Thursday, September 17, 2009

Fences and Fiscal Reality

Today there was an estimate published that the 'Border Security Fence' being planned and built along our border with Mexico will cost at least $6.5 billion dollars. I say at least, because no doubt when this fence fails, another will be proposed, and when that fails, yet another, and so on..

In my opinion, these kinds of expenditures, outside of the jobs they temporarily create seem to have little benefit for the country as a whole. They don't create sustainable production, they don't enable tourism or some other service industry, they just build ineffective physical structures which must be maintained over time.

I am all for preventing illegal aliens from entering the country, but what I find unfathomable is that the people who profess to understand market economics, and who often champion the ingenuity of the human mind, think that a massive economic draw will be stopped by what mostly is just a chain-link fence. Even where it is more robust than that, the thought that human ingenuity, if the will exists - and as long as there are jobs, it will exist, well the thought that humans will be stopped by fences is laughable in the extreme. From Hadrians wall to the Great Wall to the Berlin Wall, history is replete with examples of how such walls were routinely overcome, and this fence is nowhere near the scale of any of those, except in it's foolishness.

When I hear conservatives complain about government spending, I point to this, to SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), to Iraq, and other expenses which are economically unproductive at best, and which tend to simply line the pockets of a few wealthy business owners out of the public coffers. While I do not approve of deficit spending by Obama, and think every expenditure must be accompanied by a corresponding cut (first) and/or revenue/tax increase (second), neither am I unaware that some expenditures are smarter than others. This one, is the king of stupidity. It will not work, it will be sublimated, obviated and/or decimated by the strength of the human mind.

29 comments:

  1. I thought your references to historic walls was quite apt. Hadrian's wall was intended to keep people out, and did not. The Berlin was was intended to keep people in, and did not. Even the Great Wall of China - and I am SO hoping we don't try to accomplish something like THAT 'little project' -- was ultimately not successful in keeping out those determined to come in OR to keep in those determined to get out.

    One of the most tragic aspects of this stupid, stupid project is that it rides roughshod over the property rights of those who live along the border, often devestatingly so.

    The money that is spent on this colossal stupidity could be better used.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for pointing out how conservative-led military adventurism (Iraq) is actually a BIG SPENDING program. It's one of the BIGGEST, in fact.

    Conflating Iraq with Afghanistan (the latter of which I consider a necessary war) was an enormous waste of money. Of course, it was also an enormous waste of life.

    The program of which you write in this posting is also a waste of resources.

    People can complain all they want about spending for health care reform, fiscal stimuli plans, etc. Some of those complaints are justified, of course.

    But that's little insofar as wastefulness is concerned in comparison with Iraq, and to a lesser extent other bonkers-jingoistic endeavors, such as our own idea of a "Great American Wall."

    Paul Simon once likened the Great Wall of China to the seemingly impenetrable emotional wall around himself. It just "[takes] a little time to get next to me," he sang.

    Given just a little time, the proposed border wall will be proven a very faulty idea. Let's not give it that chance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hadrian's Wall, supposedly erected to keep out the Scots and other "barbarians" (to Roman eyes), actually accomplished a purpose. The Roman garrisons and forts along the wall became small villages, self sustaining, and the wall, with its system of trading posts and forts, facilitated trade. It was also not for the purpose of keeping one or two people at a time out of Roman Britain, but to keep invading armies out. In that, it accomplished its goal.

    The walls we are erecting across our southern borders are not intended to keep out invading armies. They are allegedly going to keep out small bands of people, or even individuals, who are attempting to enter the US without permission or inspection. It may succeed in a few cases, but it will utterly fail in the larger picture.

    As I think most will agree, the reason they come here is for economic opportunity: there are better jobs available in the US than there are where they are. Ironically, some of the same people who are often so rabidly interested in keeping these people out purchase products made by companies who use this labor, they hire the illegals as maids, gardners and other workers, and thus, they contribute to the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hass wrote:
    "People can complain all they want about spending for health care reform, fiscal stimuli plans, etc. Some of those complaints are justified, of course."

    I have a deep problem with the republican / conservative right talking a very different 'talk' from what they walk. It hasn't seem to me that they have changed any of that since their last two election cycle losses.

    When Joe Wilson called the President a liar over the access of illegal aliens to any welfare programs such as proposed health care, well, it doesn't prove true.

    While there are many problems with illegal individuals, so far, the evidence available to me indicates many have tried to use false identification and false claims of citizenship for employment, as evidenced by criminal actions and deportations.

    But I have not had demonstrated to me any serious evidence that this is the case with care programs, quite the opposite seems to be true.

    So, for the Republican minority to perpetrate the myth that there is a risk is a lie. I'm sure that ToE can elaborate better than I on the appropriate acts - I'm cheating here, I asked him about what applied in a private question about something else, so I know he knows this, LOL. It is the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, of 13 years ago this very month. But for a better understanding of what that does, I defer to ToE.

    I am deeply disappointed that Republicans are exploiting this for political gain instead of proving themselves honest and factual.

    They have yet again proven that when ToE called a segment of the base, the extremists, on xenophobia - fear of foreigners, fear of others - and bigotry - untrue, not factual, derogatory assumptions about others because of identification with a group - he was as I have come to expect him to be, right on target.

    That fear? Great way to extort money from supporters who either ideologically don't want to know what is factual, or who don't know how or are too lazy to look for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whoops - what I forgot to include in the previous comment.

    The Republicans claim they want smaller government and smaller spending, but they push for additional requirements that would expand the role of government in the proposed health care reform, AND would add to the cost.

    For nothing more than a convenient myth they promote to get money into their coffers. I'm disgusted with it, it is no different that what I saw for the past 8 years.

    And for those who simply don't honestly know the difference, double shame on them for running their mouths instead of doing their homework. I would once again put our home-grown offender, Ms. Bachmann on the spot for that, after her performance over the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. KR said, in a post which contained insults which have been removed..

    "Your saying the end of the Berlin wall was no big thing since it didn't work to keep people in, eh? And you say it with a straight face?"

    No KR, we DIDN'T say that, that's your falacious interpretation of what was said.

    In fact, we said the exact opposite - we said it WAS a big thing, a BIG fat waste of a thing. It ultimately failed, however, to work, because of human ingenuity, and frankly, it was FAR more robust than this foolish little boondoggle - it 'worked' to the extent it did, in part because it kept getting bigger, fatter, and meaner - but even at it's end, it was still comprimised.

    We envision no such thing - (meaning we in the US certainly don't think we'll put up anything CLOSE to the Berlin Wall, which would be the only thing that MIGHT actually have direct effect), but a. it won't ultimately work, and b. it would be hugely expensive and c. if you read the post you'd see I said we're going to keep pursuing more and more - so clearly, I think we covered what would be the 'end game' if we tried - namely, a big fat mean wall that mostly STILL would not work. I.E. a big waste.

    Please do try to actualy speak to the points being made.. really.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ToE,

    Actually, my recollection of history tells me that Hadrian's wall was in fact comprimised by invading armies, especially in the waning days of the Roman presence in Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  9. dog gone said...
    K-Rod said...
    "The Berlin was was intended to keep people in, and did not."

    It didn't?

    "You lefties are seriously beyond hope. Your saying the end of the Berlin wall was no big thing since it didn't work to keep people in, eh?"

    It didn't stop people from trying to leave, and while many failed, there were still people who were successful.

    The end of the Berlin wall WAS a big deal, and if I had intended to say otherwise I would have done so.

    I would rather assert to you that the end of the Berlin wall was simply the natural conclusion of the folly and the failure of trying to stop people crossing back and forth between parts of Berlin in that horrible way, that it fell precisely because it was something that wasn't wanted and that wasn't a good, workable solution.

    I think any attempt to repeat the Berlin wall along our southern border would be as big a folly, and it will end up being torn down too.

    Further, I would point out to you that there had been regular traffic between sections of Berlin, even with the wall in place, through checkpoints. They were a pain in the neck, but there was still active traffic.

    Are you naive enough to believe that everyone was 'legal' and who they said they were?

    My godson was an army interrogator in Germany, fluent in German and Russian. He was kept very busy with interrogations and translations, all based on the traffic that defied that wall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hadrian's Wall was begun in 122 AD, with construction on the wall taking about 6 years. The work was primarily done by legionaires. This was not only practical (as the legions had excellent engineering support) but it was a way of keeping otherwise idle soldier occupied. You are correct, Penigma, that the wall was eventually breached by invading armies of the Picts, but not until the waning years of the Roman Empire. Rome withdrew from Britain in the early 5th century, and garrisons on the wall were left to local Britons who had been co-manning the wall with the legions for decades. It was primarily during this time that the wall began to seriously deteriorate as both invader and locals used the wall as a source of already quarried stone.

    Even so, my point with Hadrian's wall was that it was not really meant to keep out a few individuals at a time, although it undoubtedly did make cattle-raiding more difficult. (The Picts were notorious for this)

    ReplyDelete
  11. K-Rod said...
    "The Berlin was was intended to keep people in, and did not."

    You are incorrect."

    Actually KR, there is extensive documentation that the Berlin wall had periods where it was drastically less effective than others. I would also pose to you that many of those who were the most determined, who had help or could buy help, were not constrained by it. Some of that was just the inadequacy of an architectural solution; some of it was a factor of corruption. It did keep some people in, but by no means, not by any stretch, was it as effective as you imply. It was a great big headache, a big problem, for both sides of that wall far more than it was any kind of a solution.

    Prior to when it fell, my beloved godson shared that there was a LOT of blackmarket traffic in both directions, additionally that the traffic back and forth in espionage was probably the greatest transfer point in both directions anywhere in Europe. Some sections were more of a seive than others. I would refer you to sources like newsweek, time, and other newspapers and periodicals from the onset of the Berlin Wall forward to its end.

    ReplyDelete
  12. K-Rod said...
    "Only a maroon would make a claim of 100% effectiveness.

    It would be foolish to claim the Berlin Wall didn't keep people in."

    KR, I'm saying it was ineffective. By ineffective, I mean that it didn't keep in as many people as it was intended to do, and in particular it didn't keep in the people it was MOST intended to contain. Far from it.

    Further I contend that it was a far greater headache in proportion to those it did keep in than was worth spit. I contend that it contained in it's concept and inception its very destruction because of how flawed an idea, and an ideology it was. MOST of all, the wall failed because of the economic success on the western side in contrast to the stark poverty and economic failure on the eastern side....not unlike the differences on either side of our southern border. Therefore, the wall has the same basic flaws in its concept and in its execution as the Berlin Wall, and it is doomed to be an expensive, ugly, historically embarrassing failure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maroon is a color, a shade of red. The word is derived from the French word marron which means chestnut. As I understand that DG is a redhead, to that extent it appears the term fits, K-Rod. However, I don't think she's intending to claim that the Berlin Wall wasn't effective at some level. It did discourage many. However, there were also many who managed to make it over, under, or around the wall. They did it for some although not all of the same reasons people are attempting to cross into the US illegally: the abject poverty south of our border, and the relative wealth and opportunity in the US.

    I think perhaps you're missing the point of this article, K-Rod, and I hope that Penigma will correct me if I have missed the point as well. The point of this entire article is that the wall is an expensive gimmick that might appeal to those who think they have to do "something" about the illegal aliens crossing into the US. It makes people feel good to see that their elected leaders are "doing something". Its a "quick fix", or an "easy fix". Except that its not quick, easy, or cheap. I also don't believe its going to be nearly as cost effective as long term immigration policy reform.

    ReplyDelete
  14. K-Rod said...
    "The key difference is in keeping people IN as opposed to keeping people OUT. Big difference as any King of his Castle knows. Not to mention the advances in technology over the past few decades. Why do you want it to fail? Why do you pine for unsecured borders?"

    One of those differences, one which was a HUGE difference in the case of the Berlin wall(besides a relatively much much shorter distance to cover) was that the East German government in conjunction with the Soviet bloc, was perfectly happy to use draconian measures, like machine gunning unarmed med women and children that neither side of the border is prepared to use in our case. THAT was actually more effective than the wall itself was; the wall simply slowed people down, and presented them as better targets for violence.

    I have NO desire to have an unsecured border, as you so WRONGLY assert. (thanks again for that help with the html tags) What was said, by all of us, is that we wish to have something more effective than the wall, as well at least in my case, desiring something that is less abusive to the property rights of those whose land the wall is crossing.

    FYI, that godson of mine along with his wife and family, is out of the army, now living in Arizona, right on the border out in the desert, and himself frequently deals with difficulties of illegal aliens. My concerns, given I dearly love my quite brilliant godson (he has an IQ around 190, and incredible linguistic talents)for having a safe and secure border is therefore far from an academic one. Fortunately, as his education from his earliest years was at a prestigious military academy, and with his service time, he is more than average in his firearm proficiency. But given the resources of some of the illegal aliens, his military skills are only slight comfort to me, and I worry about him, often.

    I want something that works. A stupid, useless wall is not it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No one here said that we wanted the wall to fail. Penigma, DG and I have all said, however, that we do not believe that the wall is a cost effective solution. Even with advances in technology, it won't keep out enough people to make it worth the enormous price tag, nor to outweigh the ecological and other harms it will create.

    As DG pointed out, one of the reasons that the Berlin wall was effective at all was because of the machine gun nests and the sniper towers which lined the wall. The wall then slowed people down enough that they could be (and often were) killed while trying to make it across. Altogether, over 5,000 people escaped East Germany for the much more prosperous West Germany after the construction of the wall, and its estimated that between 100 and 200 were killed trying.

    The wall created enormous tensions, was enormously expensive to build and maintain, and was an example of a colossal waste of money to solve a problem which is the reverse of our problem today. However, regardless of the wall being built to keep people out, or keep people in, it was not successful overall in its task and that's why the only pieces remaining today of the Berlin Wall are memorials.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ToE wrote:"Altogether, over 5,000 people escaped East Germany for the much more prosperous West Germany after the construction of the wall, and its estimated that between 100 and 200 were killed trying."

    I know there are estimates of the number killed, I have never heard or read estimaes of how many were wounded, how many were arrested trying.

    And added to that number were those who were doing black market trade and espionage, who were not escaping to the West but were instead going back and forth between the West and East Germany. I find those to be some of the most appropriate analogies, in that our worst problems with some illegals is crime, specifically drugs, and if reports are correct, guns. Those are the most dangerous, the most violent, the most problematic, although NOT likely to be consumers illegaly of welfare services.

    The Berlin Wall, the current Wall in Israel, have been large black eyes on their builders, and dubious solutions which arguably raise more troubles for their builders than they solve.

    It is NOT a good solution. Not at a cheaper price, certainly not at this price. Not at the price which we can expect to be higher for the new walls we build.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Any thoughts as to how to keep illegals out? If not a wall what then? A wall might not keep everyone out but I'm certain it will keep some out or at least make it more difficult to cross into the country illegally. You count the costs of the wall but how much do illegal aliens cost us by being in the USA? The strain of illegals on our health care system, on our public schools? How about those that break the law and sit in our prisons and jails? The expense of returning them to their countries? Do you figure in these costs when discussing the cost of the wall? If the wall worked even to some small degree how much of a savings would there be in those areas I've mentioned? How about the benifit to our economy when US citizens fill the spots of any illegal aliens that did make it past the wall? How about the benifit to our economy when $'s made by illegals are no longer exported back to their home countries but are instead spent in the US? Just wondering if you give any of that some thought. That said, I'm not really a big fan of the wall either but I'm at a loss of what to do to stop the flood of illegals. As a minimum the wall might act as a speed bump. At least it slows the flood while we figure out a better solution.

    ReplyDelete
  19. One other note:

    While I do think some sort of wall is necessary (be it a physical wall, an IT wall, or a significant prescence of armed law enforcement) along our southern border to help prevent illegals I don't think any system will ever be 100% effective. Even a small reduction would be useful in my opinion though. That said, I think at the end of the day anything done might end up being less than useless. A strong wall of one kind or another will only result in a shift from the southern border to our northern border or coast line. I really don't think it's reasonable to expect anything will ever be 100% effective but doing nothing is just as unreasonable. I would whole heartedly support some internal "walls" as well. Though I am pretty certain the Democrats wouldn't support these domestic walls. Putting illegals in jail would be a good start. If illegals are caught in this country they should be put in jail for breaking our immigration laws. Not just sent home so they can try again. The debt of an illegals incarceration might be sent to their home country. Jail time for employers which have clearly hired illegals in place of US citizens would also be a good start. More rigurous assertion of our current identity theft laws and stricter regulations protecting SS #'s and our privacy should be put in place. I think you miss the broader picture about conservative purposals and seem to only want to focus in on one aspect of the plans to reduce illegals. That type of tunnel vision you Democrats have expressed here seems to me to be very similar to your criticism of Republican criticism of the health care reform bills. In the words of Dog Gone:

    "I have a deep problem with the republican / conservative right talking a very different 'talk' from what they walk."

    I would ask you Democrats to walk the talk. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you get use one aspect of the oppositions plan for your protest against it and the you refuse to acknowledge their concerns about your plans. There is a serious problem in America today and it's our lack of civility to one another. Some of you who post here only help to underscore my point. Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats both have good ideas and bad ideas. Neither is always correct and neither is always wrong. Both sides need to meet in the middle. Too much of any one side is not a good thing. A majority rule without consideration of the minority will only lead to ruin. Both parties have been practicing this partisan politics for far too long and it is ruining the country. If you who post here can't acknowledge that then you people aren't really worth discussing issues with because you've left the realm of reality and have slip into fantaticism.

    Not EVERYTHING out of Iraq is bad. Not EVERYTHING about health care reform is bad. Not EVERYTHING about border control is bad. Not EVERYTHING from the Democrats is bad. Not EVERYTHING from Republicans is bad. Are you Democrats the ones who famously crusade on the fact that nothing is Black and White but that there are SHADES of GREY to consider? When did that philosphy that I so admired of the Democrats end?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Berlin Wall did indeed keep people out. It was also in many ways porous, as both sides knew (and as anyone with a sense of history knows, beyond three paragraphs in a high school History book).

    History is replete with "boths." I'm sure that's very cold comfort to the "either/or" crowd, which features as members people who cannot handle human complexity, worldly mindsets, etc.

    One way or the other, we ought to scrap the giant Wall-Of-America idea in favor of something that might work better.

    We're supposed to be innovative. Let's put our money where our mouth is on this issue--let's find another, more realistic, workable solution.

    I'm open to suggestions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ToE, KR, and DG,

    In reply to several comments.

    Certainly I intended to make the point that the Berlin Wall was an ineffective boon-doggle. I didn't say, nor did I imply, that it had NO effect, but rather that it was not as effective as desired, that's why the Soviets and East Germans kept improving it over time. Even in its end-state, it failed to keep people from crossing - they found other means than simply physically scaling it - which is the manner of humans to do.

    Beyond that:

    KR, at no point did anyone say the Berlin Wall didn't work at all. In fact, I was quite clear that at its most draconian, the Wall in-fact DID keep people from crossing, but not all people, not even close. Your mischaractarizations of our comments are both inaccurate and unnecessary.

    The further point, the one you either missed, or ignored because it didn't fit with your sophistry, was that the Berlin Wall represented what border fence zealots (apparently including you?)will have to get to, in order to come even CLOSE to what you are trying to achieve, that the current iteration WON'T work hardly at all, and that it will be enormously expensive, both in it's current form, and in some sort of Berlin Wall equivilant.

    Also, that such a wall, especially along the 1969 mile border with Mexico, would cost hundreds of billions, not just billions - to erect and maintain.

    Lastly, that ANY wall will ultimately fail, as long as there is human desire and drive to overcome it.

    Perhaps before commenting further, you should consider fully the points being made. It will help you avoid calling people names, whether that be 'maroon' or a 'maron.'

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jas,

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

    While I don't agree with jailing illegals, I think it's fruitless and expensive - I agree there are nuances, and whole-heartedly agree that civil discourse finding the middle-ground is the right approach. If anything in my comments conveyed some OTHER impression, my apology - that would never, ever be my intent. Given that I've recently written on the lack of civility and seeking of middle-ground. I'd be the clown prince to do otherwise.

    I think no fence, other than some sort of wildly expensive construction, would be even marginally effective. I think a 2000 mile long 'Berlin Wall' equivilent, would be far more expensive than it would be beneficial. On a cost/benefit ratio, I think it is beyond dispute that we'd spend a great deal more than we'd save, especially given that illegals contribute far more in taxes than are spent on them in benefits. However, NOT factored into THAT equation, but should be factored into the cost of a fence or other dissincentives to illegal immigration is that illegals represent the 'cheap labor' we all SAY we abhore, but all love the outcomes of - namely cheap food, cheap products etc.. while NOT considering the depressing effects on salaries.

    We in the US without question are paid less because of the availability of cheap labor within our borders. Due to NAFTA, and MFN status with China, we are also paid less due to the availability of cheap labor in Mexico and China (and India, though they don't enjoy most-favored-nation status). When we consider the cost of immigration, it is nearly impossible to gauge this effect, but undoubtedly, given that we've off-shored some 10M tech jobs from the US and Europe in the last 15 years - undoubtedly the impact is in the hundreds of billios of dollars per year.

    However, even if we were to STOP all illegal immigration, give NAFTA and MFN, that effort is effectively fruitless - the companies desiring what amounts to slave-wage status inside our borders - will simply setup shop outside our borders.

    Thus making this fence, and this whole line of argument, and the expense, utterly moot.

    Finally - we don't need to spend 10 Billion or 100 Billion on a fence. Pass a law saying that anyone caught employing illegal aliens will be fined $100K per event, and this problem will dissappear overnight. You will pay more for food, but you likely will also make more, as the labor pool will shrink. Thus, this fence is a needless, wasteful, foolish boon-doggle.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jas,

    I'm glad to see you commenting again. Please see my blog entry that was posted entitled "Give me your poor" as far as my ideas on illegal immigration. I don't support for one moment opening up our borders. I think (gasp) that we might think amazingly alike on the issue of immigration, but I don't think that the idea of a big fence is a practical solution to a problem which has much deeper seated roots.

    ReplyDelete
  24. KR,

    Your most recent two posts compel me to take action I warned you of, relented under request, but now am convinced it is past time to implement.

    For the next month your posts are not going to be posted, probably the vast majority will not be read.

    Calling people pedophiles, whether through ignorance or commission, calling people cowards, boot-strapping quotes from people to attempt to infer they've said something they didn't, is the mark of someone totally disinterested in factual discussion.

    Take a break - calm down - let the tension go - something, but for the next month, you are not allowed to post.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The problem is not just with illegal aliens. DG talk to your godson to confirm this but in the last few years part of the dropped belongings being found where illegals cross was things like prayer rugs and shawls. There are very few muslims in Mexico but further south several countries are starting to have close ties with Iran. Venezuela has training camps run by Iranian special forces. Call me paranoid but I think we all agree that neither of those countries wishes us well and the fact that they are working together and may be sending or have already sent trained terrorists across our border worries me. Jose and his weedeater do not create near the problems that these guys will.

    ReplyDelete
  26. TOE....haven't have much free time as I'm in the process of moving my home to a location about 30 minutes away....as we need to be out of here by the end of the month we've been making daily trips to the new location setting everything up...but thanks for noticing I've not posted much recently ;-)

    As to the wall...No it's not a permanent fix nor a realistic solution but I don't think legislation is the cure-all either. I know it will be terribly expensive and ultimately useless in completely preventing ALL illegal immigration. However, just as video cammera's in the local 7-11 don't prevent robberies they do help catch robber and they MIGHT make robbers think twice. I think a "wall" should be put up...whether it's a "wall" of cammera's, a phyiscal wall, a wall of law enforcement ("boots on the ground"), some yet unheard of tech or a combination or the above. In part, I believe in this wall because the hurdle to convict or fine employeers (the company or the owner) should be extremely high. Not impossibly high but should be such that would make it VERY difficult to prosecutors. This would be to prevent employeers which we unwittingly fool. I know as a small business owner myself that trying to keep up with all the demands of government regs just to stay in business is quite demanding ESPECIALLY if it costs me money because I don't have the knowledge, background or time to do it myself. To fine a landscaper $100K because he failed in one way or another, by error rather than intent, that he'd hired illegals would not be justice. Hence my desire to have require the state to a higher than normal burden of proof. Further, it should not be the employers job to identify illegals it should be the governments job as they are specifically responsible for protecting our borders. Therefore, to place the entire burden of illegal immigration control on a employer doesn't see just either. Which is again why I support some effort, rather than the token effort currently in place, by the government to stop the flow of illegals. The government not the private sector should be the first line of defense to our laws. Lastly, IF we are a country of laws we must therefore hold those who break the laws to account. If I break a law and am found guilty of breaking the law then should I not suffer SOME sort of consquence? People who cross into the USA illegally and are found guilty of it should be punished for it. Maybe a first time offender is merely set home while repeat offenders might actually have to serve time. Maybe it's not in a max security situation or maybe we create some sort of specific holding facility for them so they aren't put in with hardened criminals (I JUST KNOW SOMEONE WILL TRY AND MAKE THIS INTO JAS IS SUGGESTING ILLEGALS GET SENT TO GITMO....LOL). But there MUST be some disinsentive to these people who cross into our country with the intent of being in the USA illegally. This 3 fold approach: border security, punishment to blatent private sector employment of illegals, and punishment of illegals will however utterly fail if we don't work to end poverty in Latin and South American countries. But I'll save that for another discussion with you all ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jas,

    I concur that the regulatory burdens for small busines are quite imposing. Frankly, as my father used to say, "Anti-government zealots THINK they are working to get government off the bank of business, but the only thing that happens is they reduce oversight of big business - small business simply doesn't have any say, and mostly, big business wants small business to suffer under the burden of regulation and taxes which THEY (big business) don't have to pay or comply with." My father owned his own business (as did my grandfather) for decades, one a liberal, the other an ultra-conservative, but both thought the call for less regulation was a sham, it really just meant less regulation for big business.

    However, this regulation isn't so very hard to comply with. We provide a work ID to anyone who seeks employement through the federal goverment (like a social security card, but with a secure ID chip embedded). When employing someone, you call the federal number - or perhaps access the federal secure website - with the SSID chip providing data to some sort of 'blue tooth' reader, and you get a picture, dob, and other confirmation of the employee's eligibility. Can it be spoofed, sure, but it'll be damned expensive because you both have to create a false ID AND corrupt the federal database. The federal database would store where teh person was working - and would flag duplicate uses.

    If we're serious about change, the fear of regulation should be an obstacle - it certainly would be no harder than the current employement verification steps. It would cost money to issue and run such a program, but a helluva lot less than builing a 2000 mile wall of boots, lights or cameras.

    ReplyDelete
  28. sorry, that's "shouldn't" be an obstacle - we are clever enough to make this work, easily imho, if we are truly serious.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jas,

    A person who is found in this country illegally can be here illegally in several ways. They may have entered without admission (i.e. walked accross the border), or they may have entered legally at a border checkpoint, and then have overstayed their visitor's status, or have violated their other visa status. (there are literally over 50 different visas that can authorize one to legally enter the US). If someone is found to be here illegally, they are subject to deportation. If they come back again, they are subject to arrest and prosecution for a crime. Its rare, however, and I suppose you would then support a tax increase to pay for the incarceration of those persons sentenced to prison for being found in the US repeatedly?

    I don't think a $100,000 fine for a first offense is appropriate, but I think some sort of fine for an employer who knowingly hires an illegal alien is appropriate, and it should be per illegal found. I also think its somewhat unusual that you're proposing a national ID card. Isn't that against conservative beliefs? What you're proposing, Jas, would lead to bigger government, and more government intervention. Isn't that anathema to core conservative values? I just want to make sure I understand you on this.

    ReplyDelete