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 ..

[in the Arena]

BTTT...thanks for the ping...Great article...

[bayourod]

"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. "

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.

[Aliska]

Can you make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal"? "Legal" and "moral"?

Sometimes, no. That is why I asked the question.

political or legal authority in the Americas

There was a primitive form of military authority.

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."

That's how we ended up being the great nation we are, doing exactly that. I can't decide why that was so right in retrospect, not that I haven't benefitted from their having done so. Sorry if it seemed garbled to you. My strengths seem to lie in math and pattern recognition and not written communication skills. Now that I am getting older, I do tend to garble things more than I did when younger.

Is that not what the Indians did?

Probably, just as our ancestors migrated and conquered native populations in old Europe, as in Norman conquest, etc.

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.

I know all that. They didn't produce smog (well they did have camp fires and smoke signals) either and Pittsburg used to stink for an hour driving through that place. We have had to clean up our act to a great extent. Is that a bad thing?

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

I did. My bad. Sorry.

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"?

Overall at this point in time, it has been positive, but there have been some negative consequences as well. The jury is still out on that and history, if there is any, will revise whatever the actual situation was to fit the agenda of whomever of the time; i.e., winners write history.

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?

Certainly not. It's about self-preservation, ethnically and nationally, in which I admittedly contradict myself to some extent because I can't resolve the matter entirely in my own mind knowing much of the history of my early American ancestors, pro and con.

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.

I'm not the final judge, and maybe there isn't one. We do have laws, and if they are just laws, we have a right to enforce them now. It would make sense to me that laws designed to control immigration are just for both the immigrants and native populations alike. It isn't realistic to suppose that we can take in the whole world, even though the State of Texas would currently hold it (if that "calculation" was correct) as the world population numbers stand now.

It wasn't a proposition, and I don't see it as being that absurd. It was a rhetorical question that I can't answer to myself entirely to my COMPLETE satisfaction at all times in our nation's history because I don't KNOW. I can only try to look at in hindsight from different points of view.

I was discussing it with an Aztec/Hispanic lady the other night. It was mostly a one-sided discussion, as she didn't offer any input because I don't think she has thought it through or maybe was afraid to say anything. She is an alcoholic and was aking me why Indians were so prone to the "firewater" demon (my words not hers). I thought it had something to do with genetic makeup and conditioning. We both agree it involves personal responsibility in overcoming the problem. She is here legally BTW.

There are many other things I could have said pro and con, such as are the Indians today better or worse off because of our presence here and many of them being confined to reservations in North America. Arguments could probably be made both ways. They seem to like some of our technology, and we never succeeded in completely destroying their culture or way of life for those who survived. They are part of the equation of diversity you came back with.

[Minuteman23]

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.

And that pesky word "illegal" doesn't matter to you? And is it all about economics? Might there also just be lots of "dangerous" non-Mexicans crossing our southern border?

[bayourod]

Fencing the Southern border would do nothing the stop the estimated 50% of the illegal immigrants who originally enter legally and simply fail to return after their visa expired.

Nor would it stop the ones who enter from the Northern border. Nor would it stop the ones who enter vis boats along the 97,000 miles of shoreline and inland waterways. Nor would it stop the drug traffickers who fly small planes into the hundreds of dirt landing strips in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

And even if your wall worked for the 2,000 mile Mexican border, it would have no impact whatsoever on the entry of the majority of illegals.

But your wall would not work. See next post.

[Minuteman23]

Joanie, as of now- only half a day after it was posted- your thread has 1,045+ views. Way to get the word out!

[Map Kernow]

We do have laws, and if they are just laws, we have a right to enforce them now. It would make sense to me that laws designed to control immigration are just for both the immigrants and native populations alike. It isn't realistic to suppose that we can take in the whole world, even though the State of Texas would currently hold it (if that "calculation" was correct) as the world population numbers stand now.

Rather than argue further with you, I'm going to agree with you---at least the portion of your reply I've reposted. And I've highlighted the bit about protecting native populations, because, as you may know, Indians or native Americans or whatever you want to call them also suffer from illegal immigration. For example, the Papago Indians (who apparently prefer the name "Tohono O’Odham" or "Desert People") have their ancestral home and reservation right on the border, and they suffer just as much as immigrant descendant Americans from the tide of illegal immigration through Arizona. Even if you have doubts about the justice of other Americans complaining about illegal immigration, one can surely sympathize with the Papagos and the costs illegal immigrant trespassers cause them.

[Minuteman23]

She said in the post that she was only addressing the illegals that enter via the US-Mexico border- which I think implies that we all understand that they get here in other ways.

I heard on Fox News last night that it is estimated that almost a million have come across that border from Jan to July of this year alone. Wouldn't you say that makes it the most necessary route to close off?

[Map Kernow]

Inconsequential compared to the $800 Billion that illegal immigrants contribute to the GDP according to last month's Business Week

A figure given by Open Borders and ethnic apologist Raul Hinojosa, with absolutely no back-up. I'd take the word of this shameless partisan for illegal immigration as seriously as I would the assurances of CAIR about Islamicist intentions towards America.

[Czar]

You never tire of being a shill for the OBL/cheap labor crowd, do you.

But what else should we expect from a GOP Hispandering Big Tent RINO/Liberal/Moderate.

It fits you like a glove.

[Aliska]

Rather than argue further with you,

I didn't mean to start an argument. I have been trying to sort things out for myself and appreciate polite input, even if I am taken to task for it. It's just nice to expect some reasonable discussion about deeper aspects of things once in awhile.

I guess by now I know that I hadn't ought to post anything that is "different" here and also fully understand that posting it on some leftist forum (fora for those in the mensa category) I would have caught flak, too.

No matter what I have ever thought or said, somebody is going to take issue with it.

If immigration is stopped dead in its tracks today, they will still breed to the point that my "ethnic group" will probably be in the minority. I can't help wondering how that is going to affect politics and how I or mine will be treated as minority status. I don't think they will have respect for hate speech laws and other forms of retribution when they achieve majority.

[Czar]

"I'd take the word of this shameless partisan for illegal immigration as seriously as I would the assurances of CAIR about Islamicist intentions towards America."

Or as seriously as we would the assurances of bayourod about the many benefits of the illegal alien invasion.

[judgeandjury]

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.

You're trying to compare Gross Domestic Product to Net Taxpayer Dollars spent on providing services to illegal alien lawbreakers? What are you going to do next, compare an apple to a fire truck simply because they're both red?

Gross Domestic Product = Consumer Spending + Business and Residential Investment + Government Spending - Trade Deficit.

[Map Kernow]

I didn't mean to start an argument. I have been trying to sort things out for myself and appreciate polite input, even if I am taken to task for it. It's just nice to expect some reasonable discussion about deeper aspects of things once in awhile.

I guess by now I know that I hadn't ought to post anything that is "different" here and also fully understand that posting it on some leftist forum (fora for those in the mensa category) I would have caught flak, too.

No matter what I have ever thought or said, somebody is going to take issue with it.

If immigration is stopped dead in its tracks today, they will still breed to the point that my "ethnic group" will probably be in the minority. I can't help wondering how that is going to affect politics and how I or mine will be treated as minority status. I don't think they will have respect for hate speech laws and other forms of retribution when they achieve majority.

Sorry if I took your post the wrong way. I didn't mean to be impolite, and with further discussion I find that there is indeed common ground between us. The bottom line for me is that I don't know how or why descendants of European immigrants (or African or Asian immigrants) to America should be held accountable for what was done to the Indians in terms of current immigration law, policy, or enforcement. It just doesn't have any relevance IMHO. Sorry if I made that point too strongly or discourteously.

[RFT1]

The Europeans invaded, it was a war the Native Americans lost, end of story. I feel no more guilt over what took place 400 years ago in the Americans than a feel guilt for the Romans taking over Celtic territories. The fact is the Europeans treated the Native Tribes no worse than they treated each other in the various wars Europe had at the same time.

[Jeff Head]

Glad to see this has its own thread Joanie. As I said in the other thread...

This event is an absolute travest IMHO. I don't care if the illegals were "meek and mild" about how they broke our law. These landowners have every right to try and prevent that illegality and tresspass on their property, and to defend said property.

For those same illegals to be able to sue in American court and come away with the landowner's land is an outrage. It will encourage more to do the same and to in fact precipitate such events in the future.

The smugness of the SPLC lawyers and others in this horrible precedent will only fuel more of the same and a corresponding increase in resistance from people who will refuse to be driven from their land by this wave of illegal immigration and the socio-globalist/marxist who abett it.

I say this to their smugness...be careful, you know not what seeds you sow. Honest, hard-working, land-owning Americans will only be pushed so far...as is evidencd through our long history. Life, liberty and land ownership were the original three unalienable rights enumerated in the original Declaration of Indpendence...and along with those comes the right to defend them...with our very lives if necessary.

Continue to push this...smug lawyers, ACLU, politicians, etc. at your own eventual peril. That is not a personal threat to any person or place...it is simply a statment of the real, abject lessons of history. Lessons if one does not learn from, they are very apt to repeat.

[trubluolyguy]

Sam Adams...great beer(that's what most Americans would say)


All kidding aside Id fear that soon there is going to an act so brutal perpatrated by an illegal that the citizen response is going to be violent and ugly. The government will then, finally, step in. To stop the American citizens and help the illegals.


Folks, this is eventually going to lead to either closed borders or open rebellion. Wether that rebellion takes the form of political rebellion(throw the bums out) or a shoot first and bury 'em in the desert rebellion....is really up to the people currently in charge of this fiasco. But if it comes down to it, how many have the "stones?"


Any Sam Adams' out there?

[trubluolyguy]

Yes you are SOOOOO right, we are evil wrong and racist for having the unmitigated gall to want our nations borders protected. How dare we even consider such a thing? I for one feel so guilty I am go to give my house to the next illegal I see.


NOOOOOOOTTT!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.

You are right that the Europeans did basically settle the land that was already inhabited and displaced those living here. There's no way anyone can honestly dispute that fact. But an interesting take regarding the history of the continent was made recently by an American Indian. He said in effect he respected the fact the Europeans had conquered the territory and how they were a worthy opponent while doing so.

This man was vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, which was the point of the article precisely because the land in his opinion was being taken all over again but this time they were not able to at least fight back.

His way of defining the opposition to what's going on tells me that if there's one issue where just about everyone in the country agrees now it's on illegal immigration.

[ForGod'sSake]

Looks like you've stirred up some interest with your modest proposal ;^)

A coveted "Gold Post" award for ya...

Ahem, I'm a wee bit color blind, so if it's more yellow/orange/purple than gold; well....

FGS