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

[Zep]

The best way of all would be to turn Mexico from a second-world country into a first-world country. If its citizens had plenty of opportunities at home they wouldn't be seeking them elsewhere. Of course, achieving that transition is no easy task.

Perhaps some government-sponsored building projects might kick that off? How about a 30ft security fence with towers every 100 yards across their northern border...

It's no LOL here when someone in Congress stands up and starts saying Canada has open doors to terrorists via its immigration system, or says the border must be tightened due to the 9/11 hijackers having entered the U.S. from Canada. (That pernicious myth was even repeated by the head of Homeland Security last year.)

More seriously, I had actually read somewhere that comment had been so attributed. I can only put it down to a brain-fart in a sound-bite situation.

There were a myriad of entry-points into the USA, so the perps could have arrived from any other country, just about. Would he be saying the same thing if they arrived from Bermuda? Or Iceland? Or on the direct flight over the pole from Japan? Resurrect the DEW line?

 

[Random]

As QG noted above, stopping the economic demand for Mexican labour is key to controlling the influx. How that is addressed is considerably different than these nebulous issues of "citizenship" and "Fortress Amerika" that BaC is on about. Surely there's some bright sparks in the USA who can come up with a better way.

$100,000 fine or jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done. No zillion dollar Great Wall of America, no concentration camps for Mexicans, no breaking up families with mixed legalities. You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

 

[quadraginta]

$100,000 fine or AND jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done. No zillion dollar Great Wall of America, no concentration camps for Mexicans, no breaking up families with mixed legalities. You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

Other than that one edit I made, and some effort to make sure that it is senior management and owners, and not scapegoat flunkies who see the inside of the slammer ...

I agree.

 

[Corsair 115]

There were a myriad of entry-points into the USA, so the perps could have arrived from any other country, just about. Would he be saying the same thing if they arrived from Bermuda? Or Iceland? Or on the direct flight over the pole from Japan? Resurrect the DEW line?

It's different because, at that time, crossing from Canada into the U.S. was easy. A passport wasn't needed to fly into the U.S. from Canada, just two pieces of ID, one of which had your photo on it. I once flew in without photo ID as the driver's licence at the time didn't have a photo on it. Land crossings were even easier.

 

[Random]

Other than that one edit I made, and some effort to make sure that it is senior management and owners, and not scapegoat flunkies who see the inside of the slammer ...

I agree.

There is really no need for jailtime for corporations or companies. If any undocumented worker who shows up to get a job from a company can turn them in and collect a cash reward if they say yes, costing the company $100,000 in the process, the company just won’t hire them. Companies only break the law if they can make or save money by doing so. Make an activity unprofitable and companies won’t do it, regardless of legality. Besides, a straight cash fine avoids all that courtroom bellyaching about who is really responsible at XYZ Inc. and should go to jail.

Remember, you don’t actually have to punish anyone to make this system work, you just have to be willing to punish someone. Opportunistic undocumented workers would actively search for an employer to hire them for the specific purpose of collecting the reward. Employers would end up treating any and all undocumented workers as potential moles, looking for an employer to turn in for the reward. Even if an undocumented worker is honestly looking for a job and has no intention of turning in the employer, the employer has no way to know that and will not hire them.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Israelis have built a little bit over 300 miles of fenced border at a cost of around $3,300,000 per mile. A significant percentage of that is devoted to enclosing towns.

Already pointed out. In fact, I noted a cost of about $5 million a mile. What you didn't mention is that the fence system has DRAMATICALLY reduced the problem of terrorists (who are highly motivated individuals) getting into the protected areas. Like I said, fences system can work when properly designed (i.e, multi-layer, containing features such as high walls and razor wire, and backed by armed guards).

How does this scale up compared with the U.S. border with Mexico?

Well you know what they say ... there are savings in quantity. Build 2000 miles of a fence system and perhaps we can do it for less than $5 million a mile. But as I've already pointed out, even if it's 10 to 20 million dollars a mile, it will still be less expensive than letting the flow of illegals continue unabated.

Or with the cost of catching the people who decide to go around it after we're done?

Again, you are worrying about very small numbers and ignoring the MILLIONS how are now WALKING across the border every year. Illogical.

Wouldn't it cost less to go after the Americans who encourage and bankroll the illegal immigration?

Apparently not, since they've had 20 years to do it. And haven't. Or perhaps that just proves how susceptible that solution is to circumvention by politics. Which is one of the advantages of building a fence. Once the fence is built, politics will have little impact on it's effectiveness.

 

[BeAChooser]

So even if a stalag fence was to be built, if the economic drivers continue to exist, the Mexicans will find other ways over (I'm betting on light aircraft, btw).

LOL! And how many millions of mexicans will fly over the fence? Your arguments are simply ridiculous, Zep.

 

[marplots]

$100,000 fine or jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done. No zillion dollar Great Wall of America, no concentration camps for Mexicans, no breaking up families with mixed legalities. You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

I'm a "no fencer" and this, at least seems doable. I'd couple it with some form of national ID or solid verification. It would also have some unintended consequences so might need a worker visa component. Maybe instead of the green card offer? I'd also be more lenient on the worker visa part for family units where children are citizens.

You could use the fine to pay for deportation costs.

 

[BeAChooser]

$100,000 fine or jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done.

Except NOONE has the will do to that or enforce it. And the moment you change adminstrations or control of Congress, POOF, you're back where you started. Sorry but this approach is simply a way to not do anything. We've heard them promise (and even enact laws) to do this previously. Empty promises. Unenforced laws. And that's the way it will remain as long as there are democrats in Congress or the Whitehouse. And republicans who put cheap labor ahead of national interests.

No zillion dollar Great Wall of America

You aren't concerned about cost since doing nothing ... what you really want ... is already costing us far more every year than what a fence would cost.

no concentration camps for Mexicans

A fence is the only solution that will make "concentration camps" unnecessary ... since it's the only solution that keeps Mexicans on their side of the border. Detention of illegals (which we now do by the hundreds of thousands each year) will actually go down as a result of building an effective fence.

no breaking up families with mixed legalities.

Again, there won't be any breaking of families because all the members of families will remain south of the border. The only way families aren't being broken now is by allowing MILLIONS of illegals to violate our laws.

You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

Sorry ... history already proves that's not a practical solution. It's just an excuse thrown out by liberals to keep from solving the problem at all.

 

[BeAChooser]

It would also have some unintended consequences

And therein lies the rub ... why it will NEVER happen, NEVER work. Indeed, you are already creating *exceptions*.

 

[marplots]

Except NOONE has the will do to that or enforce it. And the moment you change adminstrations or control of Congress, POOF, you're back where you started. Sorry but this approach is simply a way to not do anything. We've heard them promise (and even enact laws) to do this previously. Empty promises. Unenforced laws. And that's the way it will remain as long as there are democrats in Congress or the Whitehouse. And republicans who put cheap labor ahead of national interests.

But isn't this exactly your complaint about the fence? How are the two different, other than you have one politically distasteful solution and I like another?

 

[I Am The Scum]

... doing nothing ... is already costing us far more every year than what a fence would cost.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

 

[Zep]

It's different because, at that time, crossing from Canada into the U.S. was easy. A passport wasn't needed to fly into the U.S. from Canada, just two pieces of ID, one of which had your photo on it. I once flew in without photo ID as the driver's licence at the time didn't have a photo on it. Land crossings were even easier.

My impression from Canadians and US contacts who live there is that transit is still just as open, even today. I gather it is part of the daily commute for tens of thousands.

 

[Zep]

LOL! And how many millions of mexicans will fly over the fence? Your arguments are simply ridiculous, Zep.

They have been flying the border since aircraft first appeared in the region early in the 20th century. Certainly it is quicker and easier than this: http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sou...els&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=a9ffe86d96f808ab

You really are in denial of reality, aren't you!

 

[BeAChooser]

But isn't this exactly your complaint about the fence?

Yes, it's true that both republicans and democrats ignored the law they passed and didn't build the type and amount of fencing the law required them to build. But solving that problem is a lot easier than dealing with your approach because at least once the fence system is in place, it's not something you can just ignore. It's not something that the next administration can easily remove. And it it something that can be easily tracked as to whether it's implimented ... down to the mile ... with the public being able to see what is built. Whereas under your solution, the government can claim anything with regards to implimentation and enforcement with the public none the wiser. Your solution isn't practical at all whereas a fence system is more than feasible.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
... doing nothing ... is already costing us far more every year than what a fence would cost.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Obviously, you haven't bothered to even read this thread.

If you go back and look at post #82, you will see a source citing an estimated cost of illegal immigrants of $113 billion a year to the country. Assuming 13 million illegals, that works out to almost $9 billion per year per million illegals. So you could build a 2000 mile long fence system costing an average of $4.5 million a mile with what you'd save by preventing just one million new illegals from entering the country and imparting the same level of costs.

And as pointed out in post #84, that cost figure doesn't even include many indirect and opportunity costs that are obviously quite high (I provided a list). I went over the cost of the items in that list in post #101. Items adding up to billions and billions and billions of additional costs each year. Add them all up and you could easily build the fence with the savings from preventing another million or two from entering the country ... in other words, just a couple years worth of illegal immigration.

As also noted in post #84, the Heritage Foundation, reporting on a National Academy of Sciences estimate, said that each illegal will eventually cost taxpayers $100,000 per year on average. That means that every million (plus) illegals who are currently entering the country illegally each year cost actually cost us $100 billion dollars. For a $100 billion we could build a 2000 mile long fence costing $50 million dollars a mile. That's quite a fence. And it would still be a bargain.

So I stand by my statement and suggest you actually read the thread before posting further.

Because I had much more to say about costs than just the above and I'd hate to see you further embarass yourself.

 

[BeAChooser]

They have been flying the border since aircraft first appeared in the region early in the 20th century. Certainly it is quicker and easier than this:

LOL! So you think that tunnels are more difficult than flying over the fence would be? Well if that's the case, why do they build tunnels at all now? Why not just fly? And you still haven't shown that the number crossing the border by either flying or tunnelling will amount to anything remotely close to the millions who now WALK across the border every year ... because there's no barrier.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Obviously, you haven't bothered to even read this thread.

If you go back and look at post #82, you will see a source citing an estimated cost of illegal immigrants of $113 billion a year to the country. Assuming 13 million illegals, that works out to almost $9 billion per year per million illegals. So you could build a 2000 mile long fence system costing an average of $4.5 million a mile with what you'd save by preventing just one million new illegals from entering the country and imparting the same level of costs.

And as pointed out in post #84, that cost figure doesn't even include many indirect and opportunity costs that are obviously quite high (I provided a list). I went over the cost of the items in that list in post #101. Items adding up to billions and billions and billions of additional costs each year. Add them all up and you could easily build the fence with the savings from preventing another million or two from entering the country ... in other words, just a couple years worth of illegal immigration.

As also noted in post #84, the Heritage Foundation, reporting on a National Academy of Sciences estimate, said that each illegal will eventually cost taxpayers $100,000 per year on average. That means that every million (plus) illegals who are currently entering the country illegally each year cost actually cost us $100 billion dollars. For a $100 billion we could build a 2000 mile long fence costing $50 million dollars a mile. That's quite a fence. And it would still be a bargain.

So I stand by my statement and suggest you actually read the thread before posting further.

Because I had much more to say about costs than just the above and I'd hate to see you further embarass yourself.

Oh, you were assuming I had not heard the arguments.

I take more stock in those who have taken a more balanced look at the issue. There are costs to illegal immigration, and benefits, as well.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

So when you take that into account, it's not really a big deal.

 

[BeAChooser]

I take more stock in those who have taken a more balanced look at the issue.

Like NPR (talk about an organization with a left bias) and FactCheck (a project of the leftist Annenberg Foundation)? LOL!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

All those sources looks at is whether illegals cost jobs. At no other costs. And even in that area both sources admits there are conflicting experts and studies. Some say the effect on jobs is positive. Others note negatives. Then one of your links quotes several sources saying that "immigrant workers" (note that suddenly the term illegal got dropped) expand the economy. But neither source quantifies how much they expand the economy. Do you have anything that shows illegal immigrants expanded the economy enough to make up for all the additional costs that I've noted that illegal immigrants have caused over the years?

Just admit, IATS, you are hiding from the problem.

I've already cited a detailed study by FAIR that concluded the net cost of illegal immigrants to the US is a $113 billion a year, and I listed a bunch of other costs that study didn't include in it's calculations.

That's not the only study out there pointing to that reality.

Here's a citation to a 2004 Center for Immigration Studies study that concluded illegal immigrants cost the federal government alone more than $10 billion a year: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html . It also predicts those costs would TRIPLE if illegals were given amnesty.

A 2006 study by FAIR estimated "the current local annual costs of illegal immigration from just three program areas — educating the children in public primary and secondary schools, providing medical services in emergency rooms, and incarceration — amount to about $36 billion.": http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16723&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007 . It predicted that "annual fiscal costs in 2010 would increase by nearly 70 percent to $61.5 billion for just these same three program areas."

Here's a citation regarding a 2009 study by the Center for Immigration Studies that looked at the cost to the public of implimenting Obamacare for illegals: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...ens-under-house-healthcare-could-top-30-billi . Conclusion? "Because of the lack of immigration verification requirements in the House health care bill, an estimated 6.6 million illegal aliens could be covered because they meet the financial criteria. Those 6.6 million currently cost the public $4.3 billion in emergency rooms and free health clinics but would cost $31 billion under the House health care system."

Here's a 2007 CBO paper on "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments". It concludes that

State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs.

… snip …

The estimates that CBO reviewed measured costs associated with providing services to unauthorized immigrants that ranged from a few million dollars in states with small unauthorized populations to [color= red] tens of billions of dollars in California[/color] (currently the state with the largest population of unauthorized immigrants). … snip …

… snip …

Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement.

… snip …

Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.

And here's a 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion ) that concludes "Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion" during their retirement years. Imagine what it would cost if there were an additional million illegals … the number still flowing across the border every year thanks to there being no effective barrier.

But you go on sticking your head in the sand, IATS.

 

[Corsair 115]

My impression from Canadians and US contacts who live there is that transit is still just as open, even today. I gather it is part of the daily commute for tens of thousands.

Not by aircraft. Passports are now generally required. Ground travel is supposed to require a passport or similarly secure piece of identification. The original deadline for that was put off several times as governments on both sides of the border worked out what kind of secure ID alternative to the passport would be acceptable, and how it would be set up.

The U.S. requirements for better ID in cross-border travel were a part of its Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.