4 votes

How to Secure the Border? Your thoughts please...

Do you think the border can be secured? If so, how do you suggest the border be secured? Should a fence/wall be built? Should the border be militarized (further)? What is an acceptable amount of money (taken from the public trough) to spend on your desired program? How much are you willing to (make the people) pay per rejected immigrant? Do you think it's practical to deport all of the illegals?

Do you think the overall productivity of the US is increased or decreased by immigrants? Does the GDP increase or decrease when there is more labor capital? Should businesses be fined for hiring undocumented immigrants? Do you believe fining businesses helps or hurts the economy? Would fining businesses increase or decrease the number of immigrants taking advantage of the welfare system? Is immigration the real problem? Is the problem actually a poor economy and the existence of the welfare state?

I've provided the questions. You can provide your own answers, but I will give my personal take on the issue. Further, the above questions should be considered by anyone considering immigration reform.

I believe immigration should be much more open. Inexpensive labor can greatly benefit the economy. In my opinion, there should be an easy process whereby immigrants can enter the country and be given a residency status that allows them to work and live but prevents them from eligibility for voting or welfare assistance (including unemployment benefits). If after ten years (or some minimum time), if they can provide proof that they have worked continuously, they would be allowed to apply for naturalization. There would be no limit on the number of people entering the country, but upon entering, the contractual agreement would include that at least one family member - where a family would be defined as a significant other and dependent children - would have to provide proof of employment within six months or a year of residency. Under the contract, they would be deported without question upon discovery that the contract was broken to never be accepted for entry again (or possibly after some long duration). This solution would cut down on freeloaders and increase the productivity of the country.

Personally, I believe attempting to secure the border through militarization will never be successful and will only lead to more erosion of our liberties.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hand raised...

Your statement:

"...you can probably find enough volunteers among the 70% of americans who want the border controlled to cross hands across the border twice and provide tour guides back to mexico for groups of 7."

This is an absurd response that would never happen. Are you actually serious? In any case, this is the typical statist answer of "Increase the bureaucracy. We simply don't have enough people handling the problem."

Next statement:

"...just ask mexico how they do it."

Simple answer, have a very shitty economy which gives incentive for people to move towards more productive countries. Essentially you are saying, "If we reduce the US to a third world country, no one would want to immigrate here." Great solution! I think the socialists are already working on that.

Next statement:

"if you think the government is trying but just can't figure it out, with its 21,000 border agents, its x million dollar budget, infrared satellites, motion detectors, fences, basic geographical intel on where the routes and crossings actually take place, and giant falcon headed drones w laser beams coming out of their eyes... you're pretty naive, or just willfully obtuse.

They've been very successful thus far, huh? Maybe we should milk the taxpayers for some more manpower and technology since the program has been such an astounding success. Let's give the government more money and more authority to waste it on "securing the border."

Next statement:

"we shouldn't stop at the mexican border. we should make it known to the entire world that there is no limit or legal restriction to full entry and citizenship. if your ethics are consistent, that is ethically correct. if your economic principles are valid, global wage arbitrage to the lowest common wage for every form of employment will be a boon to everyone."

As competition among a specific labor market increases, the price of that type of labor decreases. This leads to lower consumer costs. Another effect is that more labor begins seeking higher paying areas, which require more skilled labor. Thus, technology would progress at a higher rate as labor became more skilled.

My economic principles are valid.

Next statement:

"how many people do you think we can get next year. 10, 15 million? lets get it so that the wage and living standard disparity between the poorest and richest countries reaches parity and equal average by 2020."

This is a complete miscalculation. If immigrants coming to a country made that country more productive, the richest (more productive places) would benefit while the less productive countries would stay the same unless they adopted more free market policies. Imagine how much more could be produced and how much prices would drop if entrepreneurs had that much more labor at their disposal.

my statement on the abundance

1. my statement on the abundance of volunteers totally outside the purview of govt bureaucracy is totally accurate. millions of people would form well regulated state militias in the border states to monitor the border.

of course i'm serious. lol this isn't controversial...

if these state govts offered some minor subsidy a la volunteer fire dept, it would attract plenty of able and responsible people even beyond pure volunteers.

perhaps you do not realize the problems and burden illegal immigration is having on the infrastructure and standard of living of these border states. look at California for the future of the american southwest and the country in general. people would line up to turn it back.

2. as for mexico, millions would love to cross through mexico to reach USA, they get turned back without a problem and without excessive violence. they know they're not gna get through, so they don't have the volume...

3. your 'playing dumb' statement about how successful border patrol "has been so far" -- stop playing dumb, as if you missed my point that they're obviously not actually trying to control the border.

4. as for your economics lesson, if you think opening a pipeline of unlimited low skilled labor into a limited size economy is inherently, necessarily a positive, you're just wrong. its supply and demand, if you constantly add to the labor supply you're just going to drive wages down and increase income disparity, which has destabilizing political effects when it occurs rapidly. it isn't purely economic, it's political.

You do not want a population of predominantly low skilled, low ability, low income labor, no property and no prospects, who's only outlet for exercising power is organized numbers - not in a democracy. They will turn to the ballot box as a weapon for redistributing wealth and exercising political influence. This is how revolutions happens, how socialism gains a foothold.

you are analyzing the economics of it without regard to the politics, which is more basic and fundamental.

america was lucky to avoid these kinds of pressures for a variety of reasons, which produced a low pressure economic profile with low average disparity in wealth and a strong middle class, upward social mobility - the wellsprings of classical liberalism. you want to import the opposite conditions? your ideology is making you blind.

Your example of California is invalid...

Texas is a border state, and its economy is doing just fine - much better than California's. This is due to the level of socialism that exists in each state rather than them being border states.

2. Millions have crossed. The mitigation has been very unsuccessful. It's arbitrary conjecture to speculate about the volume of immigration otherwise.

3. Your admission that "they're obviously not actually trying to control the border" drives my point home further. Passing more legislation will not be effective at mitigating the level of immigration. How many times must government prove that it's rather useless at achieving intended goals?

4. You're mistaken if you think there is a limit on the size of the economy. That is the same argument used against technology. I suggest reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.

BOLD PORTION

Socialism has already taken hold, if you haven't noticed. In the OP, I included a provision in my proposal that incoming immigrants not be allowed to vote or receive welfare benefits. Further, the more people that siphon off the public trough, the sooner socialism meets its demise. Ask a Russian. There becomes no incentive to work. In addition, there's no guarantee that some of the immigrants won't be as influential as Ayn Rand or the like. Not all immigrants are anti-liberty. Many are probably readily aware of socialism and come to the US for more opportunity rather than to recreate the environment in their country of origin.

I am analyzing the the economics with long-term political consequences in mind while you seem to be weighting your analysis with short-term political consequences (a Keynesian trap).

i didn't suggest the economy

i didn't suggest the economy is limited inherently. but you can introduce the supply of labor far quicker from an endless source than capital, wages, and industries can adjust. a flood of any supply can put downward pressure on a price and one as important as a broad section of wages can be destabilizing politically, which is more my point - we're in a voting democracy. you might want to prevent it, but theyu are a source of untapped power, and will be given the vote once here. even rand paul is conniving to pass an amnesty.

doesn't feel like i'm making much impact on your thinking here, and the truth is i have no solution, i just find it wildly disappointing how oblivious even the "enlightened" corners of the political right are about what the real world effects will be on the political conditions they face by permitting this unprecedented, bizarre experiment in national suicide. not that you could stop it anyway.

been fun sparring with ya

incentive..

I guess I'll just crosspost this comment to this thread....
--------------------
I came across an 'incentive' concept re: migrant workers
that I thought had merit... just as well insert it here as anywhere else:
The concept came from a candidate running for Senate last election
(I forget his name off hand)..
It's similar to ripping a $100 bill in half... to ensure compliance..
you get the 'other' half at the border... when you return.
Basically, the 'employer' withholds a percentage of the paycheck
that accrues in an escrowed account.
The 'savings' balance is waiting at the border
when they complete their contract
and return home.

If the Drug War stopped tearing up their Mexican States.

Maybe more would have a home to go back to.

Free includes debt-free!

On the surface that sounds fine, but...

each employer would have to pay for the labor necessary to maintain records on all the employees that fall under the category, thereby increasing the costs to produce which would in turn increase consumer prices. Why place that burden on employers?

and...

you feel that ANY cost to such a program negates the benefit?
Weigh such costs against current costs of a system NOT working.
Be fair in your judgements..
if
you are going to respond 'reasonably' to all ideas.
Any idea is going to cost 'something'.
You have to use a cost/benefit analysis to EVERY idea.
Cheers,
G.

By implication...

the people you describe are being productive - hence they are given some incentive by their employer and are working.

If the people are being productive, what is the benefit of making them leave - so less of us can take care of those taking advantage of the welfare state?

No thoughts on this?

I would be happy to consider any alternatives.