Just something for you to answer:
How do you propose to locate, round up, and detain 12 million people (as a floor figure, keeping in mind the figure is even higher) until you can have them all booted out? How do you tell if someone's here illegally? Do you ask for papers? Issue national ID cards (assuming they cannot be faked)? Do we even have enough prison space? How much to build more (and make sure that is is secure)?
Oh, you need to do this without breaking the bank, getting the wrong people caught up in your enforcement efforts (can't have false arrests now), or doing anything that will look bad on CNN (or any other TV/cable news shows) - this is called acceptability to the American people. That last item is no small issue. If they don't approve, you get your ass voted out of office (just ask the Republicans in Congress).
You not only have to secure the 1,951 miles of border with Mexico, but also the 5,522 miles of border with Canada as well. Not to mention the coasts (East Coast, West Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaskan).
Start running the numbers, and then tell me with a straight face the laws we currently have are enforceable. Put out what you plan to do, and how much it will cost the taxpayers. That means you're going to have to either cut other programs (which have their own lobbies) or you have to raise taxes (note - the last major tax increase cost the Democrats control of Congress in the 1994 elections).
Oh, and there might be other nasty surprises as well. For instance, China has told us they will not accept illegal immigrants we have in custody until we turn over dissidents who we gave given political asylum (in other words, to enforce the law, the United States must betray people whom it has promised safe haven).
Got any answers to those questions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Great questions, and a nice blog makeover! Very Ralph Lauren, understated, classic demure : )
By the way, how is that deportation of the woman in Chicago going -- the one with the young son who works at O'Hare and was holed up in a church?
Also, Pink Flamingo wrote about the cost of building a fence:
Tancredo’s little border fence will cost a minimum of $49 BILLION. Yep forty-nine billion dollars . . . Other estimates go as high as $60 billion.
Reports here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/BAG6RNEJJG1.DTL
and here:
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Opinion-story.asp?ID=5809
[SNIP] But the bigger problem is this: What the officials didn’t say, and what not many others asked about, was what it would cost to maintain whatever structure was eventually built. Then, there is the inconvenient fact that some of the parcels on which the fence is supposed to be built are still in private hands, and those negotiations could go on for years. Add it up, says the Congressional Research Service, and the proposed border wall could cost $60 billion to build and maintain over the next quarter-century. No wonder congressional Democrats are backing away from the project.
[...] A border wall is preposterous — and prohibitively expensive. Let’s stop wasting time and scrap this idea, so we can focus on finding real solutions to the real problem of illegal immigration.
A lot of great questions that deserve serious consideration and much healthy debate. Much too much to do in a single blog post. But may I take a stab at your first question of deportation?
I think this is where we have a communication breakdown between the unserious on the fringe that want to "deport everybody right now!!!" and you guys on the other side that want a massive re-organization of a huge federal bureaucracy.
I honestly don't think you'll have to deport 12 million people (or 15M or 20M - whatever the number). I believe that if you begin removing the incentive to stay, the vast majority will self-deport. We've seen several stories of this phenomenon on a local level where cities start to crack down on landlords that rent to and the businesses that hire the illegals. Soon, a good portion of the illegal aliens move on to other friendlier areas. So my plan would involve serious removal of the carrot (mainly punishment of businesses that hire) along with a little use of the stick (deportation).
As far as paying for the stepped up enforcement and the need to build more prisons, there are two options which I would use in tandem. 1. Heavy fines to businesses that hire illegals. This would be the smaller of the two revenue sources and could take a while to start flowing as things got tied up in the courts. 2. I would tax the crap out of all Western Union type remittances that leave our borders. This would generate revenue immediately, and have the added benefit of tarnishing the carrot that brings the illegals here in the first place.
OK, Gilbert, your solution will require the following Constitutional amendments:
1. To raise the employer fines above the nuisance level, you will have to repeal the BoR provision regarding one being innocent until proven guilty (juries have consistently refused to convict in these cases, giving US Attorneys zero leverage to obtain a plea bargain);
2. To tax international wire transfers, you would need to repeal the Constitutional provision prohibiting the taxation of exports.
Gilbert, try living in the real world from time to time. I'm sure you'd find the experience enlightening.
I believe that if you begin removing the incentive to stay, the vast majority will self-deport. We've seen several stories of this phenomenon on a local level where cities start to crack down on landlords that rent to and the businesses that hire the illegals. Soon, a good portion of the illegal aliens move on to other friendlier areas.
I bolded the key words. Right now, they move to other areas in the US that are friendlier. To get them to self-deport out of the country, you would have to make the entire US a significantly worse place to be than their home country is.
The problem is that you cannot do that and confine that effect to illegal aliens--citizens would feel it as well. And my money would be on you self-deporting long before the illegals do, as most Americans do not have that high a pain threshold.
Ken,
As stated on a different post, I'm no constitution scholar.
Regarding the fines of business, I stated that these things would take a while to work their way through the court system. Ok, so put the fines just below the "nuisance level". But even if no revenue is raised, by consistently sending a few of these CEOs to court you make them more careful about who they hire. Right now, they face no threat of prosecution at all and therefore have no incentive to hire citizens.
As for taxing exports, I couldn't find any language that would prohibit. Section 10: Clause 2, does prohibit the states from doing that without the fed's consent. Can you point me to the specific provision? And assuming there is a prohibition, I'm certain there are other ways for the feds to regulate/tax these transfers (possibly put a tax on the bottom line of the companies that deal in these types of transfers, therefore avoiding a specific tax on the export). If there is one thing that the fed is good at, it is regulation/taxation.
As for your third point, I believe we've had the discussion before, so I hesitate to rehash. I believe you can make living here less inviting to the illegal aliens without drastically changing how citizens are treated... and you hold the opposite opinion. As mentioned before, when these municipalities have cracked down on the landlords and businesses that deal with illegals, the ILLEGAL ALIENS go to other places that are more friendly. The citizens generally stay put. The citizens of Az recently passed several initiatives by wide margins (70%+) that start down this path.
1. Illegal aliens are now not allowed to pay the subsidized in-state tuition at our state universities - not approaching a "pain threshold" here for me as I'm a citizen.
2. No punitive damages can be awarded to illegal aliens in civil trials - not approaching a "pain threshold" here for me as I'm a citizen.
3. No welfare or other state benefits can be awarded to illegal aliens - not approaching a "pain threshold" here for me as I'm a citizen.
Etc, etc.
These are small gestures that won't make much of a dent in the problem, but indicative of the kinds of things the government can do to make the carrot less inviting.
Listen Ken. I'm not trying to start any arguments. You folks asked some questions and I made a stab at answering. My constitutional knowledge is slim and maybe you can enlighten me on certain points. Maybe I can help you understand that people that don't share your exact opinion aren't all raving lunatics and have some valid ideas/points. I would hope that those of us on the right (you guys are Republicans/Conservatives, right?), can have healthy debates about this tough problem instead of living in echo-chambers like Kos and DU.
Regarding the fines of business, I stated that these things would take a while to work their way through the court system. Ok, so put the fines just below the "nuisance level". But even if no revenue is raised, by consistently sending a few of these CEOs to court you make them more careful about who they hire. Right now, they face no threat of prosecution at all and therefore have no incentive to hire citizens.
Ah, I see. You want the courts to cease being the judicial branch and to instead become a tool for harrassing those you deem to be your enemies.
As for taxing exports, I couldn't find any language that would prohibit. Section 10: Clause 2, does prohibit the states from doing that without the fed's consent. Can you point me to the specific provision?
Article I, Section 9.
And assuming there is a prohibition, I'm certain there are other ways for the feds to regulate/tax these transfers (possibly put a tax on the bottom line of the companies that deal in these types of transfers, therefore avoiding a specific tax on the export).
In other words, you once again seek to subvert the Constitution.
As for the "no pain threshold" comments, those items don't even begin to make things bad enough for the illegals to self-deport, especially when you realize the level of risk they undertook just to get here in the first place. In order to get them to self-deport, you'd have to make life IN GENERAL (i.e., all those little things that you probably don't even notice because you lack a frame of reference that doesn't include them) so bad that a sizable portion of American citizens would choose to self-expatriate to a "friendlier place."
Maybe I can help you understand that people that don't share your exact opinion aren't all raving lunatics and have some valid ideas/points.
Maybe I can help you understand that reality isn't just an interesting theoretical concept.
I'm not saying you're a raving lunatic. I'm saying that you just do not grasp reality when it comes to this issue. That's utterly unsurprising. Most Americans, IMNHO, do not truly grasp reality, and are probably psychologically incapable of doing so. It's one of the truly great things about this country. Ironically, it's the same damn problem that keeps the Left from understanding that there are people out there who want to kill them.
Ken thanks for the reference on Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 which states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Have the federal courts held that money/cash is an "article"? The parts of the Federal Convention that I read seemed to only discuss products such as tobacco and produce. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_5s1.html) The point then being, I think, that it would be unfair if a landlocked state produced a product, they would be harmed if another state with a port or the federal government was able to tax that export. As these money transfers in question all likely leave the state in which they originated and aren't an actual "article", it would seem that taxing them wouldn't violate the spirit or letter of the law.
You said:
Ah, I see. You want the courts to cease being the judicial branch and to instead become a tool for harassing those you deem to be your enemies.
Ummm, no. I want to use the courts to decide who has broken the law (the way they should be used). It's law enforcement's job to decide who to bring before the court. I'm surprised you object to prosecuting businesses as Rep Cannon proposes the exact same thing in his Immigration Manifesto you've linked to. On page 25 he states: "If an employer is hiring illegal immigrants to bypass tax laws, minimum-wage laws, or other already-existing laws, and there is proof that those laws have been violated, then the employer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of those laws."
And no, I don't consider business owners who hire illegals to be my enemies. Although I'm disappointed in those that consistently choose to ignore the rule of law.
Gilbert, when your efforts to enact your ideas devolve down to Clintonian linguistic gymnastics over the meaning of "article" (money meets the ordinary definition of article, like it or not) and saying that you wanted to do one thing before you said you didn't want to do it, it means that your reality check has been returned for insufficient funds.
You have ceased to amuse me. Begone.
Ken,
Way to close off the discussion.
Let me revise all my previous comments on here more to your liking.
You and Harold are the smartest guys on the face of the earth. I agree with absolutely everything you say, especially about immigration. Anybody who disagrees with us is abviously not dealing with reality. And this Chris Cannon Immigration Manifesto is awesome. Despite not involving anyone on his committee that would express the slightest bit of disent (I see why you like this guy), and offering up no specifics on how to pay for this massive reorganized federal buraucracy, this report is absolutely the best thing ever to be put down on paper.
Can I stay now along with the other two people that actually take time to read and comment on your blog?
All my love!!! :)
Post a Comment