Sunday, October 26, 2008

The Constitution-free zone






Via the Reason blog: The 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte established an exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing the federal government to establish roadblock checkpoints within 100 miles of U.S. borders to stop people and search for illegal immigrants and smuggling.

The ACLU notes that 190 million people live within 100 miles of U.S. borders, providing this helpful map. (Although Lake Michigan is entirely within U.S. boundaries, by treaty Canada is allowed full navigation rights to the lake--so it's not clear if that 100-mile boundary would actually be as in the ACLU's map around Lake Michigan.)

There are currently 33 checkpoints in operation within the boundary area. Here's some video footage of one of them in Arizona:


(Via Checkpoint USA, which has numerous videos of interactions at one of these temporary checkpoints.)

29 comments:

Reed said...

A few months back I was waved through such a checkpoint while visiting Texas.

But then again I'm white and probably didn't meet any of their profiling criteria.

Eamon Knight said...

Oh, is that why there are often checkpoints on the I-5 north of San Diego? By "often" I mean, almost every time in the last 25 years that I've driven that way, which is like half-a-dozen times. Of course, usually being there in the middle of winter, we're bleached-out Canadians (we probably look albino to the cops), who could never be suspected of being Mexican, so we just get waved through.

Jim Lippard said...

I got stopped and had my car searched just north of El Paso in 1992 on the way to the CSICOP Conference--I had long hair at the time.

I've often had to stop at the Highway 85 checkpoint in the Organ Pipe National Monument north of Lukeville, Arizona on the way back from Rocky Point, where we're asked if we're U.S. citizens, then waved through upon a "yes" answer.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Is the law on immigration of no effect?

Wait--don't answer that. I know the answer.

The reality is that of all great powers in history in the Modern Age, we have the most lax and laughable "border" sitation.

The good news is that we no longer even have to worry about having schoolkids draw a border on pieces of paper in Geography class.

Why bother?

The bad news--where to begin is hard to pin down for best effect--is that the ACLU has had little comfort to the hundreds of Americans killed, injured, kidnapped, or muscled out of work by the flood of immigrants who have basically turned us into a large parking lot.

Jim Lippard said...

Your claim that the U.S. has the most lax borders (or open immigration policies) of any major modern country is not correct. Movement of labor is more free between EU countries, and Singapore has a more open guest worker program, for example.

Your claim that a wave of immigrants has turned the U.S. into a giant parking lot is ludicrous.

Do illegal immigrants commit more crimes than native-born and legal immigrants?

Wakefield Tolbert said...

More importantly, one might ask the people on the border who live in fear for their lives. The effect is not evenly spread, and I'd dare say that small towns like Hemingway SC don't get the full monty as much as, say, Dallas, or Phoenix. But yes, there is a rash of crime that can be quantified at about 25 killings a day from illegal immigration, not to mention insurance scammery and social security fraud and the immense costs of social services that are legitimate and on the books (i.e.-anchor babies)

I can ask aquaintances of mine, who never used to piddle with guns but now have learned the fine honed art of high powered weaponry. People who live in fear on the border. Or just abandon their homes and split.

As a proportion of the population, I have no direct or concrete proof that illegals commit more crime overall than the compatriots in the US. The stats vary according to whom you ask. Though my guesses usually serve me well on such things. Here in Atlanta, my current location, there is in point of fact quite a bit of ugly activity that happens on a regular basis due to illegals. From crime to gangs to dope lords and of course the lower level holdups at ATM's, I'd say a damn good guess is we're in the running to justify owning a handgun. In my own profession this is a wise choice.

VDARE's site no doubt has sterner stats than those of Bill Moyers' site NOW. But why pile on? Polar bears don't kill humans all that frequently either. But if one showed up in Richland County, SC, you'd bet that the animal would be dead or captured before the 6 PM news hit. I promise you.

What if the creature were "merely" killing, say, 25 children a day on the way home from school?

Is this an acceptable loss factor?
If these cutie pie fuzzy wuzzy polar bears were merely expensive to maintain and merely killed a few people a year, would that be a better gig?

The law is the law. And even if the local society is nuts and deadly, I'd say its not a good mix to toss in the help from people not even legally here.

Other nations like Singapore, who have lax borders don't have to suffer the same demographic dynamics on this issue.

Though having said, it depends on what the Euros deal with in the particulars. With Islamic immigrants, many of these are legal, and for those who're not, there IS much consternation about the effects on social policy. There, as here, the stats so far demonstrate easily that when it comes to handing out the usual health care, housing, feeding, and various other social service abuses, illegals are a net loss on both societies. It is an unholy alliance of corporate greed and Democratic need for increased welfare and social service dependency (hence, the garnering of a new set of default potential voters after a time) that creates this. While Europe is certainly lax almost to our extent, they are also taking a second look at immigration. In their case, the issue is also cultural, but there is a concern of social identity and terror as well. The sophisticates on both sides of the Pond can natter about the need for Multi-Culti, but neither culture can feed and clothe the Third World. In fact, this condition harms illegals as well in the long run. I don't blame them for their plight nor their desire to get work. That is understandable. I've been to Mexico and it is ridden with poverty and desperation as well as murder and mayhem, and now the drug lords are basically bending local laws their direction. The rash of beheadings on the border and now the kidnapping of Americans on this side of the fence as well as the older tradition of killings of their own is being brought to the forefront more and more every day.

However, by taking in these teeming millions, the harm we do is we SHIELD their own governments and economies from making the requisite changes necessary to actually make their homelands better. Where is the cutoff line? How far can this go? Environmentalists actually get into a whinefest about "sustainability" issues in the richer local economy and social services. If this is spread even thinner among non-citizens, how does THAT improve our lot?

Insanity, at best.

Let's hope stem cell research can help our politicians grow a backbone at some point.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

PS--

A "guest worker" program like Singapore's would be interesting to examine. It has a more offical flair to it (as one would expect from an semi-authoritarian government like Singapore's) anddoes not sound the same as "someone who happens to cross the border unimpeded."

In my understanding, "guest worker" means you are in a foreign locale legally.

One can claim we have need for such on occasion. Even Australia has this. But for the most part for Down Under, you have to demonstrate WHO you are, why you are coming there, and YOUR contribution to that society. That is more than fair. You can't just show up one day uninvited to the Aussies. Good for them. They understand you can't house and feed the whole damned planet.

We can justify a guest worker program in some highly selective situations where local expertise is not found. But do we need millions of people to trim lawns and clean golf courses when the larded fannies of teens in this nation could do quite well in that area?

Wakefield Tolbert said...

According to many studies, illegals commit more FELON type crimes. And more VIOLENT crimes.

That's a distinction here that means something against a general population that gets nailed for a wider variety of "crime" and incarceration that is a wider swatch of naughtiness.

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html

http://uscitizensrights.org/crimesbyillegals

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/10/06/illegal-immigrants-commit-20-of-aggravated-duis-but-make-up-only-9-of-the-population/

http://icarizona.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-study-illegal-immigrants-commit.html

http://www.alipac.us/article3597.html

Jim Lippard said...

Your polar bear comparison is faulty--these are people, not animals. Their "crime" of illegal entry is a misdemeanor on a par with a speeding ticket; they come here to earn a better life. Those who commit crimes while here should be treated as criminals, but deporting eight million illegal immigrants would not only be detrimental to them, but to the rest of us--most of them are producing more than they consume, and adding value to the economy.

It is ironic that Arizona has passed various anti-illegal immigration propositions at a time when the economy is collapsing and many illegal immigrants have returned home due to lack of work here.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

The polar bear comparison was what to do horrid crimes ALREADY committed beyond just showing up at the border unannonced. The issue was not animals. However, it could be boiled down to animialistic behavior that of all the imports we need these days--this ain't one of them.

It was not just about speed ticket level violations. But KILLINGS. And yes, to the other query, illegals not only commit crime upon their very entry, they do seem according to some stats a higher level of the VIOLENT crime that plagues inner cities and now even the countryside. You made the distinction here as well, so I will too.

However--That illegal entry is a FEDERAL level crime and is in fact more serious than some speeding ticket analogy. Further, I'd say the murder of an aquaintance of mine is beyond traffic ticket comparisons and needing work. That's tough crap. Working or not, crossing the border should be a ticket back to Mexico. It IS VERY serious.

It taxes our resources to the breaking point when 20 million illiterate peasants set up shop unaccounted for. Grady Hospital in Atlanta is at the breaking point, as are ER rooms all over the nation. Elsewhere as to your prior query and claims, a few pointers.
Social services handouts in Cally are bankrupting the state, and the "anchor baby" situation is long term unsustainable. And the questions remains. First and foremost, if we are to handle 20 million peasants and try and feed and house and clothed them--why the hell not all of Mexico? What is the cutof line here? IS there one? Should this even occur to us?
Rather suspect, at best.

1) The issue with Singapore and Europe is very deceptive. "guest worker programs" are not on par with just simply showing up one day unannounced. First, Europe IS having numerous demographic and cultural problems. But that's another issue, though closely related. Second, the claim that "immigrants" make societies more dynamic as analogous to events in the past that built are nation are not exactly hitting the main points. Singapore is a city-state--and can't handle 20 million human beings begging for low skilled labor jobs and free food, housing, and medical care. That analogy was spurious. Also, Singapore's "guest" programs require some formality of legality. Most of that immigration in OUR past was LEGAL--and limited. You were scanned at Ellis Island for all manner of illness--some of which according to some physicians pals of mine are making a return after decades of apparent defeat in US hospitals. And those immigrants were FORCED to integrate into society. They did not get the teachers' unions' pitches of free bilinqual education and other forms of coddling. Third, on this very term "immigrant" it seems either you misunderstand the cross comparisons or mispoke. Immigration in and of itself is LEGAL. Showing up at the border per se is not. Those who wish to enter this nation need to demonstrate, as with Australia, why they are here and what their contribution to the society will be. This nation can't feed, clothe, and house the entire Third World if no reciprocity is in order. And we don't need 20 millinos roofers and restraunt workers. Nor do we need that many people to cleanse golf courses. The left has a very elastic agenda here. On the one hand that think its fine and dandy that these people are adding some kind of alleged "net" benefit to our economy (most unlikely) when it comes to holding down low paying jobs sweeping things up at Walmart or working in chicken processing plants. But the same group of critics thinks its wrong for Wal-Mart to hand out that "geared down" wage scale (the other result of wage depression--the market will handle only what it wills in the overall scheme of the offerings) and attack such organizations. But hey, that's now the market. 5 bucks an hour for snapping chicken necks. Hundreds of illegals just got busted at Columbia Farms chicken processing plant here in Columbia SC for violating Federal law. No doubt they just hired more. So yes, in answer to THAT query, this IS a Constitution free zone, but not in the way you posted. Moreover, it is just a LAWLESS zone period. With citizens getting nailed and raped and robbed and undercut in nuberous ways every day of the week. Every day. This information is suppressed, but my contacts at the Richland County Police department confirm the issues on a number of fronts about the dope and crime and other shinanigans being brought into the city.

The polar bear analogy is right on par. If a dangerous situation goes unabated, it can be nasty and horrific. And would not be tolerated. The criminal element first of all occurs in the blatant violation of Federal law that is nontheless simply unenforced in the current climate. And the idea that most will high tait it home is wishful thinking to boot. Some will. But the business community for its part has shown no interest in altering the wage scales, and the government community is now perched to even INCREASE the sumptious goodies handed out to illegals.

Either we are to honor our own laws before preaching about other level laws--or we'll just keep our mouths shut, prepare to integrate 20 million people to add to already busted and broke social services nets, and just erase the border. Why even bother then?

We'll "merely" monetorize the debt and raise taxes to 85% on everyone.
I suppose we could just Swedenize the tax structure. And some people think that's the path to prosperity. But more likely if we do that we'll discover what even the socialist Swedes have. They are not bailing everyone out, and there is an upper limit and what and whom is to be paid for, and even retract their immigration policies to something sane.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

PS--

A frind of mine looking over my shoulder who is in law enforcement just reminded me of another apropos analogy--identity theft.

And yes, more than a speeding ticket, ID theft if done stateside is a SERIOUS crime. Even had credit cards stolen?

Things mucked up? Illegals do this with almost every entry. Stolen SS numbers is a crime. Pretending to be who're you're not and cashing in then on societies social services and good will is a crime.


I take it this is a different horse of another color from legal "guest worker" programs of small city-states like Singapore?

Are 20 million of Singapore or even Europe's residents living off the fat of the land?

You example of Europe is closer to be contraindicative to what I said earlier. They ARE having some second looks there to--for more than one good reason. But even there I think that most of the Turkish and other immigrants are TRUE IMMIGRANTS--legal.

For all their faults--and mabe its too late for their fabulous social services handouts-the Euros are starting to clamp down on at least the Islamist immigration.

I meant to add earlier, that unlike the past of immigration, those immigrants were not allowed to remain in their own enclaves for more than a couple of generations. Few people would guess that I'm a combo of Irish and English and German all rolled into one. But I speak only English. Nothing else. See the difference?

It's an important one. In Arizona and elsewhere in the west, Latino and other organizations are openly now advocating a return of large portions of what is currently the US southwest to Mexico--with all cultural issues/results that implies.

"Constitution-Free Zone" indeed.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Wow--almost missed this one:

most of them are producing more than they consume, and adding value to the economy.



The sad tales--of which the world has many millions more, is not a keen basis for violation of law.


NOW: If by this you mean on the basis of holding prices down? In some cases, perhaps. Like Columbia Farms having chicken processors for 5 bucks an hour. Yeah--that makes chickens cheaper, and theoretically likewise in other industries this frees up spending money elsewhere. Say hello to the elastic agenda. How many labor unions and labor lawers have to look the other way for this to happen?

Hmmm.

But with all the lying doing on with illegal advocacy, since the usual cost to society in social services, crime, and other enforcement issues dealing with this fraud is about 30,000 dollars per "immigrant", I doubt there is any net benefit to society.

That is extremely counterintutive a statement.

Jim Lippard said...

"However--That illegal entry is a FEDERAL level crime and is in fact more serious than some speeding ticket analogy. Further, I'd say the murder of an aquaintance of mine is beyond traffic ticket comparisons and needing work. That's tough crap. Working or not, crossing the border should be a ticket back to Mexico. It IS VERY serious."

I disagree on illegal entry into the country; I agree regarding murder.

"It taxes our resources to the breaking point when 20 million illiterate peasants set up shop unaccounted for. Grady Hospital in Atlanta is at the breaking point, as are ER rooms all over the nation. Elsewhere as to your prior query and claims, a few pointers.
Social services handouts in Cally are bankrupting the state, and the "anchor baby" situation is long term unsustainable. And the questions remains. First and foremost, if we are to handle 20 million peasants and try and feed and house and clothed them--why the hell not all of Mexico? What is the cutof line here? IS there one? Should this even occur to us?"

That's an argument against welfare, not immigration.

"1) The issue with Singapore and Europe is very deceptive. "guest worker programs" are not on par with just simply showing up one day unannounced. First, Europe IS having numerous demographic and cultural problems. But that's another issue, though closely related."

The type of complaint made against, e.g., Poles immigrating to Britain, is similar to your objections about illegal immigrants from Mexico. Guest worker programs are different, but the volume of immigration and capacity for immigrant labor in the economy was the point of that comparison, rather than the legality. I'd rather see more legal immigration for the same reason I'd like to see drug decriminalization--it would help reduce the associated criminal activity that should legitimately be stopped, while not wasting resources on prosecuting victimless crimes where no party to the transaction has a problem with it except the government.

"You were scanned at Ellis Island for all manner of illness--some of which according to some physicians pals of mine are making a return after decades of apparent defeat in US hospitals."

The biggest cause of the resurgence of formerly defeated diseases is anti-vaccination nonsense prevalent among home schoolers and hippies.

"And those immigrants were FORCED to integrate into society. They did not get the teachers' unions' pitches of free bilinqual education and other forms of coddling."

We should have more bilingual education for our English-speaking children, and less of it for those who don't speak English.

"And we don't need 20 millinos roofers and restraunt workers. Nor do we need that many people to cleanse golf courses."

This shouldn't be for you or I to decide, but for employers to decide.

"But the same group of critics thinks its wrong for Wal-Mart to hand out that "geared down" wage scale (the other result of wage depression--the market will handle only what it wills in the overall scheme of the offerings) and attack such organizations. But hey, that's now the market."

It's a global economy, and if the jobs aren't here, they'll go somewhere else. The crackdowns on illegal immigrants in Arizona have recently caused some businesses to move across the border into Mexico.

"A frind of mine looking over my shoulder who is in law enforcement just reminded me of another apropos analogy--identity theft."

I agree that ID theft should be prosecuted.

"It's an important one. In Arizona and elsewhere in the west, Latino and other organizations are openly now advocating a return of large portions of what is currently the US southwest to Mexico--with all cultural issues/results that implies."

I see conservatives claiming this, but where's the evidence? What organizations are advocating this?

"The sad tales--of which the world has many millions more, is not a keen basis for violation of law."

I think denying people the ability to obtain employment in this country and dramatically improve their lives, when there are willing employers who want to employ them, on the grounds that they weren't fortunate enough to be born here is unethical.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

The biggest cause of the resurgence of formerly defeated diseases is anti-vaccination nonsense prevalent among home schoolers and hippies.

Well I don't keep up with the hippies. But for the homeschoolers, it is unlikely that is but a small, small, small, sliver of that group, which is at most a small percentage of, in turn, about 1.5 million children.

If these small percentage of kids are as socially isolated as some pundits claim, then there is little to worry about and in any case expose to the public school kids who are innoculated would result in obnoxious habits more often than antiquated diseases.

More likely you're going to get a host of disease from the border if these people are not scanned properly. That was the Ellis tradtition. The last time I got wretching sick in a small village called Ciadad Victoria put all doubts away about the health profile of our new.....guests...

Jim Lippard said...

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, so outbreaks as a result of those who don't vaccinate can also cause harm to those who have, as occurred in a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana--two people who had been vaccinated got the measles, along with 32 who hadn't been vaccinated.

Your getting sick in Mexico was more likely due to an unsanitary public water supply than to a human contact vector.

Einzige said...

...I got wretching sick in a small village called Ciadad (sic) Victoria put all doubts away about the health profile of our new.....guests...

This seems to say more about your health profile (not to mention your own tendency toward logical fallacy) than anything else.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

First of all, I stayed away from the water. But anything is possible. The point was that it is a nasty country where the vectors are numerous, and when the border is no better screen than the people coming in are for lack of political backbone or the alliance of alleged business needs and cultural awareness crapola, the carrying capacity of these vectors now comes northward.

Many things are in confluence here and only some of them are being corrected, like the overdependence in pediatrics units of anti-biotics to soothe anxious parents.

But along with this, more than one physicians has told me in so many words that their guest clientele is seeing the resurgence of diseases that used to be considered extinct.

At the very least, any sane policy, if we are justifying, as do the Australians, some special issue with some legal immigrants from time to time for very specialized skillsets, to screen them at the door.

That's just application of common sense.

As I said regarding the issue of crime, there is no need to pile on things if we already have problems at home. The search for some kind of "Cosmic" equality in all things need not apply to diseases we thought we conquered decades ago.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

PS--

Never, not ONCE. Not ever, have I been "stopped" in my own area for scans of illegals. Not once. Nor do I know anyone who has gone through this. I would welcome it. And so would the people who've gotten nailed at ATMs and by illegals smashed drunk who took their kids from them.

I realize, of course, in the search for Cosmic Justice, we need to bust a few heads to make the omelet. It need not be mine of my family's, however. This zone is just as prone to abuse by illegals and aliens as any in the nation. The police generally look the other way and serve to clean up the blood and put name tags on the deceased. That about covers law enforment in South Carolina.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

and siccing people says more about YOUR profile than you might imagine as well.


It's really kind of obnoxious.
And not germaine to anything here.

But feel free to go there.

However its spelled. I'm fine right here. And yes, others have gotten sick in such wretched places on the planet.

Einzige said...

And not germaine to anything here.

Actually, it was quite germane to my quoting of your text.

And yes, others have gotten sick in such wretched places on the planet.

Now, this is a perfect example of something that is not germane.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Of course it was germane to what we were talking about.

If others got sick, then it was not merely my allegedly lousy health profile that sent my to the porcelain god, and it demonstrated the vector could have been a numbers of paths.

I'm not going to be generally available until later in the week, but you're welcome to post away.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Einzige:

I don't typically get around to correcting people's English.

I quote much as I see and try to stay in context if possible. If you have the King's English on your side and your vision is better than my 42 year old eyes, then bully for you. Congrats.
If not, then not.

I have neither the time nor the inclination.

With few exceptions, I am extraordinarily busy, and must be one of those icky people the new Bambi administration thinks don't create jobs after all but nontheless can be prodded, cattle-like, to cough up the tax loot. So off to work I go this afternoon at last.

To those ends when I do have time to jot things down, I have to write quickly, and this particular laptop is my wife's at the moment (at home) and does not have a spellcheck. I can outtype most corporate admin. assistants but no doubt some things fall through the cracks in the screen.

Seeing that I have 100 things to do (yesterday, Sunday, being a rare 1/7 of the week exception and a must-needed fun break where I could piddle with online stuff and banter), and this is not even on list B-525, you'll forgive me for falling down on the job on grammar, as well as messing up our blog host's name. But overall I think I've done fairly well.

I don't like E-Z-Does-It quips, so I DO often go overboard on context--which all of life gives us. Quips can often be the equivlanet of saying:

"Lots of people end up dying in hospitals and ambulances--thus, its time to ban both."


Now as concerns rights being dependent on the needs of others, that general statement certainly was not "question begging" to me, since the point was that every situation in war and other horrific events is different, and we can't make some blanket statement about the rights of detanees without considering the full context and/or results of any policy. We now know that early release and lack of garnering information has let slip through several "insurgents" who've merely done the predictable thing and returned to the wonders of Jihad and the continuation of actions we might have found out about.
____________________________

My apologies also, to Mr. Lippard, on his name.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

(Mr. Lippard's comments in italics)

"However--That illegal entry is a FEDERAL level crime and is in fact more serious than some speeding ticket analogy. Further, I'd say the murder of an acquaintance of mine is beyond traffic ticket comparisons and needing work. That's tough crap. Working or not, crossing the border should be a ticket back to Mexico. It IS VERY serious."

I disagree on illegal entry into the country; I agree regarding murder.

"It taxes our resources to the breaking point when 20 million illiterate peasants set up shop unaccounted for. Grady Hospital in Atlanta is at the breaking point, as are ER rooms all over the nation. Elsewhere as to your prior query and claims, a few pointers.
Social services handouts in Cally are bankrupting the state, and the "anchor baby" situation is long term unsustainable. And the questions remains. First and foremost, if we are to handle 20 million peasants and try and feed and house and clothed them--why not all of Mexico? What is the cutoff line here? IS there one? Should this even occur to us?"

That's an argument against welfare, not immigration.

Indeed it is that also.

Nice try on the generalized, homogenized, plain-jane, term. Immigration implies LEGALITY. I am speaking primarily of illegal immigration, which properly should be called MIGRATION, much in the same way antelopes cross borders on the Veldt and Serengheti lands in search of food. You did not mention where the cutoff line is for handing out goodies to all the world. Where would that be?

We cannot maintain illegal immigration without these payouts and crime costs that, in addition to the social services costs, contribute to welfare issues. Even IF we allow for not condemning illegal entry in the first place. We are not about to allow millions of "guests" AND have them do the heavy and unpleasant work without accompanying benefits. The two ideas are joined at the hip---intertwined. How could they not be? See California's Proposition 187's flaming defeat on this one.

The migrants have bankrupted our hospitals, taxed the patience of our law enforcement people, who deserve a break from the calumny, and endangered our health profile far beyond spaced-out hippies worried about Thimerosal injections.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200604040747.asp

The costs will to continue to be astronomical. And only worsen at that. It's like one of those fundamental laws of physics--in this case, political inertia. A policy set in motion tends--like all "temporary" government programs (social security was to be this way), to STAY in motion.

As someone who works compiling stats in this area wrote me the other day:

"(A)t least half of the $890 billion in stimulus money from the Federal Government will be going to illegal immigrants and their families via construction, education, and medical spending. Please note that costs are immediate and long-term. "

Indeed. "Long-term" is anyone's guess, but we know it will be another vapor trail of zeros behind some other larger number, just like the current gallery of "bailouts"--regardless of the political climate to come.

As to the crime component:

According to Wikipedia, in a study from Edmonton and Smith, there are several reasons why the full extent of crimes committed by illegals is difficult to measure accurately, and probably underreported:

For many minor crimes, especially crimes involving juveniles, those who are apprehended are not arrested.

And only a fraction of those who are arrested are ever brought to the courts for disposition.[60]


Many illegal immigrants who are apprehended by Border Patrol agents are voluntarily returned to their home countries and are not ordinarily tabulated in national crime statistics.

If immigrants, whether illegal or legal, are apprehended entering the United States while committing a crime, they are usually charged under federal statutes and, if convicted, are sent to federal prisons.

Throughout this entire process, immigrants may have a chance of deportation, or of sentencing that is different from that for a native-born person.[60]
We lack comprehensive information on whether arrested or jailed immigrants are illegal immigrants, nonimmigrants, or legal immigrants.

Such information can be difficult to collect because immigrants may have a reason to provide false statements (if they reply that they are an illegal immigrant, they can be deported, for instance).

And the verification of these data is troublesome because it requires matching INS records with individuals who often lack documentation or present false documents.[60]

Noncitizens may have had fewer years residing in the United States than citizens, and thus less time in which to commit crimes and be apprehended.[60]

In 1999, law enforcement activities involving unauthorized immigrants in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas cost a combined total of more than $108 million.

This cost did not include activities related to border enforcement. In San Diego County, the expense (over $50 million) was nine percent of the total county's budget for law enforcement that year.[115]

A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has found that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime, most likely due to extensive smuggling activity along the border.[117]

On August 6, 2008, an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 137 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were illegal immigrants.

According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.[119]

Other examples abound, and are very easy to find. What we DO know is that about 30% of all Federal prisoners are in the United States Illegally in the first place, and their crimes are NOT having them linger there merely for crossing the border. For that issue, you simply get a court date to be sent back.

Now, if by "ethical"--your term below--we should open the doors to this flood of peasantry, then of course it goes without saying that the job levels they qualify for are not going to allow them to have a lifestyle that handles health and general social needs. So the difference of course is made up--absurdly especially in this bedraggled economy, when many are joining the ranks of the unemployed and catcalls are being made about the teeming uninsured--by the taxpayer. And no politician seriously advocates shutting this goodie valve off any time soon. Not a chance. It is like asking men to dig a hole in the ground, but disallowing them from using shovels, spoons, spades, and even their hands. It's what is called a metaphysical contradiction. It is an impossible sales pitch. The better answer is to reform the immigration policy to the point where entry is like that of how the Aussies do it. Rare. It should be investigated by official agencies, with a sworn affidavit from a business's legal team that can appear as a court document. Said Immigration agency at the FEDERAL level will verify the documentation that the business in question has highly specialized needs for a prospective immigrant's skillsets that are NOT easily available or undersupplied in your own nation. Rarely would this be the case. And rarely would this include illiterate peasants having the requisite skills. That needs to be the general standard. It has served other advanced industrial nations quite well.

"The issue with Singapore and Europe is very deceptive. "guest worker programs" are not on par with just simply showing up one day unannounced. First, Europe IS having numerous demographic and cultural problems. But that's another issue, though closely related."

The type of complaint made against, e.g., Poles immigrating to Britain, is similar to your objections about illegal immigrants from Mexico. Guest worker programs are different, but the volume of immigration and capacity for immigrant labor in the economy was the point of that comparison, rather than the legality. I'd rather see more legal immigration for the same reason I'd like to see drug decriminalization--it would help reduce the associated criminal activity that should legitimately be stopped, while not wasting resources on prosecuting victimless crimes where no party to the transaction has a problem with it except the government.

The Brits ARE having some problems with this. But the Poles are not that problem. The Islamists are. The Pole comparison is suspect due to sheer numbers lack of, compared to some others, and the nature of the issue at hand. Poland is not English, but their inhabitants have a closer relation to countryside ethics and religion and culture than Islamists hailing from a Bedouin faith. And the legality here IS the point in addition to the sheer volume. With Sharia Law now coming to Britain, I'd say they have some bigger cultural fish to fry than what the Poles like to eat vs. chips and fish at the local pub. And in France and other locales, you better not get caught on the Riviera beach wearing nothing but Ambre Solei while smooching your Infidel whore. Oh yeah--they got some issues. And more unpleasant ones than we have. They might be acting too late and saying things too late, like Dutch politician Geert Wilders has before he got in hot water, but more will come to his side in the coming years. We ignore cultural shift at our own peril. Ironic, really. Whether or not drug legalization and a more relaxed policy of immigration would reduce the resultant crime from the dope lords is questionable. Whatever the case about drugs, the very real social services consequences regarding millions of illegals feeding off the taxpayers is costly enough, and wasteful enough, and would not vanish into the morning mist due some general amnesty for them, or for legalization of dope. In fact, it could be made worse. And, it is not just about dope lords coming in. Issues not even directly involved with drugs are causing problems also.

We call them "gangs" in our "neck" of the woods. And drugs is not all they're up to on any given night of mayhem and shootouts with the cops and even private homeowners.

"You were scanned at Ellis Island for all manner of illness--some of which according to some physicians pals of mine are making a return after decades of apparent defeat in US hospitals."

Follow up: It is merely sound policy to scan all legal entrants to this society for illness. Not sure why that has to be a thorny problem, or why hippies domestically would have exotic diseases Third Worlders would not. That makes no sense. Even if scores of Americans were not vaccinated in childhood in recent years, for some of these ailments I'm guessing you'd have to have outside vectors to cause problems. The Native Americans never got measles (and none were inoculated in 1491!). Period.

Until the day Chris Columbus' men showed up.

It is exposure to outside sources where the immunological response is not honed to a particular virus, not lack of vaccination per se, that causes the problems.

I would agree, however, that children need at least a rudimentary but regular pediatric schedule of visits--whether public or other schooled--in order to create a shielding from what will no doubt be a riskier set of pathogens if trends remain the same. They probably will.

Likewise, on the other side of this transmission tube, we need to have more people at border stick some tongues out if we're to continue this trend in immigration.

"And those immigrants were FORCED to integrate into society. They did not get the teachers' unions' pitches of free bilingual education and other forms of coddling."

We should have more bilingual education for our English-speaking children, and less of it for those who don't speak English.

If the job markets of overseas work justifies that, then perhaps. As a teachers' union payoff and make work--no. Education in the border areas is unproductive enough.

Intensive courses like the MIBS program here at Columbia's USC can handle any prospective high-powered jet setter who travels abroad for business. They'll teach you German or Korean or Japanese in 8 months flat. This is not necessary for most interactions. If this WERE the case, then I'd demand more teaching of Korean, Arabic, Japanese, and the other languages not usually thought of in "bilingual" education but common contacts in my line of work. Usually not Spanish. The latter in the schools is usually done as make work (among other faddishness in the schools) for teachers, and to assuage the feelings of multiculturalist heavy hitters in the Southwest states. It is pitched as a way to help "integrate" the children of migrant workers, for the most part.

The language of this nation is English. There are cultural reasons for preserving this as well. It's true that what passes for multi-lingual for most Americans would not pass muster with your average Swiss chamber maid. But then, most of us have no need for that. English is understood the planet over by the elites. It is the language of our culture and nation and of international commerce and travel. Contra what Karl Marx wished, it is the elites and jet setters, not the common workers, who comprise the real "internationalists." The problem here is that the usual emphasis on bilingual education in this nation has been the claim that it better assimilates non-natives, a claim contradicted by history. Second, the advocacy seems to emanate from groups and organizations seeking a cultural identity within a larger one. Experience with other bilingual nations, like Canada, suggest a fracturing or splintering of a society on language and culture lines is a recipe for political trouble and (eventually) calls for separation to one degree or another. Historian Arthur Schlesinger warned against such, in that if a nation does not have a commonality of culture it is at high risk of fracture and division. Language is part of a larger cultural identity.

"And we don't need 20 millions roofers and restaurant workers. Nor do we need that many people to cleanse golf courses."

This shouldn't be for you or I to decide, but for employers to decide.

The free market returns! WOW!

I've missed her charm for so long these days. Perhaps you can send a memo to Bambi's administration about this special and earthshattering insight. (He apparently never got the other angry memos about market forces and not government being our guiding hand).

But if that's the case, they can just as easily pull the labor resources from the locals. They might not like it, but that's tough. Obviously, businesses go with the path of least resistance. It is union pressure, in addition to market forces, that has telephone employees making 50K a year for customer service jobs yickking on the telephone. Absurd, but there they are. Now, the contrast should not quite be so dire when it comes to manual labor and construction, and accounting for the fact that the social services pressures would be greatly reduced in any case if businesses paid more on the hour, paying a few cents more for lettuce or a very small hike in golf fees is worth the price. Employers would get around to getting the jive of this also. I've seen it before. As with so much else, they are more than capable of working within the law. They do it every day. Instead of 5 bucks an hour under the table and not reported and not taxed, we can not only increase our tax base with legitimate employment, but pay a couple of dollars extra on the hour. I take it that few Americans in this economy would shoo that offer away. Oh yeah--and say hello to more tax revenue as well. Can't discount that, now that government is supposed to do everything just shy of wiping our arses for us and bail out mortgages.

Besides, as Rich Lowry said, if we TRULY needed millions of poorly educated workers to fill in the gaps in chicken processing plants and cleaning golf courses, we have them already. Our public schools churn out bumper crops of that yearly. Problem solved.

Of all the imports we need, the poor of Latin America is no doubt the last on that list.
Having millions more feast on the benefits that some analysits think will amount to about 20-30% of the bailouts is not a good idea.

"But the same group of critics thinks its wrong for Wal-Mart to hand out that "geared down" wage scale (the other result of wage depression--the market will handle only what it wills in the overall scheme of the offerings) and attack such organizations. But hey, that's now the market."

It's a global economy, and if the jobs aren't here, they'll go somewhere else. The crackdowns on illegal immigrants in Arizona have recently caused some businesses to move across the border into Mexico.

Tough crap. But not all of them--right? The major "run for the border" in most states will still be a Taco Bell night out. In any case enterprising startups and others can take their place. Let them go; they aren't doing us much good anyhow. And could even help Mexico, which is the "ethical" thing to do. Right?

Or, you can change the game. Why not? The game gets changed all the time for the rest of us in the negative. How about change it to the positive: You could offer tax breaks to those that stay. We have the highest corporate taxation, after Japan and Britain perhaps, in the industrial world. Time for that to get nixed anyhow. Instituting something along the lines of a consumption-based Fair Tax was estimated by 20 economists after spending 20 million dollars and pouring over numerous studies, to probably yield 14 TRILLION (almost 5 times the Obama level Bailout Syndrome)in extra revenue returned to IRS tax ledgers when these businesses return home from the Cayman Islands and other tax shelters.

Now, in some border areas no doubt this is a simple matter of packing up machinery and heading southbound. We can't stop all of that. No. Maybe we shouldn't. But in some cities, like my own, and in places where I used to work that had manual labor as the main thing going on, after the INS raided the place, they quietly hired some country boys from small towns, with little advertising and little effort. Word of jobs gets around, has long legs, and moves fast. So it is myth that the permanent 5 dollar-an-hour job is going to be a feature of manual labor no matter what and that only illegals are willing to do it. And in any case, since the golf guys were willing to spend about 5 cents more for coffee at the pro shop and have their fees raised by a dollar or two a month, it suddenly became affordable when the law got involved. Which is exactly the issue.

I agree that ID theft should be prosecuted.

Good show.

Because that's one of the chief methods by which illegals abuse the system. In fact, this theft starts about an hour after they arrive across the border in some cases. When migrant workers end up getting busted for having an SS number that actually belongs to some old lady in Kansas who wonders where her SS checks went to, and handed out by one of the numerous fraud organizations set up to give these out, it needs to make the news more often. And in order to facilitate this, we'll need to find out who is who. And so much the easier to pick through the files when there are fewer files to pick over. Same for the phony shops in trailers with the phony state of South Carolina backdrops set up to hand out balonious state drivers' licenses.

"It's an important one. In Arizona and elsewhere in the west, Latino and other organizations are openly now advocating a return of large portions of what is currently the US southwest to Mexico--with all cultural issues/results that implies."

I see conservatives claiming this, but where's the evidence? What organizations are advocating this?

Several. But first, the happy fun time!

Nifty little site here has a pictionary of some things being advocated, as does the Zombie blog. Highly recommended when it comes to seeing how some groups really think.

Like Arthur Schlesinger said, we can't exist as a fractured nation of mini-nations for very long. There have been some multi-RACIAL societies that were successful, yes. But not multi-CULTURAL. That's another issue, and problem.

http://www.predatoryaliens.com/

Or, for even better visual dictionary advocacy of a "Nation Latino", and all that entails:

http://www.wehategringos.com/

Under the title of what might be termed La Reconquista, you might check out organizations like La Raza ("The Race"), a racist organization for brown people, instead of Whites. Check out also Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, and then perhaps move on to an organization called MEChA, or perhaps the concept of Aztlán. Of course, La Raza denies any advocacy of separatist movement of reconquest of the American Southwest, but their associations and statements belie this claim. They also deny the charges that they are actively involved in promoting illegal migration to the US and of aiding and abetting to that end. But I can attest that from their demonstrations in Atlanta and elsewhere, their advocacy of this--at least among their spokespersons--is rather strong. MEChA is a Latino student organization that actively seeks and pushes for a return of major portions of the US to Mexican sovereignty and culture. Ricky Sierra of the Chicano National Guard has exulted in the idea that whites will someday, in part due to low birthrates and in part due to being muscled out, be removed from the Southwest. Jose' Angel Gutierrez, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington and director of something called the UTA Mexican American Study Center, told a university crowd fairly much the same thing, adding only that he hopes they day will come when whites (sic)"shit their pants with fear" over the booming Latino nation.

Not politically powerful enough a form of advocacy, you might think? Not enough pull? Never underestimate social movements that begin in and around college campuses among the young and the impudent. The Bolsheviks did not start as a large group either. Neither did Mussolini's men.

One guesses that at the university level and with La Raza getting funding from numerous left wing advocacy organization, this is more than just the Corona talking while doing the Macarena.

The Mexican Consul General Jose' Pescador Osuna remarked in 1998 that de facto, what we are seeing via Mexican government policy is not just getting poor peasants a better life, but rather also "La Reconquista." California legislator Art Torres called Prop 187 (to cut off welfare to illegal aliens) "the last gasp of the whites."

Mario Obledo, president of League of United Latin American Citizens, and recipient of the Medal Of Freedom from then Pres. Clinton, has told audiences that California is destined to be another district managed by Mexico at some point. And that is some don't like it, they can take a hike. On that note, however, I might add that as California is the epitome of what happens when liberals run a state (into the gutter) most of your more well-heeled citizens of any color and certainly most businesses with any common sense not to pay confiscatory tax rates might high tail it out of there anyway....

Then President Ernesto Zedillo confirmed his belief in about the same, in essence. MEChA has its clarion call as the following:

(In El Plan), "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign (sic) Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the Bronze continent. " The slogan is "Por la Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." ("For our race, everything. For those outside our race, nothing.")

Meanwhile, on the border, the fear that has some nervous, and others pondering simply abandoning their homes due to lax law enforcement, is reaching crisis proportions. Daily confrontations are routine. Cattle are poisoned, fences cut, fires started to create distractions for border patrol units, and hundreds of cases of property destroyed or stolen continue to mount yearly. The Mexican army is showing its contempt and complicity in all this as well, with nightly incursions into US territory and assistance and maps and food and water stations paid for by them and various organizations now the norm on the path northward. Harassment and even murder of border residents is common. Adding some high tech dimensions to this, the Mexican army is also using jammers to bungle the transmissions and thus co-ordination efforts of Border Security agents. Nice.

Few other nations on the planet would tolerate this kind of disrespect. They would mount concrete walls with motion sensing .50 caliber machine guns at the border (which is not a bad idea, come to think of it), and pursue a more sane policy of "an as needs basis" in regards to legitimate immigration policy.

"The sad tales--of which the world has many millions more, is not a keen basis for violation of law."

I think denying people the ability to obtain employment in this country and dramatically improve their lives, when there are willing employers who want to employ them, on the grounds that they weren't fortunate enough to be born here is unethical.

The businesses you mentioned packing up to head south might make some inroads there. But, it is not the responsibility of the US to improve people's lives the world over. We don't have the resources for this anyhow. That's a fool's errand. Those nations the migrants hail from must be the ones to call the shots, economically. Money and talent have to be honed, developed, taught, and inculcated, and wealth is more a state of mind and innovation than some static resources the pols move around like pawns on a chess board as was the common thinking in the Middle Ages, when gold or land was held to be "intrinsic" value.

If we TRULY wish to improve things for us and the Third World, a few pointers: Both sides of the border would be better off if we cleaned our own house up, got rid of men like Bambi and his (oh, what was your word), "cronies" and radicals, and returned to the business of business with Americans placed at work. Then we could lead by a more productive--and less contradictory--example. No, our example would not work everywhere, and it would be Pollyannaish to think so. But it would work for SOME places. And that's a great start.

For ethics, we do far more damage to these societies, and to us, and our employers, and thus our long term economy and culture, and the people in this nation (who'd also be willing to work), by using our resources to have THEIR governments get absolved from taking the requisite steps to improve THEIR own economies. Socialism and malfeasance is all around, but we end up feeding their unemployables. Unbelievable. It's astonishing that we're losing our nation to this, and we're even having this discussion any more than if someone had told me we need to allow in 20 million beings who suck blood from people's necks and should be allowed to do so due to their being perpetually hungry, and they can't get the right blood type in their native lands.

We have 0-positive human, but their government and economy can only provide goat's blood. Etc. Northward ho!?

Free trade advocacy would help, of course, but allowing one third of entire other nations to march forward is absurd---and only delays the inevitable fall of those societies. Mexico is falling apart monthly. Economically and socially. Beyond this, there are cultural and health considerations not being met when it comes to our....guests, not even to mention the social services drain and the jobs outlook at a time when many Americans would be more than happy to work menial labor. The better bet is to do what hitherto has been regarded as Pollyannaish and trite, in exporting the ideas about free markets abroad and demonstrating (even at the moment our advice seems, not unfairly, a little contradictory now that Bambi has blasted capitalism as the scourge of Egypt) how market forces work. All the planet over socialism is the rule and yet all the world is clamoring to come here.

I guess on a positive note--sort of--is that after Bambi finishes polishing off what is left of market forces stateside, they'll be no where left to migrate to, and everyone will just go home...
But seriously, no, we can't ship 8 million people home all at once. Or 20 million (which is probably the closer figure at last estimation), with 500K--1 million new bodies hitting us every year. True. But we can stanch the bleeding at the border. And, we can deliberately make things difficult in the social services area and levy stiffer fines for hiring illegals. Most would leave on their own accord after numerous dry hits and failures at the local DMV or applying for Medicare or EBT (food stamps). One good stiff session with one of those clerks over at the Department of Motor Vehicles named Shakananiqua, who looks a prospective illegal with phony SS numbers in the eye, does that head-bobbing thing, and says "Sorry, honey child, due to the fact of the matter you ain't qualify", will put an end to that attempted scam.

That will dry things up quickly. It won't be discriminatory, either. The DMV here is South Carolina treats almost everyone that way.

The very fact that Mexico facilitates this to delay her own desperate need for reforming a corrupt government is all the more reason to stand firm. And WE can reform how many come in and under stricter circumstances to that end. This is a matter of principle and law. If the law is to be relaxed of altered, it needs to be an advocacy that is more than just "millions of people need a better life."

So does the whole world. But we only delay such aid by absolving other governments from making hard choices by taking on their poor. Allowing governments the world over to wallow in the same socialist muck long discredited by most honest economists, and disdained by the lowest level pragmatism of your average Romanian peasant, is far more hurtful than a closed border, or a demand for payment in kind. We could at least start cleaning our own house. After Bambi finishes trashing the courtyard and the kitchen of the nation's housecleaning, and sinking the Dow Jones to about 200 every time he opens his mouth, maybe we could turn over our hard learned experiences and lessons to others. THAT would be ethical.

Perhaps, after Barry gets done dissing our British allies in creative ways, in addition to removing legacies of that allegiance (like the removal of Churchill's bust from the White House as not being sufficiently multicultural), or paying yet more homage to Iran, Hamas, and Vladimir Putin, and then hiking fuel costs with his Carbon Crap, or saving the Maldives Islands and lowering sea levels, or maybe just hearing Michelle Obama declare her pride in America for the SECOND time in her life for being a millionairess next to the world's most powerful office, we can finally get around to the ugly economic and strategic realities that face our nation. The one major critique I have for BOTH sides of the aisle is that they (including Bush) conspired to have a Do-Nothing policy about this Unwanted Migration issue. While there are many legitimate issues with Bush, like your mention of Medicare being expanded to almost Democrat levels of desired entitlement (though their preferred path to socialized meds is a baby called S-CHIP), I think we can't discount his insistence that our "casa" is everyone else's "casa". Or that illegal immigrants do the "work Americans won't do" (also false). Or for that matter, Islam is a "religion of peace". Those were the most serious "Bushisms" of all--not the fact that he is probably dyslexic. (As am I).

But I have yet to see them collected by Jacob Weisberg over at Slate.

We are losing our nation, and we are losing our culture. Many on the Right might worry about this but have no solutions if they are in the business community. The Left of course sees this issue of Migration as an easy way to expand on what the Bambi administration seeks in the expansion of the FDR legacy--the use of illegals as a future voting bloc to outmuscle everyone else and thus place a lock on socialist policies and power. Many Democrats of my acquaintance actually brag that this strategy is more likely that not to work in the long run.

So this issue is less about compassion and "ethics" from well-meaning liberals than a hard nosed strategy to make sure that since the Left has locked up most media, Hollywood, universities, inner cities, and the public schools, the last segment up for grabs is the demographic ones. Since whites don't generally reproduce all that much other than a designer kid at age 39, this last one is almost a shoo-in. This falls well in line in the hand-out mentality in the current "bailout." The reality of which is a handout to every liberal group that has had its hand out for 40 years.

The "bailout" Porculous ("stimulus") is a punchlist of liberal causes. It has little to do with boosting the free market. The Illegal Migration issue is the demographic frontline battleground that assures the handout money/mentality is a permanent feature of the landscape, and that will assure liberals that power over us would be absolute. And you know it as well as I do.

Contrast this with the only disdain known in liberal circles for a Hispanic group--or ANY group, for that matter: The Cubans. Certainly for those with a distaste of that guy still clinging to life down in Cuba who looks like Bigfoot in Camo gear, and tend to vote Republican. Rather than make a noble production of Elian Gonzales, after his mother died at sea trying to bring him to a better life beyond all his homeland's "free healthcare" charm, this new "immigrant" to our shores, "yearning to be free", apparently either came into the wrong port, or more likely had the wrong kind of relatives with the wrong kind of voting record. The liberals and the media, under the watchful guns of Janet Reno--the provincial Duchess of Waco among other claims to fame--mocked his relatives, praised the tenacity of a sperm donor stooge often referred to as "Elian's Father", and knocked his tail back to Cuba so fast it could have warped the fabric of space time. It was perhaps the only time in history liberals (see Thomas Friedman, et al) praised a photo of a gun being pointed at the snout of a foreigner who didn't have his documentation in order. Fascinating.

Jim Lippard said...

Can you start by substantiating the claim that half of the stimulus money will be going to illegal immigrants and their families? Once you've demonstrated that, I'll be happy to carefully read the rest of your comment and reply.

In fact, why don't you hold off on posting any more multi-hundred-line comments here until you substantiate that assertion. Better yet, if you want to make a comment that long, post it at your own blog and just post a link here.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2009-03-08-immigrant-jobs_N.htm

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/economy/report-300000-stimulus-jobs-going-illegal-immigrants

http://washingtonindependent.com/32952/growing-furor-over-undocumented-immigrants-getting-stimulus-jobs

Oh--and you DID ask about the advocacy groups that pushed for this, and other goodies.

Well--there you were.

Jim Lippard said...

In support of the claim that *half* of the stimulus money was going to illegal immigrants, you cite a USA Today story that says that two conservative think tanks have estimated that 15% of the construction jobs created by the stimulus could go to illegal immigrants. The article also says that this could have been prevented if the feds required the use of the DHS E-Verify program, and goes on to list Arizona as one of the key states where construction jobs are likely to go to illegal immigrants. But Arizona already mandates the use of E-Verify, under the Legal Arizona Workers Act (ARS 23-214), which went into effect at the beginning of 2008.

I conclude that the evidence doesn't support the original claim.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

I realize there is some dispute over the math. Some dispute even the more modest figures you found and then as proof that the numbers are bad point the reader to links associated with the White House and its defenders on immigration policy. That larger figure came to me from an email from someone at an organization called ALIPAC.

I was not anticipating coming back here and found your response by accident when looking over some old email follow up notices that one can sign up for, so I might be SOL here until further notice.

Unfortunatley you have me at a loss as of this writing, as I looked at their site and could not find this mention other than a still rather large number of 300,000 illegals getting stimuls money due of course in large part to construction money.

I should have followed up with this individual before quoting part of his email and then losing the email (I think).

It is possible I can still contact this person and if that occurs I'll get back to you.

Nevertheless, 300,000 illegals, though disputed by some sources close quoting the White House's math, is still a large number in its own right, even no firm number is known about what this will cost.

AS to verification....well....there's more than one way to skin that cat.

Certain things are not legal in my own neck of the woods, but chances are high you can find workers at golf courses who cannot produce documentation here in SC.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Further:

Regardless of the numbers and the money, we need to cull this as much as possible.

This is an outrage at a time when things are getting sour by the hour and government is now pondering Stimulus Download 2.0, at least as a trial balloon, over frets about the economy. Regardless of what one thinks about this and the history of stimulus projects, we've got some problems in these porous borders not helping matters at a time when we might go to double digit unemployment.

It is not our duty or out ability to feed, house, clothe, and medicate a large portion of the world's disinherited and thus alleviate the need for their governing bodies to make vital internal economic reforms.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

I think what Paul Tarullo must have meant to say is that half of the stimulus money will go to projects that in some way either benefit or reimburse the services of illegal aliens.