Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lunatic Fringe
So you're one of those Open Border types as well....

Figgers.

L

15 posted on 09/29/2006 7:48:24 PM PDT by Lurker (islam is not a religion. It's the new face of Fascism in our time. We ignore it at our peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Lurker

So you are one of those steal my land to promote your agenda types as well...
How about YOU go take some Mexican land and build a wall? Chicken or weak?


25 posted on 09/29/2006 7:51:44 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Lurker; Lunatic Fringe
So you're one of those Open Border types as well....

"Open Borders" is nothing but rhetorical b.s. We haven't had (even figuratively) open borders for a couple decades. 'Course the populist/nativist crowd claims that nothing has been done about border security in that time frame, but that's just not true. Not even remotely.

The fact is the southern border has been considerably tightened since 1986, and spending on border security and the deployment of resources has doubled several times over.

15 or 20 years ago illegally crossing the border, in the typical instance, involved literally nothing more than a 5 or 10 minute walk. The crossing points were near metropolitan areas, and after that 5 or 10 minute walk you could jump in a cab. That cab was about the only expense involved.

Today there already are fences near the border cities. The typical crossing now involves a one or two day walk, often across desert or other forbidding terrain. And when you finish that walk you'll still be in a remote area, so even if you didn't pay for a "coyote" or a guide, you'll still have to pay for someone to pick you up in a van.

The pro-fence people don't want to hear it, but until the fence is complete, and when (and if) we achieve near zero penetration, further increases in border security will actually mean MORE illegals in the country, not less.

The reason is that "circularity" (illegals crossing the border in both directions) is decreased when you make it more difficult, expensive, uncertain and dangerous to cross the border.

Back when borders were effectively open, more than 50 percent of Hispanic illegals would return to their home countries every year. They knew that they could easily return when, if and as work was available. In the meantime they could keep their families in Mexico, where the cost of living was much less, and take seasonal work like agriculture and construction, letting them spend much of each year with the family. If there was a recession on, or work was for some other reason scarce, or if they had a good farming season in Mexico, they could elect not to cross at all in some years. And of course they would retire in Mexico when their working life was done.

"Circularity" had already dropped from 50 to 25 percent as of the late 1990's, and has almost certainly dropped lower still since 9-11.

IOW tighter borders mean that illegals, once they make it across, are more likely to STAY in America year 'round, even permanently, and they are more likely to cross WITH their families and dependents.

They're also more likely to compete for employment with natives, since low paid seasonal work is no longer good enough to support families at the higher cost entailed by living in America. Now they need better paid year-round jobs, OR they need to turn to crime of relief.

I'm not arguing AGAINST tighter borders, btw. I'm only urging that FReepers realistically understand the problem we're dealing with here. You can argue about the form it should take, but some kind of "comprehensive" reform really is needed. Tightening the borders alone is not enough. Indeed it will for some time, AS IT ALREADY HAS, make the problems associated with illegal immigration worse, not better.

Unless we do more than just a fence we'll have more illegals remaining in country year round, and they'll have more resource consuming dependents with them. The days of illegals from Mexico and points further south consisting almost entirely of young working age males (and coming here only to work, otherwise spending as much time as possible back home) are gone, probably permanently.

398 posted on 09/30/2006 2:57:13 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Lurker; Stultis
So you're one of those Open Border types as well....

Showing your astonishing low IQ again, are you Lurker?

Actually I support a fence and if you read my posts in this thread you would have known that. My problem is that it took so long and the threat of losing power for Republicans to pass the bill.

But, given your view on Constitutional Law, you should be opposed to this since Congress does not have the explicit power to fund a border fence.

Try not to sprain your knee jerking it around like that.

423 posted on 09/30/2006 7:38:10 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (Fiscal Conservative, Social Moderate. Understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson