To all those who said a virtual fence is the answer …

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
- From the overcrowding of transportation systems that has resulted (in certain states/cities costing billions).

show me how you figure this

Well, the logic is obvious. Significantly increasing numbers of illegals in an area can cause overcrowding of the transportation network in that area. So you need more highways to carry the people efficiently from one place to another. Or if you don't build those highways/freeways, more time will be wasted by people trying to get from place to place … and that has a significant economic and quality of life cost, too.

Look at the country as a whole. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in the 1980s, the illegal population started out increasing at 130,000 a year and was increasing by nearly half a million a year by 1990. Then it increased to 750,000 a year by 1995, and has stayed between 700,000 - 850,000 a year ever since. Based on those estimates, between 1980 and 1990, illegals added about 3 million total to the population and between 1990 and 2000 illegals added another 6 million. And other sources put the number of illegals flowing into the country even higher. For example, Time magazine published an estimate in 2004 that nearly 3 million illegals entered the country that year alone.

Now the population of the US grew between 1980 and 1990 by about 22 million people and between 1990 and 2000 increased by about 33 million. So at least 14% of the increase in the 80's was due to illegals and at least 20% of the increase in the 90's came from illegals (and of course that's not counting the children of illegals born here as legals). And in certain localities, the percent increase was dramatically higher than that.

Look at Los Angeles. It's population in 1980 was 2,970,000. In 1990 it was 3,500,000. That's a 12% growth rate. And in 2000 it was 3,700,000. Now Los Angeles was a major destination for illegals entering the US in the 80s. So of the 3 million that entered the country, the majority of the 500,000 increase in LA population was undoubtedly due to illegals. Likewise, of the 200,000 increase in the 90s, the majority of it was due to illegals.

This has had a profound impact on the LA transportation network. Average rush hour speeds decreased from 26 mph in 1980 to about half that today. The average LA commuter now spends over 70 hours a year in peak hour traffic. There is a cost to that. According to http://www.newgeography.com/content...tion-and-improving-travel-options-los-angeles , "considering the value of wasted time and fuel, TTI estimates the annual cost of traffic congestion in greater Los Angeles at close to $10 billion." Yet LA already has by one of the highest number of lane miles per square mile of any major city in the country.

And here's a whole article on how immigration is affecting traffic congestion: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009 . Note that it states the cost of traffic congestion in 2005 was estimated to be $78 billion dollars, up 7 percent from 2004. So I think my statement that congestion of the transportation network caused by illegal immigration is costing a few billions a year is entirely fair and probably on the low side.

And how about the added public utilities infrastructure (sewage, electricity and gas) needed to accomodate all the extra illegals? I didn't mention that before. And illegals are creating congestion not only on our roads, but in our schools, our hospitals, our prisons, our national and state parks, our beaches and other entertainment venues. And look at some of the other direct infrastructure costs not included in that $113 billion estimate.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=86243

January 15, 2009

The United States will need $1.6 trillion to repair damage to its infrastructure from a massive influx of immigrants, a new report reveals.
In his report titled, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," prominent researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein examines 15 categories of infrastructure: airports, border security, bridges, dams and levees, electricity (the power grids), hazardous waste removal, hospitals, mass transit, parks and recreation facilities, ports and navigable waterways, public schools, railroads, roads and highways, solid waste and trash, and water and sewer systems.

Surely of that amount, you would agree that illegals will be responsible for many, many billions every year. Surely.

Quote:
- The cost to society from the thousands of murders they commit each year (what's the life of an American citizen worth now days?).

Between 7 - 8 million dollars per person, IIRC based on the Statistical Value of Life calculations.

Oh please. Aren't democrats always saying every life is priceless. But ok, let's use that figure.

So if we take your "thousands" at face value, then that's between 7 billion and 16 billion dollars.

No need to take my figure at face value.

Representative King concluded that 12 people are murdered a day by illegals in the US. He based his estimate on two GAO reports (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf ) on the number of incarcerated illegal aliens and the total number of incarcerated prisoners, applying the resulting percentages to the FBI's reported number of crimes in different catergories. Based on that, illegal aliens would be responsible for about 31% of the murders. A figure of 12 per day would total 4380 in a year.

Now I've previously been challenged about the reasonableness of that figure. Well, regarding murders, according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html ), there were 17,029 offenders *identified* and 5,452 of those offenders were identified as white, while another 4,899 offenders were listed as of unknown race. If those of unknown race also had the same proportion of white/hispanic to blacks as those of known race, that would leave about 7700 white/hispanic offenders … plenty of room for less than 4380 offending illegal aliens (remember, some of these people commit multiple homicides) to have murdered 4380 people that year.

And there are other facts that suggest the estimate of 12 illegal murders a day by illegals might not be inaccurate.

According to Steven Camorata, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2004 "roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level" were illegal aliens. That is a huge percentages considering that illegals only account for about 3-6 percent of the total population.

Heather McDonald of the Center for Immigration Studies, in testimony before Congress in 2005, said that about 95% of the outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles targeted illegals. According to a DOJ funded study (http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantGangsAnnounce ) in Los Angeles about 60-90% of the notorious MS-13 gang are illegals. And that gang is not just in LA. MS-13 is active in 48 states and according to the same source, in one jurisdiction that was studied, Northern Virginia, some 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load involved illegal aliens." And gangs are one of the largest contributors to the murder rate in this country.

So if we accept that illegals kill about 4000 people a year, and used your $7 million per person figure, we're looking at an opportunity cost, just for murders alone of about $30 billion a year to out society. That's not peanuts.

How much wealth is created by illegal immigrant labor?

You already gave us an estimate for that. I'm not even challenging your estimate. What I'm doing is proving that it's but a fraction of the total costs that illegals create for our society.

Quote:
- Their connection with drug cartels, gangs and drug smuggling (would our drug and crime problem be anywhere near as serious if illegals weren't so involved in it?).

But wait, homicide rates have clearly gone down since about 1993, and in fact, violent crime and property crime have gone down since the early 90s, while illegal immigration has clearly been accelerating starting about 1993.

But not the proportion of crime due to illegals. That has been increasing, Kevin. For example ...

http://www.urban.org/publications/410366.html

Between 1991 and 1995, how and why has the number of illegal aliens entering the criminal justice system changed?

USSC (BAC - US Sentencing Commission)

- The number of illegal aliens sentenced in federal courts increased by 167 percent , compared with 13 percent for citizens. The number of legal aliens declined by 18 percent over this period.

- The share of defendants in federal courts who were illegal aliens rose from 4 percent to 11 percent while the share who were legal aliens declined from 12 percent to 9 percent.

- The number of illegal aliens sentenced increased for 89 of the 94 federal district courts, for all major offense categories, and for all major country of citizenship groups.

… snip …

- The sharp increase in the number of illegal aliens sentenced is responsible for more than half of the overall increase in the number of defendants sentenced in federal courts and 44 percent in the growth in costs of federal post-sentencing incarceration and supervision.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kouri/jim62.htm

June 23, 2006

… snip …

after a steady annual reduction in crime, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report reveals a slow but sure yearly increase in crime, especially violent crime. Some criminologists attribute the rise in crime to illegal aliens who come into the United States with a criminal background.

Even in places like Illinois, illegals make up a sizeable fraction of murderers. For example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States ) , in 2008 "an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 122 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were of questionable immigration status. … snip … According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.

How big is the problem?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts

November 12, 2006

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME STATISTICS

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

… snip …

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by illegal aliens or “transport coyotes"

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

At the end of 2003, over a quarter million illegal aliens were being held in US jails and prisons. The GAO released a report in 2005 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf ) that studied a little over 55,000 illegals who were incarcerated in US facilities in 2003. They found that those 55,000 illegals represented nearly half a million arrests. What would our crime statistics look like if you took illegals out of the picture?

And one more thing for you to consider. There is a correlation (not perfect, but good) between the size of illegal populations and crimes rates in various states. Here were the crime rates (highest is in red and note that Southern California would also be red if you split California in half) in 2002:

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/images2/image018.jpg

And here is a chart of estimated illegal (unauthorized) population as a percent of the total foreign-born population in each state (and again, if California were split in two the Southern part would be dark blue):

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/images2/image020.jpg

Quote:
- The cost of the rapes they commit (some estimates put the number of sex offenses caused by this group in the hundreds of thousands each year).

See above, and let's see some statistics.

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimated there were about a quarter million illegal immigrant sex offenders in the US between 1999 and 2006, who had an average of four victims EACH. Here's her study and what she concluded:

http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals

After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006, it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.

There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

Here's more on that study: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=36410 .

She found it especially disturbing that in 22 percent of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted.

So how do you value the cost of that crime, Kevin? To paraphrase a Free Republic poster, how much cheap lawn care or pennies off the cost of a tomato cancel out one brutal rape by an illegal?

Here is one estimate of the cost of sexual assualts in the US overall (back in 1996):

http://www.svfreenyc.org/media/factsheets/fsht_9.pdf

“The National Institute of Justice estimates that rape and other sexual assaults of adults cause an annual minimum loss of 127 billion dollars … snip … This figure makes sexual assault the costliest crime; even higher than murder.” US Department of Justice, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, 1996; Summary by Virginians Aligned Against Sexual Assault

Must be higher now. So how many of those billions can be laid on the door step of illegals? Surely more than just a few billion. Even if the rate of sex crimes by illegals is the same as the populace at large (and some contend it is higher), that would be 6% of that cost … more than $70 billion A YEAR.

Quote:
- The cost of the traffic accidents they cause (see http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impac...accidents.html ).

Legalize them!

According to that source, http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.html , 5% of the population on the East Coast is Hispanic, but they are involved in 25% of fatal traffic accidents. What does legalizing them do to change this, Kevin? And how does that magically get them auto insurance? How does that magically change their personalities so they don't drink and drive as much? Again, that source notes that Hispanics have a much higher rate of DUI. How does legalizing (what you think that really means) change that?

Quote:
- The disruption they cause to what was once a primarily english speaking culture in terms of its cohesion and values.

Yeah I don't care about that.

Of course you don't. Few liberals do nowadays. What the founders set out to create in this country means nothing to you.

What's the cost?

What do you think is the eventual cost of Balkanizing a country? I assure you, it's more than a few billion. It can even spell the end to that country as history has proven time and again. There will be consequences to what is happening even if you don't want to acknowledge that. There always are.

Quote:
- The detrimental impact that non-english speaking students are having on the education system and the progress of other students' learning.

I don't know, that could be a legitimate issue. But I imagine it's at the bottom of your list because it was at the bottom of the barrel.

The order of my list had no significance. And since the future of our country rests with our children (democrats keep pontificating about that when they ask for more and more and more money for teacher unions … which just happen to be amongst the largest contributors to the democratic party), this actually is probably the most serious problem of all. Too bad you don't recognize that. But then liberals have been content with a public education system that only graduates 50% of students in the 50 largest school districts for decades.

Quote:
- The money they take out of our economy and send back home (some estimates put that at over $45 billion a year in 2006 alone).

Well, legalize them.

And how will that change the amount of money they send out of the country every year? Or are you planning to let all those dependents they are sending the money to into the country as well? See … that's one of the little dark secrets of the amnesty you people keep pushing.

Quote:
And don't forget the long term costs of caring for them in the future when it turns out they have neither the language or other skills necessary to succeed at more than menial jobs in the US. And when we give them amnesty on top of that. As is, we are just beginning to understand how big and unsustainable those costs will be for our own citizens. Imagine also having to take care of millions of what were illegals (thanks to amnesty … and don't think the one democrats now want would be the last) who decide to not learn much english during their lifetimes, because we allow them not to learn, and who as a result basically remain unskilled their entire lives without much in the way of savings. Here's an article on a study done by the Heritage Foundation that concluded each illegal would result in a $100,000 net annual cost to taxpayers: http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html . As they put it, the US has effectively imported "10 million high school dropouts". And that will mean the future cost of illegals will reach half a trillion dollars a year. That dwarfs any possible positive effect illegals might have on our economy.

Let me ask you this. Would you or any fellow Americans oppose caring for them if they were unskilled and helpless and elderly in Mexico? Personally I mean? Would you help them?

So you don't want to address this problem either. I see.

Tell me Kevin … is the only thing that is important to you, getting as many people into the country as soon as possible that will vote democrat in future elections? Because that is exactly what it looks like from where I'm standing.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you make crossing the border completely easy, safe, and efficient, by allowing them to come over legally, then why do we need to build the fence?

For precisely the reasons I stated. Or can't you read?

if you're against murderers, junkies, pregnant opportunists, and the like, then why aren't you arguing that we deport the perfectly legal, naturally born, or legally immigrated United States citizens who are exactly that?

Kevin ... meet .... Red Herring. And probably a few other fallacies as well.

This is a sure sign you are getting desperate in this debate.

 

[BeAChooser]

But why are you so dead set against allowing Mexican immigrants to become citizens, if they want to?

I have no problem will allowing legal Mexican immigrants to become citizens. I have no problem with legal immigration. What I object to is rewarding illegality, and that is clearly what blanket amnesty is. What I object to is the democrat party leadership wanting amnesty to occur simply because they think it would expand the number of votes they will get in future elections (and they are going to need those votes after what they've done the last 2 years). That is the naked truth of the matter.

We can decide what we are going to do with all the people that are currently illegally in the country ... but let's make that decision AFTER we have stopped the flood. And the only thing that will do that is a fence/wall. Otherwise, all we are inviting is another amnesty (or whatever) after the current one … as has already happened several times in the past 25 years. Remember, we were promised back in 1986 that the first amnesty, which gave 3 million illegals citizenship, would solve the problem. It was nothing but a pack of lies because the measures that were supposed to reduce future illegal immigration were never enacted or enforced. What do you folks think the Arizona law is all about?

Besides, do you really think you can prevent people who come here to work them from having "anchor babies"?

Sure. Don't give children born in the US of non-citizens automatic citizenship. The US is one of the only First World countries that does (Canada is the other). And don't democrats want us to be like the rest of the world … especially Europe?

 

[BeAChooser]

I just think that "securing the borders" is probably one of the least effective ways to limit immigration, if limiting immigration is even a desirable thing to do.

First, almost every country on earth limits immigration. The biggest irony of all would be if we adopted the same rules that Mexico has with regards to immigration, legal and otherwise. democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

Second, securing the borders is meant to limit ILLEGAL immigration. Why do liberals insist on dropping the term illegal from these discussions. Just to paint conservatives as against immigration in general, when they are not?

Third, on what do you case the claim that securing the borders is probably one of the least effective ways to limit illegal immigration? Can you cite any sources whatsoever, or is this claim purely your own *opinion*?

 

[kevinquinnyo]

BAC,

I'm going to soak in the above post and respond in time, but first:

What made you think I was a liberal?

Not that it matters, we should be critiquing the argument and not the arguer, but I can't imagine what gave you that idea. It couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[BeAChooser]

What made you think I was a liberal?

The only people of late that I've heard say "let people flow into the country" and advocate completely open borders have all been liberals.

Nor can I imagine how you could hold that position in the here and now and not be one.

But I apologize if you are not.

The positions that conservatives can hold sometimes surprise me. Almost as much as those liberals hold.

 

[marplots]

beachooser,

Are you claiming that all those people from 30 years ago should be counted as you claim? At what point would an illegal alien be an immigrant-- 10 years, 20, 30?

Secondly, how many of these folks leave again? Any? You slipped in a cumulative total that counts multiple crossing by the same person as unique and a permanent addition.

Third, have you considered that if your figures are correct, we native Americans aren't breeding enough? (0.9% real growth) Maybe we need these new people.

Fourth, if I get a child from an illegal alien family and give them the free education you are so against, how are they not a U.S. citizen by the time they grow up? After all, some of these children (using your stats) were born and raised here and are now in their mid-twenties. Is there some stain on them that won't wash away?

The crime stuff is skewed because much of the crime is between the same ethnic group, but I think you might already know that. Of course, it also doesn't consider the crimes that U.S. citizens perpetrate on resident illegal aliens.

I think you ought to consider the influx of illegal immigration a great boon. It isn't easy to convince someone to take the risks for such crappy rewards. Especially when, after being here twenty years, they and their family can get the boot back to a country where their kids can't speak the language.

 

[BeAChooser]

Are you claiming that all those people from 30 years ago should be counted as you claim?

The only thing I'm claiming is that if you REALLY want to get a handle on this problem, you need to stop the flow of illegals ... at least stop the vast majority of that flow ... and the only way you will reliably do that is with a fence/wall system across the southern border.

You slipped in a cumulative total that counts multiple crossing by the same person as unique and a permanent addition.

Where was that, exactly?

Third, have you considered that if your figures are correct, we native Americans aren't breeding enough? (0.9% real growth) Maybe we need these new people.

I haven't suggested immigration is bad. But why is allowing illegal immigration good? Why don't any other countries (like Mexico) allow that? And why is it good to accept millions and millions of absolutely impoverished, uneducated people, who don't even speak English? And yes, perhaps Americans aren't breeding enough. But surely you're not suggesting the best solution to that problem is to *adopt* the impoverished and uneducated.

Fourth, if I get a child from an illegal alien family and give them the free education you are so against, how are they not a U.S. citizen by the time they grow up?

Well by law they aren't (presuming they weren't born here), unless you take the steps necessary to turn them into American citizens. If you don't like that law, then change it. Don't just ignore it and expect all the rest of us to accept your decision. Because maybe we'll decide to ignore a few laws you think are important. Now if an illegal who came over and then had a child is caught, and it's decided (perhaps because they are a criminal) that illegal needs to be deported, feel free to adopt their child. That's legal.

The crime stuff is skewed because much of the crime is between the same ethnic group, but I think you might already know that.

So you are saying crimes perpetuated by illegals against illegals don't matter and have no cost. I see. Perhaps that explains why the opponents of the Arizona law don't seem to care about the murders and kidnappings committed against illegals by the smugglers.

Of course, it also doesn't consider the crimes that U.S. citizens perpetrate on resident illegal aliens.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

I think you ought to consider the influx of illegal immigration a great boon.

Well I don't. For all the reasons stated that you simply dismiss.

 

[marplots]

The only thing I'm claiming is that if you REALLY want to get a handle on this problem, you need to stop the flow of illegals ... at least stop the vast majority of that flow ... and the only way you will reliably do that is with a fence/wall system across the southern border.

I think hidden in our conversation is the idea that the status quo is a problem. And not just a problem, but a serious and growing problem. If I read you right, this is the basis? That there is a problem that needs a solution?

My criticisms have been meant to show that the situation is neither as dire as your statistics imply, nor particularly a problem at all. The solutions I hear sound more like making the perfect the enemy of the good, or at least the enemy of the 'seems to work OK'.

As far as illegal immigration being bad or good, and where the law should fall, that isn't as important as the consequences. I don't think the fact that someone came here without jumping through all the hoops more than a pro forma flick of the fingers at the government. It actually seems like a bit of the lauded American independent action -- taking your future into your own hands, taking the risk and seeking opportunity in another country. I'd have to say that an illegal immigrant is showing more initiative than a lot of folks I know.

I haven't suggested immigration is bad. But why is allowing illegal immigration good? Why don't any other countries (like Mexico) allow that?

It is neither bad, nor good. That's a false dichotomy. And we cannot look to other countries for guidance on moral behavior even if it were true. I have no particular desire to "Be like Mexico" in this or many other things.

And why is it good to accept millions and millions of absolutely impoverished, uneducated people, who don't even speak English? And yes, perhaps Americans aren't breeding enough. But surely you're not suggesting the best solution to that problem is to *adopt* the impoverished and uneducated.

Well, you already accept the impoverished and uneducated who live on the dole for decades -- every time an American child is born. At least when we get adults, they can work.

I wasn't suggesting any 'solution', but rather one of the consequences that might be beneficial. There are pluses and minuses to any policy.

Well by law they aren't [citizens](presuming they weren't born here), unless you take the steps necessary to turn them into American citizens. If you don't like that law, then change it. Don't just ignore it and expect all the rest of us to accept your decision. Because maybe we'll decide to ignore a few laws you think are important.

Exactly, by law a child raised here from birth till adulthood, educated in U.S. schools and living in the country, watching TV, goofing off... the gamut -- is somehow less a citizen than my kids. Where's the logic in that?

As far as laws being ignored, that's common and accepted practice. It has largely been accepted practice to allow illegals 'their place' for many decades. It is the same for many misdemeanors (which illegal immigration is on a first offense) -- this puts it in the category of disorderly conduct or resisting arrest, hardly something that rises to the level of outrage I hear on the topic.

Calling them 'illegals' is factually correct, but rises to the level of a synecdoche in popular parlance. The term should be banned for use among the bevy of folks who cheat on their taxes or drive faster than the posted speed limit. The fallacy seems to be saying that it follows that someone who is 'illegal' must also be criminally-minded or a deadbeat and disallows a hard working family man. Someone who cannot get a loan to start a business and is prevented from paying legitimate income taxes (lacking a SS#).

The illegal immigration issue is a fake problem trumped up to garner support for a non-solution by fear mongering -- not a precise description of all the posts here, but certainly in the main public discourse.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think hidden in our conversation is the idea that the status quo is a problem.

It's not hidden at all. The Arizona Law is a shout out because the status quo has grown completely intolerable.

My criticisms have been meant to show that the situation is neither as dire as your statistics imply, nor particularly a problem at all.

And my detailed response to your criticisms has shown you are wrong. Net costs on the order of at least a 100 billion dollars a year, thousands of murders each year, countless rapes each year, and all the other concerns I noted can be described as a "dire" situation. And to suggest it isn't even a problem "at all" is simply delusional. But then the response from liberals that we've seen of late to many of America's problems can only be described as delusional? Why should we expect them to be any different with regards to this issue?

It is neither bad, nor good.

Illegal immigration is neither good nor bad? Is this just another example of the liberal disease called moral equivalence?

And we cannot look to other countries for guidance on moral behavior even if it were true.

Why not? We have a President who has allowed (and applauded) a Mexican leader telling us how wrong we are about immigration policies. I can only think that President thinks the Mexicans have a better immigration policy. So let's just adopt theirs.

Well, you already accept the impoverished and uneducated who live on the dole for decades -- every time an American child is born.

What a COMPLETE crock. You know full well that is not what I was talking about. The illogical depths to which you people will now go to defend illegal immigration is simply stunning.

Exactly, by law a child raised here from birth till adulthood, educated in U.S. schools and living in the country, watching TV, goofing off... the gamut -- is somehow less a citizen than my kids. Where's the logic in that?

If he wasn't born in this country, yes. And if that's illogical, then almost the entire world is even more illogical … because they do not call children of illegals born in their countries citizens. It's hypocritical that liberals want us to be like the rest of the world in so many ways … in health care, in foreign policy, etc … but not in how we deal with illegal immigration.

As far as laws being ignored, that's common and accepted practice.

Like I said, the illogical depths to which you people will now go to defend illegal immigration is simply stunning. And frightening. Or at least the average American should be frightened by what you suggest. You liberals don't believe in the rule of law. In fact, you stopped believing about the time Clinton became president.

Calling them 'illegals' is factually correct, but rises to the level of a synecdoche in popular parlance.

That's a mighty fancy word. You one of those Haaaavaaarrrrrd leftists?

The illegal immigration issue is a fake problem trumped up to garner support for a non-solution by fear mongering

You just keep telling yourself that until November.

 

[marplots]

It's not hidden at all. The Arizona Law is a shout out because the status quo has grown completely intolerable.

Just so, there is a faction in Arizona that wants harder enforcement of existing laws. Are they going to do what you suggested though and build a fence? It would be an excellent test case. We could see what it accomplishes and what it does not.

And my detailed response to your criticisms has shown you are wrong. Net costs on the order of at least a 100 billion dollars a year, thousands of murders each year, countless rapes each year, and all the other concerns I noted can be described as a "dire" situation. And to suggest it isn't even a problem "at all" is simply delusional. But then the response from liberals that we've seen of late to many of America's problems can only be described as delusional? Why should we expect them to be any different with regards to this issue?

But I think your costs list leaves out many benefits. For instance, a simple one might be the sales tax illegal aliens pay on goods they purchase in the U.S. or the savings we enjoy by having cheap labor. But those are just monetary costs and you lump moral costs in as well.

Your solution to reducing murder and rape is to send murderers and rapists to Mexico? Why stop with illegals? By your logic, we should ship all criminals out. And if you want a moral dimension, shouldn't you be happy that the impoverished have a chance to breathe the free air and have the opportunities that the U.S. can provide them? And how does shipping people back to Mexico reduce murders and rapes? Oh, I get it, you mean murders and rapes of people here in the U.S. not overall.

There are many degrees between dire problem and no problem at all. The question is whether we should spend the resources to address this problem instead of that and what the consequences of a fence might be, both foreseen and possible unintended consequences. I am happy to see a few websites where you can donate to private/non-profit fence building operations. This might be a good way to get it done without relying on my tax dollars. I don't see a problem with that at all.

Illegal immigration is neither good nor bad? Is this just another example of the liberal disease called moral equivalence?

The way we frame the issue does impact the solutions we will allow. If it is a question of good or bad instead of a choice between political policies then the proper court is with the ethicists and not the legislators. I am not sure what the religious ruling may be on this but I'm pretty sure they don't allow policies against a whole class of people when some members are criminal or immoral. I think the idea is to convert them to more moral ways of behavior, but I could be wrong.

Why not? We have a President who has allowed (and applauded) a Mexican leader telling us how wrong we are about immigration policies. I can only think that President thinks the Mexicans have a better immigration policy. So let's just adopt theirs.

I guess if we did, we wouldn't build a fence, would we? I don't know what the Mexican immigration policy is, there might be some good points to it.

It's hypocritical that liberals want us to be like the rest of the world in so many ways … in health care, in foreign policy, etc … but not in how we deal with illegal immigration.

So, which country's model do you favor? And how does it differ from our own? I am not particularly informed about immigration policies in other countries, although I happened to look into Canada's which seemed pretty fair. What are the policies that other countries are adopting that include a fence? We could look at the 'before fence' condition and compare it to the 'after fence' condition.

That's a mighty fancy word. You one of those Haaaavaaarrrrrd leftists?

I wish. Who wouldn't want a degree from a prestigious university? But I'm just a freelance writer, I don't have any political science cred.

You just keep telling yourself that until November.

If you mean until an election changes the makeup of congress, I'm all for it. I think 'balance of power' requires a regular and thorough shakeup. I don't think having a conservative majority will get you the fence though. It didn't the last time. Doing anything concrete on the issue is about as popular as 'fixing social security'. It's a good way to identify like-thinkers and get votes, but there's no political will to actually do much.

I wonder if Regan's policies might resurface -- you might remember that one of his key principles was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy. Ya, that's right, Reganomics.

 

[T.A.M.]

First, almost every country on earth limits immigration. The biggest irony of all would be if we adopted the same rules that Mexico has with regards to immigration, legal and otherwise. democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

Second, securing the borders is meant to limit ILLEGAL immigration. Why do liberals insist on dropping the term illegal from these discussions. Just to paint conservatives as against immigration in general, when they are not?

Third, on what do you case the claim that securing the borders is probably one of the least effective ways to limit illegal immigration? Can you cite any sources whatsoever, or is this claim purely your own *opinion*?

Please explain to me how CANADA is doing anything different then the USA with respect to Illegal immigration? While you are at it, explain how Canada is any more severe in terms of their Legal Immigration.

Beyond that, even if the USA is more lenient, it is your country with the plaque that reads....

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Of course, you might not agree with the plaque...that is a personal thing.

TAM

 

[BeAChooser]

Please explain to me how CANADA is doing anything different then the USA with respect to Illegal immigration?

As I noted in post #103, Canada is the only other First World country that gives the children of illegals born in the country automatic citizenship. In that we are similar.

But what about in other ways?

Canada's illegal immigration problem is only a tiny fraction the size of ours. Where some 3 to 6 percent of our population is now here illegally, the Canadian government estimates there are only between 50,000 and 200,000 people illegally in Canada. That's just 0.1-0.6 percent of its population. A tiny fraction.

As to how Canada treats them, in 2006, Canada's border agency had more than 9000 illegals incarcerated in its facilities, and another 3000 in provincial cells, in conditions that it's own auditors found did not meet standards for detainees. If the US detained the same proportion of illegals for being here illegally, it would have upwards of 3 million illegals in jail … for being illegal. That, of course, is not the case. Not even close. As lax as Canada is, it's still a lot better at keeping track of and rounding up illegals.

And despite the tiny illegal problem in Canada, can an illegal immigrant walk into an ER/hospital and get free treatment? Generally no. In the US, illegals can not only do that but they also get free pre-natal health care, hospital care during delivery, and post-natal care? No, to get free health care in Canada, I guess they have to resort to fake health cards and IDs, like they did in these cases: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/3-000-illegal-immigrants-used-fake-quebec-health-cards-report and http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/2007/04/york-region-police-break-up-massive.html .

So don't try and preach to us about Canada's treatment of illegals.

Any other questions?

While you are at it, explain how Canada is any more severe in terms of their Legal Immigration.

This thread isn't about legal immigration.

 

[BeAChooser]

there is a faction in Arizona that wants harder enforcement of existing laws.

Just "a fraction"?

Are they going to do what you suggested though and build a fence? It would be an excellent test case. We could see what it accomplishes and what it does not.

We already have good test cases that show what a fence can accomplish. Look at the Israeli experience. Or look at what happened in San Diego. In 1993, prior to building a multiple layer fence system along a 14 mile stretch of San Diego, they deployed a significant number of border guards to stem the tide. And in 1993 alone, they caught over 100,000 illegals in that one small stretch (with hundreds of thousands estimated to have made it past the guards). But after they built a fairly simple three fence system, the number apprehended dropped to just 5000 a year with very few actually getting past the system (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5326083). So this argument of yours is just another dishonest tactic to delay what we already KNOW works.

But I think your costs list leaves out many benefits. For instance, a simple one might be the sales tax illegal aliens pay on goods they purchase in the U.S. or the savings we enjoy by having cheap labor.

First, the argument that we should overlook illegalities that economically benefit the country is specious at best. There are many illegal activities that one might conclude could benefit the country economically that we don't allow and stringently enforce.

Second, you are just plain wrong. Tax and GDP growth benefits were already included in estimates of benefits provided by your side in this thread.

In fact, the authors of the $113 billion dollar cost estimate I cited looked at the estimated tax collections from illegals (both those in the above and underground economy) and concluded

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/708226221?page=NewsArticle&id=23190&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1761

Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Here's their report: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921 . It states that

Next we look at the offsetting taxes collected at the state and local level from the illegal alien population. This is not a true one-to-one offset in the sense that there would not be a proportionate drop in tax collections if the illegal alien were not present. This is true because unemployed and underemployed American workers would fill many of the jobs made available by departing illegal alien workers and this would tend to reduce fiscal outlays for social welfare expenditures on the American workers and it would increase tax collections to have fewer workers paid in cash with no tax withholding. Further, the amount of locally earned money spent locally rather than sent out of the country in remittances would benefit local sales, tax collection, manufacturing and job growth.

It goes on to note that

llegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, the large proportion of illegal aliens that works in the underground economy avoids income tax withholding. Second, because illegal aliens are largely poorly educated and poorly skilled their earnings are on average significantly lower. The low earnings level is also likely to result in those illegal aliens employed in the above-ground economy being able to draw money from the state treasuries — rather than contributing taxes — where tax credit provisions exist.

And it notes this:

Even when compared to American workers who have only — or less than — a high school education, illegal alien workers will differ in their tax payment profile. One reason for this is that they likely will have family members living abroad to whom they send money, i.e., remittances. That reduces their disposable income. Illegal aliens are also more likely to live in a multi-family dwelling arrangement which means that their share of property tax contributions is reduced. Similarly, illegal aliens are less likely to be able to obtain legal driver’s licenses, afford a motor vehicle plus insurance and upkeep, and are therefore more likely to use public transport, which represents a cost to local government in the form of operating subsidies. Finally, in areas with many illegal aliens, there is likely to be a significant untaxed barter economy. All of these factors contribute to a lower level of tax contribution among the illegal alien population than among any segment of the legal resident population.

And the total dollar amount in federal and state tax revenues collected from illegals each year based on what appears to be a quite rational analysis is about $13 billion a year, 10% of the direct costs they found.

And all told the benefits perhaps, might, possibly, if I give your side the benefit of the doubt where GDP benefits are concerned, total a couple hundred billion dollars a year over the next 10 years. But I've already listed costs that currently total far more than that per year, without even including the cost of all those murdered by illegals each year (and keep in mind that every once in a while a liberal will tell us that each human life is *priceless*).

So your argument is seriously flawed.

Your solution to reducing murder and rape is to send murderers and rapists to Mexico?

No, my solution to the murder and rapes caused by illegals in this country is to keep those illegals in Mexico in the first place. If they rape and murder there, that's Mexico's problem, as it should be.

Why stop with illegals? By your logic, we should ship all criminals out.

No, my logic doesn't suggest this at all. The desperation of your side is evident in the red herrings and strawmen you are now spouting.

And if you want a moral dimension, shouldn't you be happy that the impoverished have a chance to breathe the free air and have the opportunities that the U.S. can provide them?

If you need to feel good about yourself, you go right ahead and donate all your money to cover the cost of feeding, housing and otherwise caring for all the illegals that you want to be allowed in this country. Don't try to transfer your feelings of guilt to me.

There are many degrees between dire problem and no problem at all.

Sorry, but you suggested that illegal immigration is not as dire as my statistics imply, "nor particular a problem at all". So you obviously feel it is a lot closer to "no problem at all" than a dire problem. And I think that's purely delusional considering all the facts I've listed on this thread which you haven't successfully disputed.

I am happy to see a few websites where you can donate to private/non-profit fence building operations.

Well I'd be happy to see a few websites where you can take care of the cost of illegals by donating your own money instead of trying to get the rest of us to pay for your feelings of guilt.

And just for the record, there are private efforts to build fencing along the border. For example, http://www.borderfenceproject.com/ . And you know what the response of the left and Obama administration is to this? Tear down that fence. It's racist.

Quote:
Illegal immigration is neither good nor bad? Is this just another example of the liberal disease called moral equivalence?

The way we frame the issue does impact the solutions we will allow.

LOL! So I guess you aren't denying that your approach reflects the liberal disease of moral equivalence … being unable to distinguish between right and wrong, evil and good, or even degrees of those things.

I am not sure what the religious ruling may be on this but I'm pretty sure they don't allow policies against a whole class of people

LOL! So illegals are now a "class" of people? Is this "class" entitled to the same rights as "citizens", as "blacks", as "women", as "gays"?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I can only think that President thinks the Mexicans have a better immigration policy. So let's just adopt theirs.

I guess if we did, we wouldn't build a fence, would we? I don't know what the Mexican immigration policy is, there might be some good points to it.

LOL! Talk about speaking from a position of ignorance. Here is a good summary of current Mexican immigration laws:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

- Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

- The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

- A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

-Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

- Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

- "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

- Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States.

Furthermore Mexico's Constitution states that:

"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

Imagine that.

And to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, be a deputy, be a Senator, be a Minister of the Supreme Court, be a governor, be minister of any religion in Mexico to Mexican citizens, be a Secretary or be President you must be a "Mexican citizen by birth. In fact, the President of Mexico must be "the son of Mexican parents by birth".

And get this, marsplot. Article 27 states:

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."

Those are VERY restrictive constraints on not just illegal immigrants, but all immigrants. So go ahead, marplots, you pick out the "good points" in that. And while you think about that, let me point out the following as well.

In 2000, Mexico deported over 150,000 illegals along it's southern border. In the first six months of 2005, Mexico deported more than 120,000 illegals back to their countries of origin in Central America. And that's just those from Central America. They also deported people back to Eastern Europe, Asia and South America. In all of 2004, we deported a total 150,000. In 2007, Mexico deported nearly 50,000 Guatemalans alone. I guess we should thank them since most of those Guatemalans were on the way here. In fact, there was quite a scandal when they deported 50 Mexican citizens southward, because they thought they were Guatemalans (http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=3356 ). You think about that.

So, which country's model do you favor?

I like the model we used to have in this country. Although you realize that the provision of giving citizenship to anyone born in the US (birthright citizenship) was adopted at a time when illegal immigration was not a problem at all. So maybe we should reconsider that one.

I happened to look into Canada's which seemed pretty fair.

You might want to read my post to TAM above. Because if we did treated illegal immigrants the way Canadians do, you'd be very upset.

What are the policies that other countries are adopting that include a fence? We could look at the 'before fence' condition and compare it to the 'after fence' condition.

Most other countries haven't needed a fence either because their geography protected them from huges numbers of poor and uneducated people, their economies and social system are so bad that few want to sneak in, or because they, unlike us, have actually enforced their immigration laws and deported offenders. The fence is now a last resort because our politico's, especially democrats, have shown a complete unwillingness to enforce even the existing laws against illegal immigration.

Who wouldn't want a degree from a prestigious university?

Parents who don't want their kids indoctrinated with radical leftisms?

I don't think having a conservative majority will get you the fence though.

Except the people who will be replacing those ousted in Washington, aren't going to be like the last crop of Republican leaders. In case you haven't heard, many of them are getting thrown out of office this year, too.

I wonder if Regan's policies might resurface -- you might remember that one of his key principles was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy. Ya, that's right, Reganomics.

LOL! That's ReAgan, Mr liberal. And Reagan would never have dreamed of doing to Arizona what democrats and Obama are now doing.

Furthermore, the immigration problem that Reagan faced was small compared to what we now face. In just a 4 years timespan, we will see an increase in numbers greater than the total number of illegals that Reagan's America had within it's borders.

I suspect the problem is that you know a whole lot less about Reagan and his policies, vis a vis illegal immigration, then you think you do. So why don't you take this little true/false quiz:

1. The Reagan Amnesty granted a blanket Amnesty to Illegal Aliens.

2. The Reagan Amnesty granted automatic citizenship to Illegal Aliens.

3. The Reagan Amnesty granted citizenship to some Illegal Aliens.

4. The Reagan Amnesty granted automatic permanent residence (green cards) to Illegal Aliens.

5. The Reagan Amnesty granted immediate permanent residence (green cards) to some Illegal Aliens.

6. The Reagan Amnesty was granted to Illegal Aliens, free of charge.

Got your answers written down?

Well if you answered TRUE to any of those, you FAIL the quiz.

Because the Reagan "amnesty" was only for admission to "temporary residence". And there were conditions on eligibility for even that. Certain residency requirements, no felony convictions, less than three misdemeanor convictions, medical examinations. To get permanent residence, they first had to be legalized as temporary workers, then apply between 18 and 30 MONTHS after being granted that temporary status. And then wait. And there were fees to be legalized as a temporary resident. And above all else, the deal that was struck in order to pass the "amnesty" included provisions to bring illegal immigation to an end such as harsh penalties on employers hiring illegals and a 50% increase in the number of border guards. But then, democrats stripped some of these provision from the bill. Here's what Reagan said at the signing of the 1986 bill:

Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

So I don't think you know Reagan's views at all. And I think being the pragmatist that he was, if he now faced the problem we face, even though he didn't like the idea of fences or walls, he might support the building of one across our southern border. If nothing else, he would demand we fix the border before any additional thoughts of amnesty.

 

[marplots]

Ha! I misspelled Reagan. Excellent.

Shows I really didn't go to Harvard.

 

[marplots]

I think we may have stumbled on an area of agreement. First, thank you for posting the Mexican laws, it was interesting reading.

I agree with you that we might adopt a Mexico style of immigration law. And I think this might address many of your concerns short of building a fence. How's that? Do we agree on this at least?

With all the apparent damage illegal immigration is causing, perhaps harsher, Mexican style laws are the way to go. It would allow us to see what the true effects of less migration back and forth will be without the cost of a fence. We could watch to see crime drop and savings in the economy -- or not. It would be a good way to see how things go.

 

[BeAChooser]

I agree with you that we might adopt a Mexico style of immigration law. And I think this might address many of your concerns short of building a fence. How's that? Do we agree on this at least?

So you want to make it illegal for anyone but a US citizen to own property (for starters)?

With all the apparent damage illegal immigration is causing, perhaps harsher, Mexican style laws are the way to go.

Any evidence it has worked in Mexico? I think you don't want a fence precisely because you know it would work while the sort of laws Mexico has in place don't.

 

[marplots]

Sure, no one but U.S. citizens can own property (real estate)... and U.S. registered corporations of course... and U.S. registered trusts -- which is how U.S. citizens own property in Mexico in the exclusion zones.

But getting back to the fence. I've seen some interesting prices out there:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-...-fence-border-patrol-arrests-san-diego-border gives either $3million per mile or $9 million per mile.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm $1Million a mile for San Diego style fencing.

http://www.borderfenceproject.com/ a high of 4.5 million a mile to a low of $25,000 per mile

We could do a couple hundred miles, guessing with maintenance and repair, maybe a billion dollars? Good test case. No problem. That would get you the entire California border with Mexico.

And along with that, stick with Bush's plan: (from the global security site above)

As long as the per-capita income differential between the US (over $30,000) and Mexico (less than $4,000) continues to be so wide, it will be difficult to stop immigrants. President Bush's guest-worker proposal would have created a legal means -- a renewable three-year work visa -- for new immigrants to enter the country and take jobs that Americans don't want. Illegal immigrants already living here would become eligible for guest-worker status after paying a fine.

There's nothing like an experiment to see what actually happens. And not like the San Diego experiment that just shifted all the crossings East and didn't change much.

 

[BeAChooser]

But getting back to the fence. I've seen some interesting prices out there:

As I noted earlier, even at $10 million per mile it would still be a great deal. That's just $20 billion to fence the border ... while illegal immigration is costing us NET well over a $100 billion EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

There's nothing like an experiment to see what actually happens. And not like the San Diego experiment that just shifted all the crossings East and didn't change much.

But why did those crossing shift east if fences are so easy to defeat?

 

[marplots]

I don't know. I'd guess that traveling East is easier? Is someone asking these people? Seems like you'd get a lot of good information just by interviewing illegals and see what they think about it.

I actually don't support a fence, but I don't see why a project like I described wouldn't give some additional information. Especially if we can get it on the cheap. After all, who wouldn't want better information?

POC -- proof of concept. Generally a good idea. Isn't that, after all, why we don't think a 'virtual fence' works very well?