify and legitimize such practices – granting anyone anywhere the right to come to the U.S., provided an American company could offer wages too low to attract an American citizen.

"These are jobs no American would take," the cheap-labor addicts complain. To which the right response is, "Not at that wage." If business leaders believe in the free market, then they know that a limitless supply of a commodity (such as labor) lowers the price, while scarcity raises it. By forcing U.S. workers to contend against the entire population of the Third World for those jobs not already outsourced to China, these policies have caused wages to fall precipitously. Candidate Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative."

[...]

It’s refreshing to visit Starbucks for a coffee – knowing that the company provides health care and 401k plans for its part-time workers. Why? Because its founder, Howard Schultz, has a conscience; he was inspired to found his company by reading Small Is Beautiful, penned by the Catholic social philosopher E.F. Schumacher. Similar sentiments can be found in the work of free-market stalwarts Adam Smith and Wilhelm Röpke, who knew that a free society and free economy depend on social stability and the hope of upward mobility for one’s children. Conversely, revolutionary socialists from Marx to Lenin dreamt that "capitalists" would seek out newer ways to squeeze and exploit the working class, thereby goading it to disaffection and disloyalty. "The worse it gets, the better it is," Marxists have always said. "Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we’ll hang them."
[...]

Bump!

[Final Authority]

When I was an idealist liberal in college I read "Small is Beautiful" among many other books of that genre. After starting up a small company for one investor and forming two companies myself, I can conclude that small is not necessarily beautiful but that profitability is. I don't create anything to give someone a job or to help someone provide for their family, but if in the course of making money someone is able to be hired or a vendor makes money, that is indeed a good thing.

For good ideas and for innovative ways to enter a market, there is more than enough capital, in fact, if one has a decent track record, there is too much capital available. There is so much that it complicates the risk.

There should be no business capitalized for the purposes of protecting the worker, providing for health insurance, etc.. The purpose of capital is to make a profit, and as much as is reasonable, and if there is still enough to pay for insurance and hire people to sit on their hands and play solitaire on the computer, then that is the decision of the investor. Unfortunately, in the public sector, one finds that the investor has say but that it is decidedly on the side of compassion and that in the private sector it is decidedly on the side of making money.

The only real reason to pay for health insurance, dental insurance, paid vacations, and high salaries in the private sector is to retain and attract good employees so one can make even more money. For companies like WalMart, where many employees are unchangeable, do not have such a problem.

[Travis McGee]

It's all smoke and mirrors, until we see an effective modern (and cheap!) multiple fence system built.

The present USBP could do their job if they had a modern fence system to guard, instead of needing to chase illegals around tens of thousands of square miles of wide open border lands.

Such a fence could be built in under one year, and would cost less than what we spend to educate, medicate and incarcerate millions of illegal aliens.

[HiJinx]

Listening to Paul Harvey yesterday--he reported 66,000 plus have been detained at our borders this year.

What Paul was talking about was OTMs (Other Than Mexican). I suspect those are old numbers. More that 460,000 illegals of all nationalities were apprehended in the Tucson sector alone last year, and the OTM ratio has been rising.

It's good, though, that he and others keep harping on the catch-and-release program. As a result, the Administration is finally starting to make noises about ending the practice. Of course, the actual end of that practice has yet to occur...so far, they're just proposing...

[television is just wrong]

now, that is funny. We have more if necessary.

[blackie]

Happy Birthday HiJinx!

Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!

Support our Minutemen Patriots!

Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!

[kellynla]

I agree with "Travis McGee", it's all smoke and mirrors until a wall is built on BOTH BORDERS, illegals are deported and I am in favor of even deporting the incarcerated who account for ONE THIRD of all the prison population and maybe keeping those illegals on death row and finally FINING employers who hire illegals!

And for Michael Chertoff(sp) to say that building a wall and deporting all the illegals is not financially feasible is ridiculous. What is not financially feasible is to allow the illegals to stay here!

Have a great weekend all!


Semper Fi,
Kelly

[jackbenimble]

Excellent article! I agree with almost everything. My only complaint is that you gave President Bush far too much credit when you said:

The President believes – and I agree – that illegal immigration threatens our communities and our national security.

He said it but his actions over the past five years and his proposals for the future offer little reason for us to believe that he actually means it. Almost every action regarding enforcement and security which he cited and disingenuously took credit for, was shoved down his throat by Congress.

[GOP_1900AD]

Norquist has been on my sh** list for years. He should be on the sh** list of every TRUE CONSERVATIVE!

[Kenny Bunk]

Grover and the Guys over to the RNC, have convinced themselves that Latinos are the "Republicans of the Future."

"Hell, they have lots of vowels in their names, and are Catholics with big families, just like them Italians, ain't they ... and now those folks are Republicans ... ain't they?"
Using this falsely stereotypical and utterly inept line of thought, Karl Rove has figured this out, but not all by himself. Here's how Roveian logic works:

God is Love. Love is Blind. Ray Charles is Blind.
ergo Ray Charles is God?"

The fact that more Mexicans have shown up in 5 years than Italians in 100 years (andPolesandSwedesandRussian Jewsandeverybodyelsecombined) doesn't seem to compute. The fact that earlier immigrants were LEGAL doesn't seem to compute either. But what really doesn't compute is that the Democrats are not waiting for Mexicans to become legal, they are motor-voting them now. The Mexicans who can register legally, vote early and vote often ...for Democrats 70-30.

The real Republican reasoning behind all of this may be the feared imminent "collapse" of Social Security and other government safety nets. The Republicans plan on having the Mexicans and other Latinos' multitudinous offspring "save" the SS system. It's euro-thought at its worst. There they think the Muslims will save them. Bad logic, bad math. Uncontrolled illegal immigration from the Third World doesn't make money. It costs money. Ask Schwarznegger.

[TheLion]

"What Paul was talking about was OTMs (Other Than Mexican). I suspect those are old numbers. More that 460,000 illegals of all nationalities were apprehended in the Tucson sector alone last year, and the OTM ratio has been rising."

Seen any recent figures on how many illegals they aren't catching?

[A. Pole]

But who will pay the health expenses for those who cannot afford them?

We have four possibilities:

Regulate wages that all or almost all workers can afford to pay for modern medical care (directly or through insurance).

Let government pay through the national health care system or through the emergency care.

Compel businesses to provide it.

Let a significant portion of the population to go without medical care.

Tell me what you think which of this options will be chosen or should be chosen?

[Final Authority]

You state a premise for which I do not agree. Who should pay some else's health care if they cannot afford it? The answer is, no one.

Unless you believe in socialism and communism the answer is always, no one. If you are a church goer and are charitable then that is where one starts if one desires to help the destitute and the weak and the disorganized and the infirmed.

My tax money is not a charity and certainly the money I pay to insure my family against medical costs are not charitable.

I am my own company and if I decide to pay an employee additionally by way of a health insurance policy it is because I want him to remain with me, so I can make even more money. But if I had employees who are interchangeable with any day laborer then why in hell would I want to pay for health insurance.

If you are in favor of Hillary care, just state so, and expose yourself for what you seem to be.
Is there a constitutional right to health care? There are no rights to anything like that and as such, the good will of charities should be where one looks to find solutions, because in the end, the more we look to government for answers, the faster we slip into the abyss of communism, and that is worse than the cure.

[A. Pole]

You state a premise for which I do not agree. Who should pay some else's health care if they cannot afford it? The answer is, no one.

You did not address my question. I asked you WHICH of the four options do you support? Once you answer I can go next step in our exchange.

[Final Authority]

Take my answer at face value, the answer is no option you stated, for all of them lead us further down the slippery slope of Hillary care and it furthers the Left's agenda of deconstructing our values and system of government down the path to outright communism.