2006 August 03 Thursday
US Senate Reverses And Votes Border Barrier Funding
The US Senate feels the pressure of angry Americans who want a stop to the huge Hispanic influx.
The Senate did an abrupt about-face yesterday, voting overwhelmingly to begin paying for 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, just three weeks after voting against the same spending.
The amendment's sponsor said senators were so embarrassed by that July 13 vote that most felt they had to reverse course and vote for it this time -- especially after so many were on record in May voting to build the fence in the first place. The amendment, which provides nearly $2 billion for the project, passed 94-3, with 66 senators switching from "no" to "yes" votes since last month.
370 miles is not long enough. A formidable barrier should get built along the entire length of the US-Mexican border. It will pay for itself by cutting back on the influx of people who cost us far more than they pay in taxes.
The savings on avoided additional water treatment facilities would probably pay the amortization of this.
It's a start. As an engineer, I frequently will say, attack the problem in Pareto manner. Pareto was an Italian economist who noticed a kind of 80/20 rule. In manufacturing, we would note that 20% of the defects caused 80% of the failures. If they build the fence at the right spots, it may restrict the flow more than the percentage of border that it blocks. If we learn from the project, we'll know where to build the next 400 miles. And so on, till we're done.
We need interior enforcement too. It has to include things like:
- A "no match" notice to employers in less than a week.
- The same for landlords.
- Universal authority of all sworn peace officers to enforce immigration law.
- Anti-interference laws which impose criminal penalties upon public officials who penalize officers for enforcing immigration law. Fire a guy (or start an "investigation") for enforcing the law, you wind up in jail.
- Personal and real property of illegal immigrants is considered fruits of a crime and subject to forfeiture.
We already have most of those measures in place for drugs and tax evasion, it's a simple matter to extend them to immigration enforcement. And just think: if you confiscate the vehicles and houses of the illegals you deport, you can sell them at discount prices to the citizens formerly priced out of both the housing and vehicle markets.
Those are the kind of enforcement approaches which would clear out the illegals pretty thoroughly.
Suppose that more than 5% of illegals in years to come would live in publicly subsidized housing, at over $3,000 public cost per year, per illegal in such housing.
That's over $1.5 billion a year which could be avoided, and would pay for the fencing and the additional enforcement.
If we successfully keep out over 50,000 foreigners in need of dialysis for hepatitis, and each year more than that number are kept out who would cost $50,000 per year for that treatment; the savings are above $2.5 billion.
As suggested above, the wall and fencing can pay for its own increments of construction.
The government resists almost any such suggestions in two ways, for the most part.
First, they pretend that illegal aliens, and immigration cohorts in general, consist of net taxpayers.
Second, they implicitly deny that they have responsibility to defend the citizen, such as the net taxpayer, from the aggression of hostile immigration cohorts, who are settled on net public subsidy.
The foreigner has a right to freedom from aggresion in his own country, but not a claim on our government to defend him at the expense of the net taxpayer here, to whom loyalty is owed.
When aggression is increased on those to whom we owe loyalty, in order to have our government defend the foreigner, this contradicts the idea of rights altogether.
It ought to be many times emphasized also, that the burden of proof is on they who propose the great change in our social order by bringing in another million or more foreigners.
The administration, instead of giving us their latest snow job, ought to prove that the next immigration cohort will be net taxpayers and not otherwise hostile to those to whom officials owe loyalty; the citizenry.
Instead of having crying generals say that some illegal alien was killed in our war, or giving us undefined guff about transnational family values; they must prove that their immigrants are not hostile or parasitical.
They cannot do this, though, without radically limiting the quantity and attending quite strictly to the quality; so they pretend that the burden of proof is not on them.
We just feel that they will assimilate, is about what they say, and make it sound as if it were for you to prove them wrong.