Posted on 01/08/2007 4:27:22 PM PST by Dane
"The findings did not deter Congressional backers of the border fence, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, the fence's principal proponent.
"Mr. Hunter firmly supports expanding the San Diego border fence across the U.S.-Mexico border," said spokesman Joe Kasper. "This doesn't have to be and should not be as costly an endeavor as some are suggesting."
PING!
Much more like the Great Wall of China than the Brandenburg Gate.
Not the best analogy - the Great Wall didn't stop the invaders.
The true measure of the physical barrier is not costs, but effectiveness. If we can reduce the number of invaders, the costs are well worth it. What are illegals costing us in terms of our social welfare, educational, penal, and medical systems or the additional infrastructure to support them?
There's a difference between "wanting in and wanting out," as Pres. Reagan said, and he did bring down the iron curtain. And shooting those trying to cross that wall was more or less emblematic of what the tryants are all about. We haven't found the solution to the problem of our borders yet. We might not even find it after our second Pearl Harbor.
Yep. All the time.
Gee, this is turning into a bargain!! Last week, it was $60 billion!!!
(What a buncha maroons!!)
ML/NJ
"How much do the 500,000 to 1 million illegals cost us a year?"
Center for imigration studies:
>http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html<
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
$49 billion presumes we have absolutely no costs currently borne to patrol or enforce the border.
The "estimate" is grossly inflated to alarm the unwitted. $49 billion would work out to $1.96 billion annually to patrol the border. That's $2,685 per mile per day. Which BP agents get that kind of monitary support?
We consistantly construct major four-laned highways for $13-15 million/mile, inclusive of land aquisition. There is no reason maintenance and patrol costs should be anywhere near price-per-mile invested.
Nothing like free labor!
Good on your history; now study logic.
You linked to this FR page. Why?
Never mind. Thanks.
So we should do nothing? I think sponsorship would be more effective and cheaper than a border fence, although the fence is still required.
The border fence probably won't either, but it will slow them down.
Well, unless one also controls demand, along with supply.
Never has been a case of a fence stopping smuggling, that I know of.
Why don't we just let the illegals build the fence - hard labor for breaking our laws. When they are done, we can ship them home.
There meeds to be a multi-prong attack. Jail time and MASSIVE fines for employers of illegals, a 2 zone fence with a land mined defensive zone between (It's a DEFENSIVE measure!), and sponsoring for any new immigrants, with the sponsor fully responsible for any crimes committed by the sponsoree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.