Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The War on...
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, April 28, 2006

Newt Gingrich writes in National Review that we need to Get Serious about illegal immigration and controlling the border. We've been through this before and I've registered my official agnosticism on whether the illegal immigration actually constitutes a national "problem", whether we can really "control" the borders and whether this is really a good idea for the US to pursue in light of the almost inevitable destruction of liberty and ultimate futility of the project.

Gingrich doesn't reassure me on any of those concerns...
An intelligent center-Right coalition would be for both security and immigration, for accuracy in identity (including a voter card with id and a biometric worker visa card) and patriotic integration of those who want to become American. [...] First, control the borders with decisive legislation aggressively implemented with tight deadlines.
Oh good. A National ID combined with massive spending to militarize the borders. How could that possibly go wrong?

I'd hoped that his working paper might have some additional details on how he proposes to "control" a few thousand miles of barren desert, highways, small communities and big cities, etc — oh, and he wants to include control of the coasts, too; good luck with that — but I didn't find much. There are some potentially effective demand-side solutions, but that's preventive maintence, really, and not strictly "control" of the border.

That brings me to something written by Thomas Knapp that, I think, encapsulates the counterproductivity of a "war on illegal immigration". In large part, we're creating our own security "problem", because "most of these millions are, or at least should be, irrelevant" to homeland security...
Unless you consider getting your lettuce picked or your toilet cleaned a national security matter, they're no more of a threat than anyone else you pass on the street (which is to say, some of them might be menaces, most of them aren't). Granted, certain special interest groups would like the government to help them distort the labor market by coercively excluding competition, but really stupid economic beliefs do not, strictly speaking, constitute a "homeland security" matter either.
[...]
If the US had a reasonable immigration policy — i.e. "show up at a designated entry station and if you're not a known criminal or terrorist, we'll point you to the taxicabs lined up on the American side and send you on your way" — they wouldn't be crawling through the windows and knocking holes in the walls.

And when a million-plus ordinary working stiffs are crawling through the windows and knocking holes in the walls for the privilege of landscaping your lawn or plucking your Thanksgiving turkey, those open windows and gaping holes constitute the entry points for criminals and terrorists — people you'd never let in through the front door — as well.
As I wrote recently, "I'm not really opposed to the influx of Mexicans into the United States, anyway. Inequality may break the hearts of the Washington Post editorial board; the declining bargaining power of high school drop-outs may get Paul Krugman all teary-eyed; me, I'm happy that more people have more freedom, more economic opportunity and more wealth."

What's more, "border control" is an ultimately futile pursuit...
Here's some reality for you:
  • - The US has somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 miles of border and coastline. [link —ed.]

  • - Estimates of illegal immigration rates vary — duh — but even the lowball figures are in the million plus range per year.

Reality speaks quite clearly on one point: There's no way to secure 100,000 miles of border and coastline (or even the 2,500 or so miles of border with Mexico) against a million people trying to get across. Some of them — the bulk of them, in fact — are going to get through. Period.
[...]
Bottom line: No reasonable amount of money, manpower or concertina wire is going to stop economically motivated mass immigration.
I've compared the "war on the borders" and the "war on illegal immigration" to the Drug war before, noting that in both cases "humans ingenuity is a remarkable thing. So long as the incentives are there, people will find a way around any policing effort we might mount." And "unlike interdiction efforts in the War on Drugs, we just catch and release illegal immigrants to try again the next day."

But "border control" might also be compared to Campaign Finance Reform. The incredible economic incentives — to reach a wealthier country, or to rent-seek — are enormous and concentrated. You can raise all the barriers you want, but the end result will be a lot like the McCain-Feingold legislation. Money and immigrants will find a way in.

Meanwhile, another "war on [X]" creates markets distortions, enormous dead-weight loss and a larger government. And if Newt Gingrich gets his way, a national ID and militarized border. I'm not really sure what the proper answers are to the problems that do exist, but the current solutions seem to be exactly wrong.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Fine, Jon.

I’m sure that you don’t have any locks on your doors since anyone who really wants to get into your house will merely break a window. Since it’s impossible to keep everybody out, why try to keep anybody out?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
That’s pretty non-responsive to the points I made. It’s one thing to secure a home, an airport or a small area. Securing the entire perimeter of the United States against people who simply want to come here and work is a major project and a major misdirection of resources.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No reasonable amount of money, manpower or concertina wire is going to stop economically motivated mass immigration

So lets just admit defeat....*sigh*

Hey, maybe a reasonable amount of money, manpower or concertine wire can DECREASE the problem to something much more manageable?
We’ve been through this before and I’ve registered by official agnosticism on whether the illegal immigration actually constitutes a national "problem", whether we can really "control" the borders and whether this is really a good idea for the US to pursue in light of the almost inevitable destruction of liberty and ultimate futility of the project
I’m not really sure what the proper answers are to the problems that do exist, but the current solutions seem to be exactly wrong.


LOL why even bother to comment at all in this case? You seem to have no opinion or solution.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Securing the entire perimeter of the United States against people who simply want to come here and work is a major project and a major misdirection of resources

The problem is that mixed in with those who "simply want to come here and work" are those who simply want to come here are commit crimes or terrorism.

If you want to keep out the latter, you have to keep out the former also...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
LOL why even bother to comment at all in this case? You seem to have no opinion or solution.
I think I made my opinions fairly clear. In other areas, I’m just far from convinced that anybody is really making a sufficient case to justify major intervention.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Bottom line: No reasonable amount of money, manpower or concertina wire is going to stop economically motivated mass immigration.
That statement is either factually incorrect, or lends itself to interpretation based on what one considers reasonable.

The Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, China - all had/have pretty effective border control policies. Keeping out shouldn’t be any harder than keeping in.

Right now the Minutemen are proposing to build a wall along the Mexican border with donated funds. Private enterprise at its best. We’ll do it better, we’ll do it cheaper, and it’ll be done by people who believe in the necessity so others don’t have to contribute a dime - therefore it is NOT a misdirection of resources.

BTW - the wall will help with the war on drugs, FWIW.

NED
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
The security does not have to be perfect, and I don’t think anyone expects it to be.

So far, from what I have read, everyone seems to think that things will continue as they are, economically. There will be, however, a recession in the future. What then? The Mexican economy is doing pretty well right now, but what happens when it isn’t, or when political instability strikes? And when we have a recession, what happens to all those beneficial illegals? Laid off middle-class workers will no longer be able to afford all those cheap Mexican landscapers, housepainters, etc. New home construction declines, restaurants lose business, etc. What happens when we have millions of unemployed illegal aliens, unable to go on welfare, trying to find work, alongside millions of unemployed citizens, also trying to find work?
Securing our borders may be expensive and imperfect, but I don’t think we have a choice; it’s the lesser of two evils. Except maybe for some folks in Idaho who may welcome the inevitable racial conflict.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Quoth shark:

——-
The problem is that mixed in with those who "simply want to come here and work" are those who simply want to come here are commit crimes or terrorism.

If you want to keep out the latter, you have to keep out the former also...
——-

Actually, precisely the opposite (that was the whole point of the article I wrote and Jon quoted).

If "peaceful workers" could simply show up at an entry station, pass an Interpol/FBI terror watch list check or some other relatively quick procedure, and be admitted without further ado, there wouldn’t be a herd of a million-plus people sneaking over the border and, by doing so, providing cover for the criminals and terrorists who couldn’t get in via the entry stations.

Trying (with precisely zero prospect of success under any circumstances) to keep out regular immigrants makes it easier for criminals and terrorists to infiltrate the US via the border. So the choice is between economically unsound immigration restrictions and national security. You can’t have both.

Tom Knapp
 
Written By: Thomas L. Knapp
URL: http://knappster.blogspot.com
Whether or not we can keep people out is not the question. We can certainly go after the demand side by enforcing work rules. We would only have to do a little of that to make a big impact.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
However, since there is no real problem with mass migration, I wonder why we are getting expensive mexican labor, we could ship in probably half a billion from places like Indonesia, Myanmar, and Zaire, and they work real cheap.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
John is right about our abilty to control the border. Its 3000 miles long. The great wall of china is 3500 and it didn’t keep the barbarians away.

timeactual is wrong about Mexico. It is not doing very well at all. The people are poor and the goverment is corrupt to an extent that even a congressmen can’t relate. Our war on drugs has made criminal organizations very rich and powerful. The county is becoming more like Columbia every day. The agricultural sector has been destroyed by cheap imports from the US and the manufacturing sector pays so much less than picking lettuce in the US that its worth the trip. If you want to feed your family, you cross the border.

The only way to control our border is to stabilize Mexico. We don’t have issues with the Canadians sneeking in because things are good enough in Canada that in the aggregate, most would rather stay there. Until the Mexicans have a life worth living in mexico, they will be coming here, wall or no wall, felony or no felony, vigilanties or no vigilanties.

We need to care about Mexico, not because of our kind hearts but because it is in our own long term selfish interest.

 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Jon,

Personally I think we need to get some type of open, secure border, if that makes sense. Most illegal immigrants come here to work, which doesn’t strike me as a bad thing. Thus under normal circumstances our fairly porous border wouldn’t bother me.

But things like this: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44531 scare the pants off of me. Yes, it is world net daily, but the FBI agent interviewed was in my wedding, so I have it on good authority that what is related is true. Given stuff like this, I have a hard time believing it isn’t worth the cost to put in place as many barriers, physical or otherwise, to easy access to the country. It strikes me as a true national security issue in many ways. You have a decent point about the sheer volume of illegal immigration, but that can be dealt with by drastically reducing barriers to immigration and/or work visas in the states, which are the cause of much of the illegal immigration in the first place.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
for accuracy in identity (including a voter card with id and a biometric worker visa card)

For the make every vote (including the votes cast twice) folks will see this as a poison pill for immigration reform.

Personally, I see the issuance of a "US ID card" as the final closing of the American frontier. The America where anyone could get lost and start a new life will be gone forever.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
"timeactual is wrong about Mexico. It is not doing very well at all."

The point is that although things are not entirely pefect in Mexico, they can, and probably will, get worse. Then illegal immigration will increase.


"The agricultural sector has been destroyed by cheap imports from the US and the manufacturing sector pays so much less than picking lettuce in the US that its worth the trip"

There seems to be a contradiction here. If US lettuce is cheaper than Mexican lettuce, how can they pay more for labor than Mexico?

"The only way to control our border is to stabilize Mexico"

Even assuming it is remotely in our power to do so, what do we do in the interim?
——-
," there wouldn’t be a herd of a million-plus people sneaking over the border and, by doing so, providing cover for the criminals and terrorists who couldn’t get in via the entry stations."
There would still be a herd of a million-plus, which is the problem. We can cope with some immigration, both legal and illegal. It is when the volume becomes this large that we have problems. (See the previous post, "The Coming May Day Immigration Protests" for a sample).That is why we do not need a perfectly secure border, only one that eliminates the majority of illegal immigration; a good barrier, not a perfect one.




 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
We can do away with an army, any country who can mass enough people to peacefully wander across our borders in such numbers that we realize "we can’t stop it" can effectively take over, but that’s okay, because, after all, we can’t stop it. We really don’t need to have a country anyway, we can just have a big geographic area where anyone can wander in any time they want.

We can’t stop it....yes, that should be our new national motto - get rid of
"In God we Trust" and replace it with "We can’t stop it". That will work until whatever nationality finally takes over puts a stop to it and changes the motto to ’We came, we saw, we conquered’.

Meanwhile, let’s all whine "we can’t stop it" in harmony.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
LOL why even bother to comment at all in this case? You seem to have no opinion or solution.
Heh. Why should that stop you, shark? It never has before. ;)

We can do away with an army, any country who can mass enough people to peacefully wander across our borders in such numbers that we realize…
Actually, if we could shoot them, it would be a lot easier. ;)
"In God we Trust" and replace it with "We can’t stop it". That will work until whatever nationality finally takes over puts a stop to it and changes the motto to ’We came, we saw, we conquered’.
That’s funny, looker. I thought our national motto was, “Divide and Conquer”.
==========
An intelligent center-Right coalition would be for both security and immigration, for accuracy in identity (including a voter card with id and a biometric worker visa card) and patriotic integration of those who want to become American.

Your papers, please.


Hey Jon,
What do you think this will look like up against the “Voting Rights Act”? Anything? I’m not that familiar.

(Where’s mkultra?)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, China - all had/have pretty effective border control policies. Keeping out shouldn’t be any harder than keeping in.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even read what you type. Has it occurred to you that these are all police states? Think that might have had something to do with the effectiveness of their "border control policies"?

And is this our goal now? What couldn’t be forced upon us with nuclear blackmail and forty years of cold war we’re now going to do to ourselves in order to "protect" ourselves from some migrant roofers?

Are you insane?

:peter
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Yeah, we could never build a wall....
That would be like building miles and miles of roads across the country tying the east coast to the west coast.
Impossible!

Borders? What borders...we don’t need no stinking borders.

Pogue - yep I sure did mean we shoot them, but actually, if you had a solution, you’d have offered it.
"Let’s let them wander in", or "let’s fix Mexico" aren’t realistic or effective answers, but you knew that.

Can I gather that you’re no where NEAR one of these southern borders, are you all like Ted Kennedy, up there waging a border war in the State of Massachusetts where thousands of illegals wander across the New York line every day?

Are all of you who are advocating letting uncounted millions wander in listening to yourselves?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The Thomas Knapp quote box is the best point on the topic, and it’s like most of the commenters here didn’t even read it. Let alone the link!

For anyone (including Jon) who feels that Jon did not suggest a solution to the immigration situation, you need to read Knapp again. Why are we trying to stop millions of Mexicans from coming into the country? They’re taking our jobs? We’ve seen that isn’t true. They’re mooching our socialist schools, hospitals, benefits, etc? Well, if that’s true, maybe it’s a fault with socialism, not with the immigrants.

It would actually be a lot easier to catch undesirables entering our country if they weren’t blending in with the millions of people who are undocumented but not undesirable. Instead of border security being impossible and controversial, we could have the difficult-but-laudable situation that many other nations have. Why is this so hard to see?

 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://
Well, building a wall would certainly be possible. Controlling the borders nearly completely would certainly be possible. But how many billions would the wall cost? How many divisions would need to be stationed along the border? Jon has a point that closing the borders down completely would be unreasonable. However, we’re currenly doing so very little to limit border crossing that it would be easy to do a lot better job, and make a significant difference in the ease and cost of crossing the border.

It’s worth considering, however, that Fox’s presidency is winding down, and Mexico might well elect a socialist next - a good buddy of Chavez perhaps. It would certainly be ironic if Mexico built that border wall, to keep it’s people in. Socialist leaders are crazy that way, sometimes.
 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
Looker.
I live in SE Texas.

My comment regarding shooting illegal’s was a bad joke. You know, because you brought up the Army. I thought it would have been evident what with the winky-eyed dude. You know… ;)
I guess it was poorly done. My apologies.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Instead of border security being impossible and controversial, we could have the difficult-but-laudable situation that many other nations have. Why is this so hard to see?
Well, first of all, it’s not "impossible". We can indeed control the border.

The question is do we want to go to the extent necessary to do that?

That is the debate. All of you claiming it can’t be done are simply full of it.

What we’re arguing about is do we want to commit the resources necessary to do that job. Some are arguing it isn’t worth the cost. Some are arguing it is.

If you’re arguing from a purely economic stance, the argument against makes some sense. But when you add in security concerns (you guys remember that part don’t you), it suddenly takes on a different perspective.

I certainly won’t argue that we can stop all of the illegals crossing the border. But we can do a hell of a lot better than we are. As I’ve pointed out we have the technology to do so now.

We also need to enforce existing laws for employers. And make it easy and mandatory to check the status of all who they employ (instead of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge going on now). No easy border crossing, fewer illegals and security risks. Less "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" for work, fewer illegals.

A nation which can’t control its borders isn’t really sovereign, and right now we have absolutely no control of ours.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
, "we could have the difficult-but-laudable situation that many other nations have."

Which other countries have millions of people entering illegaly?

Is anyone going to try to explain what millions of illegal, unskilled, uneducated aliens are going to do for work when the next recession comes?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Pogue
I’m probably just a scosh north of you then.

I’m not advocating we shoot, or incarcerate anyone for simply crossing the border between Mexico and the US.
Send them home, yes, I’m in favor of that.
Allow them back in if they fill out the proper forms, dot the i’s, cross the t’s, yes I’m in favor of that.
I’m not trying to deny them the opportunities that being a citizen, or a citizen-in-training of the United States of America provides.

I mentioned the Army purely from the standpoint that if you swapped this all for another place, and another time - say Germany and France in 1932.
Let’s say Germans under a non-hostile regime seek better economic opportunity in France than they have in 1932 Germany.

Let’s say the French like having German gardeners, and German nannies, and German builders working for them at lower wages than they pay their French counterparts. Sure, we have to stretch this a lot - but if enough Germans wander across the border between France and Germany, and the French suddenly realize there are 10 MILLION of them in France, and rather than round them up they decide to make them citizens....
The Germans don’t need the Wehrmacht do they....they’ve already put 20 million boots on the ground in French territory. A peaceful occupation.
The Germans get to vote in French elections, maybe some of them are French at heart now, as it were, maybe some are still German at heart.

My point is, any country that allows 10 million people, undocumented, to wander in from another country and then says, "sure, that’s okay" is asking for, well, pretty much what France has these days. If it were 100,000 we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and I wouldn’t be so concerned, but the estimates, used I think precisely to make the problem so HUGE that people will throw up their hands and say "too many, we can’t possibly send them back!" make me concerned.

Where does it stop? If you couldn’t stop the first 10 million, how do you intend to stop the next 10? What makes you think the next 10 million are going to say, "gee, there’s enough of us over there getting those opportunities to replace the lazy Americans in low paying jobs!". Is that likely? I mean, look at how well the last 10 million who broke the law did! Why not another 10? And do you think the previous 10 millions are going to say "Hey! No more!"

Say it with me, slowly - the estimates are over 10 M I L L I O N.
Let me take this time to point out the population of Massachusetts is just over 6 Million.
Delaware - 783,000.
New Jersey - 8.7 Million
Virginia...

There are ONLY 8 states out of 50 with populations higher than 10,000,000 people.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well, first of all, it’s not "impossible". We can indeed control the border.
Ok, I’ll stipulate that it’s theoretically possible to build a wall large enough, and a security army strong enough to blockade our own border with Mexico. Of course, lots of things are theoretically possible. That doesn’t make them practically possible, or even plausible.

In our political economy, with the values and limitations we have, it’s impossible to do "what it takes" to actually control the border. And thank god, because it would require an enormous expansion of government and a positively totalitarian border. It’s one thing to put a drone over wasteland and catch a few runners in the open desert. How do you stop people from freely entering the US via the entry points? You know we just let them in, right? I waltzed right into Tijuana and right back. There’s not much to stop them from coming in for a nice visit...and staying. (I’d want to stay, too, so I don’t see much reason to tell them they can’t)

And then, of course, there’s the myriad border cities, the coastlines, etc. And the fact that all we do is release them right back over the border.

So let’s say we cut the odds of success from, say, 95% all the way down to 30%. Are those unsuccessful 70% going to quit trying and go home? Would gamblers quit playing the lottery if they only had a 30% chance of winning? Of course not. They’ll try again. Increased border patrols will only serve to increase the churn at the borders. A day or three delay to succeed almost certainly won’t cut the aggregate demand to cross the border.
But when you add in security concerns (you guys remember that part don’t you), it suddenly takes on a different perspective.
There are some legitimate security issues. But the way to address that is to let non-criminals into the US in an orderly fashion, while eliminating the tax incentives to hire illegal aliens. Throw out the welcome mat, and we won’t have to worry about finding the needle in a haystack; that single rat in a sea of cats. They’d self-segregate for us. (desirables down the red carpet, undesirables elsewhere)

That accomplishes everything you’d like to accomplish, without increasing the scope of government or decreasing the liberty of individuals.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
37
If you take up some role beyond your power,
both are you in this dishonored, and,
you are unable to fulfill what you left behind.

Epictetus
The Manual of Epictetus
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Well, first of all, it’s not "impossible". We can indeed control the border.
The question is do we want to go to the extent necessary to do that?
That is the debate. All of you claiming it can’t be done are simply full of it.


My apologies. I should have spelled out that I meant...
Instead of reasonable border security being impossible and controversial, we could have the difficult-but-laudable situation that many other nations have.

Since Jon had already made that point, I didn’t think I had to. But you already knew that, McQ, or you wouldn’t have said in that same comment,
I certainly won’t argue that we can stop all of the illegals crossing the border.

Why not make that argument? Can we do it, or is it impossible? I think we’re on the same page here - the word "reasonable" should be understood to exist in any of these comments about what can and cannot be done.

The point that I am not seeing anybody counter is made again by Jon in the comment right above the one I am typing right now. If the only people crossing illegally were actual undesirables, it would be much easier to address the security concerns McQ is talking about.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I certainly won’t argue that we can stop all of the illegals crossing the border.
Why not make that argument? Can we do it, or is it impossible?


First, Wulf, you said "border security is impossible and controversial". Nowhere in there do you stipulate that "border security" means stopping 100% of the illegals from crossing. Nor do I.

Border Security means controlling your borders. And that, sir, is not "impossible" nor "controversial" subject. The question is "how far do we want to go".

I could design and we could implement as system which would indeed keep 100% of illegals from crossing the Mexican border. Of course it would be a "defense in depth" and it would be lethal.

But I can guarantee we’d eventually have total control of that border.

What I was getting at is we won’t go to that extent, because it isn’t in our best interest, nor is it necessary to have a 100% record.

To the extent we’d go, 100% obviously can’t be guaranteed. But we could probably, if done correctly, knock it down to 10% of what goes across now.

But to pretend we don’t have the means to actually seal the border if so inclined is simply not true. So in technical terms (and that is what I’m talking about) it is not at all "impossible" to control that border.
I think we’re on the same page here - the word "reasonable" should be understood to exist in any of these comments about what can and cannot be done.
That’s correct. And by passive and non-lethal means, we have the technology available right now to cut the numbers down tremendously. That is indeed in our best interest from a security stand-point.
The point that I am not seeing anybody counter is made again by Jon in the comment right above the one I am typing right now. If the only people crossing illegally were actual undesirables, it would be much easier to address the security concerns McQ is talking about.
And I’ve said any number of times the way to cut down on illegals attempting to cross is to a) actually enforce the law against businesses hiring them and b) make it easier for them to enter the US legally if they want to work here.

But c) that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also be deploying the technical means at our disposal to work toward securing our land borders.

BTW ... on of the reasons I didn’t answer Jon in depth is I’m preparing a blog post (which is going to take some time) on the subject of how we can use our technology to secure the border.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So let’s say we cut the odds of success from, say, 95% all the way down to 30%. Are those unsuccessful 70% going to quit trying and go home? Would gamblers quit playing the lottery if they only had a 30% chance of winning? Of course not. They’ll try again. Increased border patrols will only serve to increase the churn at the borders. A day or three delay to succeed almost certainly won’t cut the aggregate demand to cross the border.
Jon, you have to know that’s wrong. Making illegal entry much more difficult would certainly deter some from ever trying. Others would try a few times and give up. Still others would try until they ran out of resources. The churn might increase initially, but it would drop in time.
There are some legitimate security issues. But the way to address that is to let non-criminals into the US in an orderly fashion, while eliminating the tax incentives to hire illegal aliens. Throw out the welcome mat, and we won’t have to worry about finding the needle in a haystack; that single rat in a sea of cats. They’d self-segregate for us. (desirables down the red carpet, undesirables elsewhere)
How does one distinguish the desirables from the undesirables? And what makes you so sure that they’d self-segregate for us? It’s possible — virtually a certainty — that the undesirables would pretend to be desirables. So, how is this done? Is this distinction any easier to accomplish than better security on the border?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
I didn’t think so.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Tim
Stop looking past next month or next year...sheesh.
That question is too tough to deal with.
Let’s just stay in the now where the economy isn’t in the tank and these people are underpayed, but gainfully employed.

We don’t need to talk about the economic (and social) impact of what will surely happen at some point in the future, just like we MUST think of the economic impact of actually attempting to secure the border NOW.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"That question is too tough to deal with"

Tough only in the sense that the probable answers are contrary to the desires of those who see no problem with unlimited access to the US.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I hadn’t realized just how far the ’one world’ concept had spread. Figured it was just some fever dream of a collection of socialists.

Now I see we don’t actually have a country, we have an economic geographic region that any and all should be free to take advantage of, so long as they are ’desirable’.

I gather that the lessons being taught in France are essentially being wasted and we’ll have to learn the same thing the hard way by repeating them here.
I was hoping to avoid that, but I gather it would cost too much, today, and might be difficult, and of course won’t be 100% effective.

I’m sure it will be much cheaper, easier, and effective, manana, sabe usted?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider