Quote:I hate quoting incredibly long posts, but I feel like I wouldn't be doing you justice here if I didn't.

 

Regarding securing the border, I think the real answer is feet on the ground and a true dragnet of Border Patrol units stationed along the border itself (where practical) and at major, known "Rubicons" like Interstate 8 or Arizona Highway 86. How do you do that? Simple. Get rid of the "interior checkpoints" that do nothing but hassle American citizens. That'll free up a lot of money right there. Then take some of those funds that politicians want to throw at the fence and let the Border Patrol hire more agents at good salaries (to attract quality) and properly equip them for nighttime interdiction. That's how you secure the border, not pushing to finish an impossible fence.

 

First, your basic premise is reasonable.  If you favor boots on the ground along the border instead of a fence or a wall then that's something i can understand and possibly even get behind.  Two quick points 1.) as to the terrain involved in construction of a potential strategic wall/fence you're right there are parts of the terrain that wouldn't be practical to fence.  That's why we advocate using the terrain itself as a barrier and monitoring those areas to make sure no one crosses.  2.) the reason some of us on the right would prefer a permanent physical barrier is simply because its permanent.  Depending on political winds, complacency, time, which party is in office, budget cuts etc. deployment patters for border patrol could be subject to change.  You build a fence and its there for the long haul.  


 

I will never support a moratorium on immigration, because that's about the most un-American immigration policy imaginable. What I would support is, again, a one-time deal with a guest worker program that would allow people who are already here to register, get ID, work for smaller companies (not Walmart) that need help, and stay in the US as long as they're employed. This program would not be a path to citizenship, nor would it allow a guest worker to bring their wife and three kids up to live with them. It would also not be an ongoing thing. It would be done once for anyone here illegally who chose to take part, then the doors are closed. If you enter the US the next day, too bad. Any immigrant here without a green card or a guest worker permit is deported and never welcome back, end of story. If you commit a misdemeanor or felony, you're deported after serving your time (or in lieu of serving your time) and never welcome back. That's not to say that the registration program couldn't be repeated if it's found to actually be helping the economy and the demand is clearly there, but there would have to be stipulations attached to the conditions for repeating it involving unemployment percentages in each state that takes part. If Arizona's at 10% unemployment, allowing illegal immigrants to come in and work the farms and ranches for sub-minimum wage just seems silly, doesn't it?

 

As to point three, I think that it could be handled numerically. As mentioned above, if a state has 10% unemployment, forget it. If a state has 6% unemployment, but the majority of the open jobs are in low-wage sectors--i.e., the things Americans would rather take unemployment than do--then maybe they allow the first 25,000 illegal immigrants in that state who apply to stay in the country, assuming they find and maintain employment. That puts a very firm hold on things. There's a time deadline to go with a numerical deadline, and the numerical deadline is figured by demand. Consider that you probably wouldn't even get that many people to register--many illegal immigrants would be afraid that by giving information about who they are, where they're from and where they live, they're all but inviting INS to show up at their door. It's not like this would break the US workforce. If allowing a few thousand illegal immigrants to work at sub-minimum wage boosts small business production and the economy itself without displacing Americans, where's the harm? If it ends up displacing Americans or doesn't have the desired effect on the economy, hey, there's no need to ever do that again. That's the great thing about experiments. If they don't work, don't repeat them.

 

First when i say moratorium, i am not talking about a permanent moratorium.  just as you said above, ultimately we have to make decisions based on Math.  In that vein, we are talking about 11 million on the low side some say as high as 20 or 30 million people that would eligible for guest worker visa's under a proposed deal.  Then before you get to them, it would only be fair to have those who have been paying their fees to come to the country and have been waiting in line for half a decade come into the country.  That's a lot of people to assimilate into an economy at one time.  It wouldn't be practical to keep having another million people added to the potential workforce year after year until that chunk of people had been assimilated.  It's like eating a good steak.  As much as you want another bite you have to finish chewing what you already have.  Also, a temporary moratorium has been done before in our history.  


 

You make a good point about the point of experimentation, and there in lies the rub.  Conservatives see 1985 as the experiment.  As a country we granted three million people amnesty with the promise that we would secure the border later.   The amnesty was real the border security wasn't.  That's why there is a large block on the right, including myself who thinks that before we do anything to naturalize or legalize those already here we have to come up with a common sense solution to make sure than in 2030 we're not talking about another 10 million people.  


 

As far as the numbers go, we have to also be conscious of what the numbers really mean.  Thanks to the guerrilla math of the bureau of labor statistics if a welder looses his job looses his house and lives in his mothers basement until his unemployment benefits run out our government essentially counts him as employed.  That's why you have to take into account not just the unemployment rate, but also the labor force participation rate.  If the participation rate today was the same as January 09 the unemployment rate nationally would still be over 10% in the black community it would be close to twenty.  Add into that the fact that right now China's economy is due for a business cycle slow down and they had been a leading gobbler of raw goods and materials.  That means there is going to be less capital floating around the economy to employ people.  We have to be very careful how we manage the labor force over the next few years because we just accumulated more debt than at any time in our history, our GDP is anemic, and the EPA is instilling more low growth policies every hour it seems and we are still in the wall of baby boomers becoming eligible for social security and medicare not to mention fully implementing Obama care.  If we dump 20 million people onto a stagnant economy we could see an even greater annual deficit that is already leading to concerns about our currency as the global reserve.


 

I'm not advocating sending a gardener to jail because the website was down. Prison time would be reserved for only the most egregious offenses. Say Walmart is caught employing 5,000 illegal immigrants. They would pay a massive, massive fine (proportional to the amount they "saved" on labor by doing things illegally, with an additional penalty on top, maybe), and perhaps leadership in charge of staffing at the highest levels (EVP and C-level?) would be fined for negligence and given a very firm warning about what happens if there is a "next time". If the company gets caught again, then jail time is on the table for those in upper management who had oversight last time around. A gardener who gets caught once would face much more modest fines. If they persist in failing to verify (and hiring illegal immigrants as a result), then maybe jail time goes on the table after several violations, but I'm not saying just throw small business owners in prison left and right.

 

Mass deportation would be all but impossible, but case-by-case deportation, made even easier by the fact that the person was given the opportunity to remain in the US legally just by getting a guest worker permit, would slowly stem the tide. Once the e-Verify regulations are in place and the problem of businesses hiring illegal immigrants is largely addressed, the illegal immigrants bringing their families north to find work will slowly stop doing so, and more and more of the people being chased down in the desert will be the drug smugglers and human traffickers that, imo, should be our number one priority anyway.

 

I agree that those who wish to do our country harm should be our top priority.  

 

I just know from experience that most people already paying their people under the table (and getting paid themselves under the table by customers attracted to cheaper prices) aren't in a rush to all of a sudden incorporate an LLC and start paying the proper insurance, workman's comp and unemployment taxes that they aren't used to paying.  There are a myriad of reasons that contribute to the shadow economy and I think that While E-verify is a common sense approach, i also know that there is a large cross section of the economy already catering to those who don't want their name on paper so to speak (be it immigration status or worse... Child support).  

 

I think that we can agree the border should be secure.  We can agree to disagree about the means of securing the border but no plan is going to be effective if we are talking about this in twenty years.  

 

I think that the concept of basing our immigration plan on demand and math is beyond common sense.  I would just argue that at current we have to recognize that the economic underpinnings of our current job market are soft at best and we should be bracing for a global slowdown.  

 

As for the people on unemployment who choose not to work...  I get up every day and i go to work.  Most of the time its not because its my calling in life or because i'm deeply fulfilled.  It's because i have a wife, want a child and want to do it on my terms.  There are plenty of people in this country and others that are true victims of circumstance and can't find work in their current plight.  I think that someone who is able to work and doesn't want to because its just easier to sit home is part of the greater problem facing our society.  We as a collective have a responsibility to help those in need (be it through public programs or private charities) but as individuals we also have a responsibility to be productive contributing members of our society and those who just skip out for convenience aren't holding up their part of the bargain (just to clarify those who can work and choose not to for convenience, not a jab at anyone simply for taking government assistance.)  

---