Yep. Looks tight as a drum to me.
L
"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.
Yep. Looks tight as a drum to me.
L
Sheesh. What have you been reading? Illegals are up everywhere. And, the idea that they have been going home is ludicrous. They come here to stay. There are many where I work who come here and have been here for years.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because your hypothesis is fatally flawed. Come on down my back yard - Cochise County, AZ - and try to make that claim. You'll be laughed out of town in a New York minute.