The law to inititiate the building of the 700 mile fence along the US-Mexico border has been signed. "The Secure Fence Act 2006" has been approved by President GW Bush. It has created significant outcry in Mexico and in Latin America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6088084.stm


1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immigration to the US?

I don't think so. It will take a long time to build, It hasn't been funded. It leaves more miles along the border unprotected than it protects. Bush's overall approach to immigration has been more moderate than the bill he signed. Ah, enact a restrictive policy to appeal to conservative and mere talk about the more moderate elements that haven't been passed.

2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in condemnation?
[/quote]

There are people in the U. S. who are willing to hire illegal immigrants. It's cheap labor for American business - Bush's real concern. To Mexican faction it means jobs, no matter how pitiful and low paying. Whether you see Marx as a saint or demon, he was right about economic determinism - especially with this band of supply retreads from the Reagan era.

It is also an attempt to shut-up the Tom Tancredos and Lou Dobbses of this world, two week before an important election.

BTW; Delvy, you have put your finger on a raw nerve issue here and in Mexico. good job. If you haven’t provided an introduction, please do so in order that we can get to know you.

Lest you not forget that Economic determinism revolves around serving society, in which case one could make argument on both sides of wide-open illegal immigration and the wall.

I think a wall isn't the answer (fence, whatever). Frankly, it's something for people to jump over, dig under, or cut through. However- very stiff penalties for crossing illegally might be more of a deterrent. If a Mexican immigrant knew that being caught would mean very harsh detainment in nearly unbearable conditions, would he do it? Sure, maybe sometimes... but less often definitely. It's a function of viable alternatives... but I wouldn't really bring Marx into this conversation, as frankly, one could easily argue both sides.

Well, this is a debate board, so we can debate "both sides." I do commend you for adding a substantial argument.

If we are going to punish anyone, it should be employers who knowingly hire illegal immigants. Would the immgrants be here if the jobs were not?

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

By itself? Of course not, and not even its supporters are claiming such. But it will help (assuming the project actually gets funded).

2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?

Offhand, I'd say because they're consciously aware of the fact that emigration to the U.S. is their economy's pressure valve, as well as a way of expanding their society's influence into ours. I actually asked basically the same question on this thread, and the only answers given (even from a member who seemed sympathetic to the Mexican position) pretty much corroborated this.

So in other words, the Mexicans know full well that a fence will be effective at stemming the tide, which is why we need to stop wasting time and get it funded and constructed.

No, it won't. The portion of illegal immigrants that arrive by crossing the border from Mexico illegally, is not as large as the share who become illegal by overstaying their visas. The fence is too small to cover the entire border, and even if it were a 100 feet tall - 30 feet thick - and spanning the entire border with 100 foot deep footings, it would still be insufficient as determined people will find other ways.

Neither political party has a consensus of a solution to the problem, nor is it universally recognized within either party as a problem. For Democratic politicians, shutting down borders, or taking any actions to deport illegal aliens, risks appearing to be xenophobic, racists, etc. Democrats desire that their party appear to be inclusive. Such actions might raise charges of hypocrisy, especially among Latinos. They face some pressures from pro-labor and union to address the problem, but the former considerations outweigh these voices.

The Republican party has a faction that is concerned about maintaining cultural unity, and it is a large enough faction that Republicans wish to appear to be attempting to address the problem. But they will not address it in an effective way, largely because supply-side economic ideologues (usually wealthy people), who have more influence in the Republican party, are privately encouraged that the use of illegal labor has effectively bypassed U.S. labor standards, and placed a downward pressure upon the cost of labor within the U.S.

If our politicians sincerely wanted to address the issue, they would acknowledge that it is primarily those who employ illegal immigrants that are at the root of the problem and implement adequate deterrents for the employers. Illegal immigrants would not come here, nor stay here, if they could not find employment. Many politicians will avoid discussion of this issue, as they have themselves employed domestic servants who are here illegally.
They would also take steps to improve the economies of our trading partners by insisting that the partners implement more progressive labor practices at home, as a condition of trade. People will not come to the U.S. to work illegally if they can find adequate employment within their own countries.

In short, building more barriers on the border may appease a large enough share of voters to avoid losing elections, but it quite deliberately falls short of what is necessary to address the problem.

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

No.

Removing the reasons why illegals want to cross the border will solve the problem. We need to enforce the laws strictly on the hiring of undocumented people.

Shoot, I just went through a battery of background checks for an upcoming gig (yea!). I not only had to prove citizenship (driver's license, SS card), but my character (credit check) and my body chemistry (hair drug test). I needed written recommendations from two people who work this gig and who know me, having worked with me before.

There's no excuse for not doing a background check on illegals. There is lax enforcement of this situation, and that's the crux of the problem. The demand is cheap labor. The supply is Mexico.

2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?

I don't know. All I can do is guess that undesireable citizens are leaving the country of Mexico, and so the country wants the routes kept open. But really, I don't know.

One way to sway the opinion of Mexico is to pull back on deals with the country. Bring our auto plants back home, that would send a powerful message.

Otherwise, I give. Why does Mexico want to break international law? Beats me.

A fence/wall will never be funded. Its much like the straw man of the Defense of Marriage Amendment, a short term publicity ploy for elections only, it will drop to non-issue by republicans and democrats alike for different reasons.
2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?

Really? Why? Because the US is the teat upon which Latin America depends for a constant influx of DOLLARS to take care of its people and continue to shirk responsablility and maintain supreme levels of corruption for the elite.
I laugh (cynically) about Mexico 'objecting', because their sense of entitlement as a welfare state to the US is so entrenched in their mentallity, as if uncontrolled emigration here is their 'right' and that the US has no 'right' to try to control this overwhelming exodus.

Lets just fix the problem by making all the US, Mexico, Central and South America a common United Americas , much like the EU. Then all of us can immigrate, buy land, make business and work whereever we want , we can eliminate the dictator block, and above all stop Latin America's use of the US as a welfare state.

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

This initiative includes many other things besides a fence, did you know that? Nothing will bring the crossings to zero, but it will help greatly.

2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?
Shouls I care?

Well yes. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109...p/~c109SeP17N::
It is also includes a Northern border study. And the Mexico border seems in line for approx. 700 miles of fencing in specific sections round ports and vulnerable spots. As well as systematic surveillance methodology and new powers over stopping fleeing vehicles in border areas.



I would say yes, but then I don't happen to think isolationism helps when dealing with things like immigration. Of course you don't have to but perhaps it might suggest why there are so many illegal immigrants in the US from Mexico?

Nope to the first question- too obvious. The thing to do is throw CEOs that profit on illegals in jail, for mandatory minimums with no choice to as what jail they attend. Illegals will be unheard of the minute we start locking up employers wholesale.

And to #2- the mexican govermetn is completely corrupt, and have no place critisizing anyone or commenting on any non-domestic agenda of any kind.

Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?
No of course not – we need more border guards etc. One very hopeful development is this contract award:

Aerospace and defense giant Boeing Co. has won a multibillion-dollar contract to revamp how the United States guards about 6,000 miles of border in an attempt to curb illegal immigration, congressional sources said yesterday.
Boeing's proposal relied heavily on a network of 1,800 towers, most of which would need to be erected along the borders with Mexico and Canada. Each tower would be equipped with a variety of sensors, including cameras and heat and motion detectors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6091901715.html

Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?

Simple. Money sent back to Mexico from illegal aliens here (about 17 BILLION a year) is the second largest source of income (behind oil) for the Mexican economy. Essentially we are propping up the stupid and corrupt government of Mexico. WE are supporting their poor.

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

So true. The thing isn't funded and is just another example of pork from this administration. If it were funded though, it would be one the most effective means of curbing illegal immigration IMO. A lot of people are slamming the idea which I do not get. When has a wall not worked? Look at The Wall. It worked for the Soviets for what, 50 years? Why isn't this a good idea if you want to stop illegal crossings?

Do you even know what real isolationism is? Apparently not since you label a "neocon" supported initiative as such. You're looking at the wrong conservatives. Pat Buchanan leads the isolationists known as paleocons. Now regarding your last sentence, what is it supposed to mean? Are you saying that isolationism is at fault for all the illegals, or is it the lack of people caring about what Mexico thinks? US immigration laws are the business of American citizens, not Mexicans. BTW, guess who led the charge for the legislation that started this whole illegal immigration mess. You'll need to go all the way back to the 1960's and read up on what Teddy Kennedy was pushing.

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

It might slow them down but people will still climb over or around it. The article you've linked suggested more border patrol guards. The Washington Post has covered some past problems facing border guards and if past experience is correct, the fence will only be as effective as the guards behind it.

A report detailing illegals in Texas was issued this month. "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN TEXAS: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy" documents the financial burdens and benefits these workers put on the system. The report (.pdf) is the most comprehensive I have found to date.

The Migra Matters blog sums up the report.


Health Care is also addressed. The point Migra makes is there are enough deficiencies within the health system that blaming illegals may just be a convenient way to scapegoat.



Note, "studies show" refers to a health care policy journal Health Affairs which concluded the crisis in health care was not attributable to illegal immigrants.

2. Why do you think that the issue has so united formerly opposed factions in Mexico in comdenation?

The wall does give a rather xenophobic outlook to the world. Best to ask this question on a mexican blog. Walls are pyschological barriers as well as physical. By that I mean history has shown walls aren't the best way to get along with the neighbours on the other side. Maybe people keep envisioning an Israeli styled wall because well...an Israeli firm got the contract to build a portion of it?

That wouldn't explain the very fervent, funded, and organized political opposition to it. Political movements like that don't just happen for vague psychological reasons. They happen because someone stands to lose from it, in a very material sense. The only explanation for this phenomenon that makes sense is that they know the fence would be effective, or at least would play an essential role in an effective securing of the border.

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

This question is stil a huge NO- until we get a handle on the corporations hiring the illegals- there will be no end to the flood. As long as there is jobs that beckon illegals, we will have illegals. We need to prosecute the corporate scumbags that perpetuate this "industry" in labor. It always amazes me about how hard core Americans are to the folks at the bottom, expecting them to pay for the sins of society, while the business leaders get a free ride, it is incredibly unjust.

We just need to pass a law giving a mandatory minium sentence of at least 10 years to any executive that has more than 10 illegals in his employ- and they have to burden of proof to show that they unknowingly hired the illegals- and, considering the background checks and fingerprinting I had to go through at my job now- I would say there is absolutely 0 excuse to "unknowingly hire" illegals- they know they are doing it, and need to be prosecuted for it, and do hard time dating the guy or girl with the most ciggarettes.

We are absolutely targeting the wrong population for persecution, instead of targeting the right poeple for prosecution.

Blackstone you are flat out wrong. Trouble wrote "psychological barriers as well as physical" - a phrase that stressed both.

Further, the fence will impact the psychic of the builders as much or more than those it will allegedly keep out. The fence will destroy the concept of the U. S. "as one nation from many" or as a melting pot. Moreover it will give a false sense of security - a psychological factor - to some U. S. people. In short, even if the fence becomes reality, it will still be a mirage.

I am sorry CruisingRam, but i vehemently disagree. The only reason that corporations are able to hire illegals is because the federal and state governments refuse to obey their own laws and prevent illegals from entering the country. Your solution of employer sanctions would bring about unintended consequences. For instance, if we prosecute all the corporations who hire illegals not only will we have businesses going under who deliver products to the consumers but we will also have a flood of illegal immigrants out on the streets with no source of income who will thus be dependent on the state for basic welfare and healthcare needs. Furthermore, there is a civil rights aspect to employer sanctions. What if a Mexican man walks in for a job, the employer looks him up and down and says i cannot hire you. Discrimination right? Well lets say the immigrant had papers. The employer still says no. You put employers in a bind because if they accept an illegal immigrant for a job they can face prosecution. If they deny a Mexican person on the basis that it cannot be verified that the person is legal and in an attempt to avoid prosecution discriminates, then the employer will STILL be prosecuted for discrimination. No, the blame falls squarely on the government for not protecting the borders.

1. Will this initiative stop the problem of illegal immagration to the US?

No. The purpose of a fence is not only to keep people out, but to keep people in and thats why it scares me. A fence would do nothing without the manpower and resources necessary for the border patrol to do its job. The initiative that should be pursued is for more foreign investment to be put into Mexico. The reason so many Mexicans come to this country is because of job opportunities. If they had the opportunities in their own country, they would not need to come here. We need to invest more in Mexico, and pressure the Mexican government to make their markets more accessible.

Leder- to think you have to discriminate by race is pure fear mongering- I have to have an extensive check on my person when I go to get employment- and it costs nearly nothing. There is no reason on god's green earth that ANY biz, including daycare- HAS to provide to the state to stay in biz- background checks for everyone in the house, fingerprinting, proof positive IDs- if the employer maintains that system- he will HAVE to have someone commiting pretty elaborate fraud- including finger printing fraud, pretty hard to do!

If they start discriminating by race- bust them for that too- it is a cop out, there is no reality based argument in that direction.

We protect employers too much in this country, they get away with all kinds of atrocities- no one goes to jail for corporate bad behavior- see Ken Lay even - in fact, he had his record wiped clean even- showing how far we Kowtow to corporate interests in this nation- it is about time we AT LEAST gave the same scrutiny AND responsibility to management in this country as the Unions!

This is a classic case of protecting biz interests over all other citizens interest. There would be a massive deterent against hiring illegals- and if there are no jobs- you won't have illegals "wandering the street"- because there would be no reason for them to "run for the border"- why come here just to be homeless, without work- most illegals are decent human beings, looking for work, NOT a hand out- just work. If we are to get a handle on this situation through cutting off the money- the real reason for coming here anyway- if we have a labor shortage at that time, we can go with the dayworker passes and such- but not until we start throwing CEOs away for a long, long time. There is absolutely nothing else we can do to even stem the flow of illegals in any way- like any human, more money elsewhere is just too powerful a motivator.

If the biz can not stay open without breaking laws- which, BTW- they are doing- we don't need to write any more laws- just enforce the laws against business- and make the punishment far more harsh-

But if a biz CAN'T be competitive WITHOUT BEING CRIMINAL- then they need to go under- they absolutely should be allowed to fail, if not chased out of business anyway. This is a great area that deterant will work - murderers and desperate criminals it is very debatable that those kind of criminals think about the prison at the time they are thinking about commiting a crime- if they think at all. However- this fraud IS a "thinking man's" crime. You have to purposely do it, purposely turn an eye to it at least, and a cost-benefit analysis would say it is beneficial to hire illegals right now- make it EXTREMELY unprofitable for biz to hire illegals- then, you will see them checking it all a bit closer, and refuse to hire illegals at all.

No matter which way you slice it- the #1 reason for illegals here in the US is WORK and MONEY- you take away the first one, you don't have the second one- they go home and stay there or go elsewhere other than the US. If you want a problem to end- you go to the root cause- and, in the case of the fence, it is the cliche' of bandaging the little scrape while you ignore a sucking chest wound.

Leder- however- I am curious- why do you give a "pass" to obviously criminal behavior by business, but not by labor?

Documents have and can be forged. There is no guarantee that even after lengthy background checks that the employer may be stuck with an illegal immigrant unwittingly. Furthermore, if an employer is bombared with illegals who try to get a job with forged documents and turns them down, then isnt the natural reaction to be much more suspicious of all Mexicans who apply for the job and thus more prone to discrimination?



This theory is all well and good except for the fact that there are MILLIONS of illegals already in the country. What should we do with them when we prevent corporations from hiring them? Will they all just pack up and leave? We talking reality here?



If the federal government was enforcing immigration laws in the first place there would be no need for employer sanctions. But now that the illegals are here we have no choice but allow them to provide for themselves. The federal government legislating to corporations that they need to stop hiring illegals is laughable and the definition of hypocrisy.



That is not the root cause for illegal immigration in the US. The reason it has become such a problem is because the government has failed to secure the border. Thats it. Corporations cant hire people who arent here. I can understand your point but once the illegals are here...there isnt many practical choices left.



Because like i said, prosecuting corporations giving jobs to illegals is ridiculous. The illegals are here and either they work or they are on the streets on everyone's dime. You say illegals are here because of the draw of work, which is true...but if the federal government did its job there wouldnt be an issue.

The goverment, as you say "doing it's job" would have a pretty big job patroling a border like ours- probably a commitment at least the size and number of forces in Iraq- if you really wanted it "air tight" so to speak-

however- I think you are missing a very vital portion of the illegal equation here- most illegals go back- all the time, sometimes weekly. Depends on the work- work dries up- they go home. My girlfriend is the daughter of illegals- they were transiet workers most of thier lives, and took amnesty about 20 years ago and became citizens- but, when there was no work, they simply went the other direction back home- and since we are talking the southern border here- NOT chinese illegals, NOT Russian illegals, NOT Euro illegals- but the bulk of illegals in the US- coming across our southern border- they are mostly transient- NOT permanent- unless the work is permanent.

Right now, many, many corporations demand pretty extensive proof-of-person stuff- for thier own security- it is absolutely willful that corporations do this- it is because there are NO enforced sanctions for thier behavior- you dry up the work, the illegals won'ts stay- most ARE NOT refugees now- they don't move permanently to the US, and typically have family homes back in Mexico- they are here simply because US corporations makes good money circumventing wage and labor laws with illegals- all that pesky law abiding shouldn't be applied to a corporation, after all

Now- I would craft the law- that if a company

1) has an outside firm doing background checks, fingerprinting, and positive ID-
2) reports every illegal they hire, when they find them-

then they should bare no responsibility or culpability for hiring an illegal.

This is NOT an onerous load on the employer- not by a long shot, hell, I demand background checks and stuff even for those guys that are sub-contractors at my bike biz- because I want to be sure the person I am working with is safe on my property, and that they are who they say they are.

The Troopers here do an "interested person's report"- and check to make sure you are who you say you are- and are quite well trained in spotting phonies- and it costs me all of <gasp> 20 bucks per person- the fingerprinting is 150 bucks, including the actual act of fingerprinting. Big whoop- if a company isn't able to afford 160 bucks an employee on a one time expense- they NEED to go under.

The way we protect wrongdoing by biz in this country at anyone and everyone's expense is just so crazy-

the company would have to CHOOSE to be "bombarded"- because it is butt cheap to hire a verification company with a good record.

Heck, workplace USA does all this stuff + drug testing for jobs all over this state and others. It is just a plain lie that this places any onus on the biz at all- EXCEPT they couldn't rely on illegal aliens for thier workforce anymore- which means they would actually have to pay minimum wages and follow labor laws in the US.

There is only one entity to blame in the US for illegal immigration- the companies that hire them, period, nada, done.

If we put those guys in jail, soon word would get out, companies would stop hiring them, and illegals would go home- we would have no problem at all with illegals, compared to today.

Then, pretty much everyone sneaking across our borders is a bad guy- not just some poor shmoe looking for work, like most are now- and THEN we can mount laser guided guns to shoot illegals- because they are coming over here to kill or hurt or defraud Americans, because there is no other reason to cross illegally!

The sheer irony! From: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626823



Something I've noticed that all the arguments concerning border control have consistently ignored the role that the US plays in Mexico's economy. Essentially, we are creating the wave of illegal immigrants, simply because we our companies in Mexico do little to help alleviate poverty. For instance, after the end of the Bracero Program, many US companies set up shop in border cities in an effort to help former Bracero workers transition into normal work. Or that's what it was supposed to do. Instead, the US companies did not hire any former Bracero workers; they focused mainly on hiring young women. These border cities became dependent on the maquilas, and once the US companies found cheaper labor elsewhere, they left. Thus, poverty continues today, and many people are forced to leave their homes in order to find jobs.

Additionally, those who are against illegal immigration tend to ignore the relationship that the US has had with Mexico since the late 1800's. For a very large part of our history (until 1965), the US had NO restrictions on immigration from Latin America (or Canada), and we relied heavily on Mexicans for seasonal labor. Both the US and Mexico encouraged immigration.

Well...Actually, we still rely heavily on Mexican labor. Our birth rates are slowing steadily, and many predict that we (natural born Americans) will not be able to sustain our labor force. About 40% of the labor force is filled by the foreign born; naturally, this includes illegal immigrants. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 6-7 million of the work force population is unauthorized. Say what you will, but the US economy is extremely dependent on foreign labor.

We need the immigrants that are crossing the border illegally. And as long as there is a demand for their labor, illegal immigration is going to continue. An unfunded fence along the border is not going stop anything. In fact, the other operations have only redirected the flow of immigration; they have not stopped it.

If we were serious about stopping the flow of illegal immigration, we would fund more initiatives to help Mexico alleviate poverty, we would punish US companies that hire undocumented immigrants, and we would give out more temporary work visas. Many of the undocumented immigrants that are in the US go back to their home, or they have the intention of going back after earning a certain amount of money. This immigration debate has been literally been going on since the 1920s (at the least), and nothing has really changed.

KP- everything you said is true, of course- except that I disagree in a very small, niggling way - with the matter of funding stuff to Mexico- I think that would be throwing good money after bad- it is simply too corrupt, the money will be wasted.

Instead, like I said, make the employment go away for ILLEGALS- and then, if what you say and I believe to be true- that we need to have a guest worker program- for legals, that can be verified, and tracked.

A funded fence, on the other hand, could be quite a help. As for the "other operations", they've never amounted to more than a joke anyway. New York City alone has nearly three times as many police officers as the United States has Border Patrol agents. There's simply next to no political will in Washington to get the border secured. Republicans want the cheap labor, and Democrats want the welfare state clients. That leaves the people, and in order for them to be able to do anything about it, they have to first resolve to stop being bullied around and guilt-tripped by the PC-nattering establishment. There's nothing disreputable or shameful about wanting to see one's immigration laws enforced. It's a perfectly natural and healthy thing.

Blackstone, I disagree. As long as there is a demand for labor, and as long as NAFTA is in place, a fence will not do anything, unless you want the US Border to be in a constant state of martial law. Additionally, while the physical land border may be secured through a fence (which btw, does not go across the entire US/Mexico border, but only in "high" traffic areas), those who want to cross will find other means to get here. I've heard some are starting to swim ashore...Are we also going to create a fence in the ocean?

While I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to enforce immigration law, I think that our current immigration policy is broken. Building a fence does not address the underlying economic issues that force immigrants to cross the border illegally. If we really wanted to curb illegal immigration, we need to keep these factors in mind. Crossing the border is no walk in the park; it's often extremely dangerous, and yet people still do it everday. Making it more difficult to cross the border is noy likely to stop immigrants from coming over, because it's not the ease that makes people want to cross. It's economic necessity.

Cruising Ram, I understand your concern, and I may not have really expressed myself clearly. I don't necessarily mean that the US government should throw money at the Mexican government. I don't have a clear idea of what I would like to see; however, many of our policies (and from other lending institutions, such as the World Bank) negatively affect the Mexican economy (NAFTA, anyone?...Or the Border Industrialization Program). If I remember correctly, under NAFTA, the Mexican government stopped giving subsidies to small farmers, and it disbanded the eligo system (which is sort of a communal ownership of land, that allowed several families to sustain themselves). These two things have increased poverty in rural areas, making it more likely for inhabitants in those areas to cross the border. Clearly, something can be done about that, and it really wouldn't cost us any money. We can encourage the Mexican government to start implementing real anti-poverty strategies, and we can encourage US businesses not to shaft their Mexican workers.

Then why bother having laws outlawing illegal immigrants if it is "pretty big job" as you say? The ability for illegals to travel back and forth between the US and Mexico only enhances my point.



I think you fail to grasp the reality of the situation CruisingRam. Millions, not thousands or even hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS of illegal immigrants from Mexico reside in the country today. And many of those illegals have children...children who may or may not be US citizens and nevertheless would not be easily moved back and forth between borders. The contention that employer sanctions would somehow coerce the millions of people in this country to pack up and go home is unrealistic. Especially with laws in place that provide basic welfare and healthcare services for free! All employer sanctions do is put hard working illegals out on the streets and have the bill sent to the taxpayers. Even if I accept you argument that they will all go home, you must admit that there would be a certain amount of time (anywhere from 6 months to a year to a few years) until they realize that nobody will hire them. During that time, we are still paying.



Why should a load be on the employer at all? If the federal government was protecting our borders all along, again we would not need this discussion.



Again, you can't hire people who aren't here and the only way they can get here is by breaking federal immigration laws. Blaming the corporations if a cop-out.



Millions of people CruisingRam. Millions. They wouldn't go home, they would have no reason to. Welfare, healthcare, education, civil rights...its all right here. You may be correct in theory, but in practice it is nowhere near right.

I've heard this argument made before, but I've also heard many commentators argue against the fence by saying that so many illegals go back and forth to Mexico seasonally, and building the fence would effectively keep them trapped here year-round. But if it's already so hard for them to cross, then they'd be trapped here year-round anyway, and the fence wouldn't make much of a difference. In addition, the notion that the fence would be ineffective doesn't explain why there's such a powerful political movement afoot against it, by the Mexican government as well as domestic groups like La Raza. If it would be so ineffective, then why do they care so passionately about this issue?

I don't know about La Raza, but I am against it because its a waste of money and does not really address the real issue. Buiding a fence really does not address the immigration problem. It's a quick fix solution; we need a a solution that will have be effective. Not fix the problem superficially. Additionally, I feel like a fence along the border is symbolically racist and sends the wrong image to other nations. These are perfectly good reasons that some may be against the fence.



I just want to dispell this myth. Immigrants do not come to the United States in search of services. There have been numerous books and studies that note that most immigrants come to the United States in search of social and economic mobility. I would suggest reading Immigrant America: A Portrait by Alejandro Portes and Ruben Rumbaut. Additionally, although immigrants tend to burden state and local governments with deficits, overall, the US benefits from immigrants. This is unfortunate, because state and local governments are required to provide certain services to any resident of the US (legal or not), their budgets are often running on deficits. The federal government does not reimburse states for their costs, even though in theory, they have the money to do so. For more info on that, I would suggest reading the Bell Policy Center's analysis of immigrants costs and benefits: www.thebell.org/pdf/IMG-brief12-05.pdf

I don't think you're getting my point. The fact that La Raza and the Mexican government and so many other political forces that have an interest in maintaining current levels of illegal immigration are so fervently against the fence, is evidence that these people think it would be effective. There's no other plausible reason why they'd get so worked up over it. President Calderon doesn't issue his declamations against it because he's concerned about our fiscal health (which, by the way, would barely be affected by the fence anyway). He does it because he believes - I'd say, knows - that it will put a serious damper on illegal immigration from his country which is in his government's interests.

By the way, I don't know of very many people who are claiming the fence is a "solution", quick-fix or otherwise. But all indications are that it will be a significant help.

I don't think you're getting my point. The fact that La Raza and the Mexican government and so many other political forces that have an interest in maintaining current levels of illegal immigration are so fervently against the fence, is evidence that these people think it would be effective. There's no other plausible reason why they'd get so worked up over it. President Calderon doesn't issue his declamations against it because he's concerned about our fiscal health (which, by the way, would barely be affected by the fence anyway). He does it because he believes - I'd say, knows - that it will put a serious damper on illegal immigration from his country which is in his government's interests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4992328.stm
(see map at bottom)

A great deal of the border will still be open.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...=image&cd=3

And some of that part of the border is topographically green.

I'm sure the fence takes away some of the current best places to cross, but it certainly does not encompass the entire border.

That the Mexican government is opposed to its creation, is no sufficient sign that it would be effective. The Mexicans were just as adamantly against the construction of the last fence, and it certainly didn't put much of a dent in illegal immigrant numbers.

We, as an employer in Mexico, play a very small role in their economy. In any case the responsibility for the citizens of Mexico lies with the government of Mexico NOT the US. And that government has consistently done squat about their poverty issues. As a result Mexico now depends on money sent back to Mexico from illegal aliens. It is the second largest industry in the whole country.

I saw a documentary the other day done in Mexico showing whole towns nearly empty because most of the people had gone (illegally) to the US. A survey taken reveals fully 80% of the poor in Mexico would come to the US if they could.

The US should not be asked, or be willing to support the poor of Mexico especially at the expense of our own workers. Nocountry in the WORLD puts up with this degree of illegal immegation and we need to STOP IT now.





This is absolute nonsense. There are millions of people who would love to come to this country. We can have all the workers we want. That’s what the immigration quotas are for. What we don’t need, and get from Mexico> are uneducated illegal workers who sent most of their wages home (to the tune of a bout 17 BILLION a year) and live off our services.

below from 2002 - higher $$ now

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:
• Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

• Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).


http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Okay- I have made my point about going after the employers- but those numbers you gave here I really don't give a rat's fanny about- ooooooo- a whole 29 billion? What is that? One week in Iraq? One jet?

I mean- 29 billion is all it costs? I don't care one whit about that number, when we have wasted 1 trillion on Iraq, and have spent 3 times that number just on keeping haliburton execs rich. Or Cheney rich- same thing

Really- with the way we have wasted money on Iraq, NCLB, Homeland (in) security, drug bill, etc etc- the worst possible argument is 29 billion.

Ted, I gave sources for all my data. Did you even bother to read it? Ill just point out some of the highlights of the Bell Policy Center's study. According to that study, the fiscal impact in the US of immigrants by type of household in 1994 (in billions of dollars) breaks down like this:

Immigrants only: +$32.4 in overall fiscal impact, +$28.2 federal impact, +$4.2 state and local impact

Immigrants + children less than 20 yrs. old: -$13.3 overall, +$16 federal, -$29.3 state and local

Immigrant + all children: +$29.5 overall, +$48.5 federal, -$19.3 state and local

Immigrants + all children + grandchildren: +$23.5 overall, +$50.9 federal, -$27.4 state and local

The fact of the matter is that there are several studies that indicate that immigrants as a whole, legal and illegal contribute significantly to the federal government. I find any study that tries to determine the effects of illegal immigrants highly circumspect simply because you cannot dtermine that without knowing the numbers of illegal immigrants. Sadly, because they're illegal, we will not be able to ever fully realize how they effect our spending. However, it can be noted (as I already have) that there are several studies that prove the exact opposite you have. Additionally, I would suggest reading (as I already have) Immigrant America: A portrait. Additionally, the New York Times published an article in 2005 saying that illegal immigrants contribute about $6-7 billion dollars in Social Security. This is money that undocumented immigrants will not ever be getting back, but is helping out many Americans.

And as for the US companies' impacts on the Mexican economy...Please go and read what I posted previously. I mentioned the Border Industrialization Program, which was supposed to help Bracero workers' readjust back in Mexico, but instead poverty actually increased in the towns that participated. Additionally, NAFTA has severely limited Mexico's competitiveness, and it has hurt rural farmers. The substition policies that are used to "liberalize" an economy tend to leave many farmers without work, because their products are now imported. This leaves many rural farmers without any means to live. To say that US policies don't affect Mexico's is evidence of an extremely lack of understanding of how economies work. There's a very intricate web woven between the two economies, and it's difficult to say exactly how one affects the other, but I would say that they are still linked. Henceforth, if one economy does well (ie, the US), then so does Mexico's.

[/quote]This is absolute nonsense. There are millions of people who would love to come to this country. We can have all the workers we want. That’s what the immigration quotas are for. What we don’t need, and get from Mexico> are uneducated illegal workers who sent most of their wages home (to the tune of a bout 17 BILLION a year) and live off our services. [/quote]

No, this is nonsense. According to Walter Ewing (reference below), the fertility rate among native citizens is decreasing and by 2020, we will be below the "replacement" level of 2 chlidren per couple. The Congressional Budget Office (2005) predicts that as baby boomers reach retirement age, most of the growth in the labor force will stem from immigrants and their children. This includes illegal immigrants. Since 9/11, we've severely restricted the number of immigrant/work visas that employers are allowed to ask for. This means that many people who may have entered the country legally on a work visa can no longer obtain a legal way to enter the country. They know the work is still there, and they are forced to enter the country illegally. An article in the Washington Post details how fields are going unharvested due to lack of workers (presumably, a large portion of the workers are undocumented):

.

link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000422.html

So, again. We are dependent on immigrants, legal or not. About 1 in 7 workers (40%) are foreign-born. Restricting access to work visas for fear of terrorists (none of which have ever been caught on the Mexican border...ever) creates more illegal immigrants. The US's immigration quotas are arbitrary, and are mostly skewed in favor of Western Europe. So using the quotas is a poor excuse for why we should build a fence that doesn't even go across the entire Mexican border.



What does this have to do with why I think it's ineffective? I can't answer for La Raza or the Mexican government; however, I did provide evidence that supported my own point of view.

To add one more consideration re the second question, well, who is more likely to make revolution, the poor and despised, or the middle class and the rich? The mc and the rich, and surely business as well, simply want stability, as all else can be planned for and otherwise taken into account. If they could get away with giving bus tickets and inflatables to all those in Chiapas making revolution, they'd do so in a heartbeat [with the bus ticket to get the bus to take them near the border and the inflatable for the subsequent amphibious landing].

On our side, we'd have no problem if they had a reason to stay. The crux of the matter is simply that we enjoy our standard of living at the expense others, so it's either status quo indefinitely or we stop living at the others' expense and so give them a reason to stay.

Lastly, the remarks about the Mexican farmers' strike me as odd, since even with the serf's pay here, I cannot see how the local Mexican farmer cannot find a market. His labor cost can't be higher than that of the serf's here and he has a lower transportation cost [in every sense, from the cost of gas, maintenance on the vehicles, insurance, etc.]. That's otherwise why we gave the Philippines a special import deal on their agricultural products in exchange for us having a rather unlimited access with respect to our industrial output, i.e., we knew that we couldn't compete with the Filipino peasant in their local agricultural market but could dominate the field otherwise, since the Filipinos had no real industry and the special allowance made us "equal" with the Filipinos and gave us a leg up on the rest who were not so favored, and the hit to us wasn't otherwise so bad, since the Filipinos still had to get their produce to market here with the added transportation cost. I have never read NAFTA cover to cover, but I would suspect a deal along similar lines to that described with respect to the Philippines [if I had industry and they didn't, I'd be all for "free trade"]. The Japanese learned the lesson, as they too made their own deal with Mexico. And so the Japanese get some cheap Mexican food and they also get to sell their Sony Playstations in Guadalajara with no incoming tariff. Just the recipe to stunt local industrial development, as it has and continues to do in the Philippines. And this author wonders why there is no fruit yet on the tree:

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=675

Just the recipe and so that noted huge deficit with no real improvement in local industry [or as stated, no real diversification of markets, i.e., continued agriculture and no real industry]. The answer for the Mexicans is simple, though not without pain. They do restrict access to allow their industry to develop, and if they don't have the technical knowledge and expertise, they go abroad to learn and they invite people in to teach them and then send them home when the lesson is learned.

Next, that noted disparity in income. If Mexico is anything like the Philippines, the disparity is owing to just who owns the land. While certainly not definitive, the following tends to confirm my suspicion:

http://www.mts.net/~gcg/resources/latam/index03.html

In addition to the trade deal, our other singular failure in the Philippines was in not dealing with the entrenched landed oligarchy. Now by way of point of clarification re that trade deal, true, great deal for us, but we were claiming to be the guardians of our "little brown brothers" [as Taft referred to Filipinos on occasion] and so our duty was their best interest and not our self interest. The law calls what we accomplished, self-dealing and a breach of the trust relationship.

So my suspicion here is simply that some of those in power, more than a few, simply want to rid themselves of the class/element most likely to stage that landed oligarchy ending revolution, and for the cherry on top, since the landed obligarchy is still very much in agricultural mode, some FTAs will do just fine as well, and so no suprise that Mexico is in the lead in that regard.

Sorry, one more. The problem with obtaining market diversification is simply, well, it's easier to beat skulls and send the message than it is to risk all by switching from sugar to semi-conductors, so why bother? And you even get a nearly clean conscience, since there's no real need to do the dirty work yourself, as some on the poor and despised side can be bought for purposes of brutalizing their own. And so the cruel irony here is simply that while those advocating this liberal immigration say that it works to their good, it doesn't, since while it allows us to fill the noted labor need, it does little to end the disparity in land ownership and accompanying income back at home. A little revolution might be in order, but wait, the revolutionaries are picking our fields...

The thing with Mexico trying to liberalize it's economy is that it has started to rely heavily on import substitions. The theory is that Mexico can easily produce some things (such as avocados, limes, or whatever). There for Mexico invests heavily to create these markets, at the expense of eliminating other products. In theory, other countries are producing those products cheaper than Mexico; therefore, Mexico should simply obtain those products from other countries. The problem with this is that small farmers who were selling those products are no longer able to sell them competitively. Additionally, Mexico has cut government subsidies to agricultural workers, and it has disbanded the elijido (don't know if that's the exact word...can't remember how to spell it) system, which was a communal form of land ownership. Both of these things (import subsitition and disbanding elijidos) has left rural farmers with little resources.

Actually that is 10 billion for 2002. The point is that we LOSE by having these folks here and of course not mentioned is the cost of lost jobs for real Americans, overload in the healthcare and education areas etc. All these issues multiply the “real cost”. Dems want to raise the min wage and illegals do nothing put push them down for the people who need the work the most. And to you its ok??? I don’t get it.
I agree we should go after employers – in a BIG way. This would, as you say, solve the problem – which of course is why it may not happen.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty2.htm


http://www.theamericanresistance.com/artic...t2004jan04.html


1994? Come on please. Look at current data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug25.html


http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...ssuecentersf134

And it boggles my mind that anyone can support illegal immigration. Outside of the obvious security issues and even if you were willing to absorb the costs, crime, lost jobs etc. it’s just not RIGHT. If we need more alien workers the way to do it is let more in legally NOT allow anyone to just cross the border.

And I'm still wondering how it possibly could have been that fencing off a whole three-fourths of 1% of the border didn't stop illegal immigration right in its tracks.

(that was sarcasm, by the way)

This proposal (assuming it gets funded), will fence off a much larger portion of the border, and make it easier for the Border Patrol to do their jobs. And every mile that gets fenced will bring us that much closer to getting the entire border fenced, which is definitely what Mexico City does not want.



And I provided evidence against it. You may choose not to concern yourself with the views of La Raza or the Mexican government, but they nonetheless do constitute evidence of how they see the situation. And I'd wager that they have more complete knowledge of the situation than you do.

As for your evidence, you stated that people will continue to cross the border it despite the fact that it's difficult. They may try to, but that doesn't mean they'll be sucessful, as the border gets more tightly controlled. There's simply a limit to what they're going to be able to do, just as there's a limit to the ability of people in countries even poorer than Mexico to get into the U.S., no matter how badly they want to.