Thread: Mending De-Fences

http://www.howestreet.com/story.php?ArticleId=1901

January 9 2006

Greg's note: Here's another heaping mouthful of wellthunk vitriol from Jim. Today he tackles the "Mexi-fence" - the prospect of erecting a physical barrier between Mexico and America. He talks about illegal immigrants' effect on the American economy, how illegals benefit Mexico, and then he starts his discussion of "National soul" which he will finish in the second part of this essay. As usual, please send you opinions to your trembling managing editor here: greg@whiskeyandgunpowwder.com

Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Jim Amrhein
Baltimore, U.S.A.

Mending De-Fences, Part I

"Love your neighbor; yet don't pull down your hedge." -- Benjamin Franklin

IN A RECENT CNN Internet poll, 87% of respondents supported the building of a security fence along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexican border.

In case you didn't know, proposals for just such a measure are being bandied about by politicians and advocacy groups even as you read this. Estimates of the cost range from around $1.4 billion dollars for a simple (yet no doubt effective) wall similar to a garden-variety highway sound barrier all the way up to a double-fenced, barbed wire-and-ditch affair reminiscent of Israel's troubled borders that could top $8 billion to construct…

To put this in perspective, prosecuting a single month of the Iraq war costs around $4 billion, and to bolster the existing Border Patrol sufficiently to be as effective as such a fence would likely be could cost as much as $10 billion annually, according to pro-fence advocate groups. Currently, the Border Patrol operates on a roughly $1.4 billion annual budget, and employs more than 12,000 people to patrol our borders ineffectively.

Is the cost worth it? To me, it's a no-brainer, especially in the post-9/11 world.

However, to install such a fence would likely mean NOT expanding the Border Patrol, a goal the current presidential administration has pledged to achieve -- and one that any politician worth his salt would recognize as a surefire way to be able to say he (or she) created new jobs, increased income tax revenue and bolstered our nation's security. These are talking points a politician from ANY party would have trouble passing up on. Building such a fence does none of these things, except in the very short term, during its construction. Aside from this, a fence around the Land of the Free is a grating image for many to imagine. It just seems so un-American…

But does that mean we shouldn't do it?

Israel's fences have reportedly cut terrorist attacks by 95% in some embattled areas. And one new San Diego-area fence -- a mere 14-miler -- has already dramatically slashed the number of illegals crossing in one high-traffic area, Border officials say.

Does a Fence Make (Dollars and) Sense?

I probably don't have to tell you that the illegal immigration issue is rapidly coming to a head. In fact, it may be shaping up into the marquis issue in coming national elections. A recent Rasmussen poll (comprised of an equal percentage of Republicans and Democrats) indicates that 75% of Americans feel that a candidate's stance on illegal immigration is either "somewhat" or "very" important to them in presidential and congressional elections. And of course, I probably don't need to tell you that there are compelling arguments on both sides of the equation…

Those with a hard-line stance on the matter are quick to cite:

· The abundant crime among illegals (Example: 95% of all L.A. homicide warrants are against undocumented immigrants)

· The rampant drug traffic facilitated by the lax U.S./Mexican border (an estimated 75% of the country's illicit drugs come through this unplugged hole)

· The tremendous burden on the health care system (confidentiality laws prohibit alerting authorities to the millions of illegals that receive medical care)

· The millions, maybe billions, of dollars in lost tax revenue (illegals suck up wage money, yet most pay virtually no income taxes on it).

However, others are quick to remind us that illegals (those who are working, that is, and not just here to sell narcotics or cash in on the free health care) help keep costs down in many industries vital to the economy -- like the farming, construction, custodial, child care, housekeeping, hospitality, landscaping, shipping, day labor, and other businesses. All told, this fiscal impact is significant…

Some financial analysts predict that if the flow of illegal immigrants from the south were all of a sudden to dry up -- or if all of those currently working in this country were to be rounded up and deported overnight -- the U.S. economy would be thrust into an instant recession. They maintain things like:

· The housing market (bubble) would stall as the cost of new home construction skyrocketed in the absence of off-the-books tradesmen

· The price of food and groceries would explode as the No. 1 source of cheap, seasonal agricultural labor evaporated

· The expense of travel and lodging would soar if custodians, maintenance men, and porters would have to be documented U.S. citizens

· The price of dining out would balloon as many of the restaurant industry's kitchen workers headed south -- along with their employers' balance sheets

· The cost of shipping would skyrocket as dock-workers' unions monopolized their industry while cheap loading and package-handling labor disappeared.

I've been conflicted in the past about this issue myself. Some pro-illegal immigration advocates make convincing cases that illegals bring far more to the party than they take away. And as the debate shapes up, we'll no doubt hear even more about whether fencing off our border with Mexico really makes sense from a dollars-and-cents standpoint.

But I, for one, have already concluded that it does -- even if it doesn't. Keep reading and you'll learn exactly what I mean…

The New Rio Grande -- of Dinero!

Whichever side of the immigration "fence" you're on, it's easy to see that the whole situation's a Catch-22, a quagmire -- one in which there are no easy solutions. One thing's for sure, however: The problem won't just go away. The rate of invasion by illegals has grown exponentially over the last decade, and if it keeps up at its historical rate, America could conceivably be peopled with more illegal immigrants than bona fide citizens in just another few decades or so…

This is the possibly unavoidable condition that has many people arguing whether illegal immigration is a boon to our economy or not (the fact that it's blatantly contrary to our Constitution and other laws seems rarely to come up). The rationale behind this, I guess, is that if the trend can be shown to be beneficial in some way, the fact that it's philosophically and legally repugnant becomes a less important consideration.

Be all this as it may, I've become convinced that on the balance, illegal immigration is much more of a drain on America than a boost to it. The latest evidence of this came from current Mexican President Vicente Fox -- as he denounced recent proposals in the United States calling for the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Reuters and other sources, Fox called the proposal "disgraceful" and claimed that such security measures would violate immigrants' rights (whatever that means -- how can noncitizens have rights?).

Keep in mind that Fox can't be re-elected next year, so there's no direct political hay to be made by actively resisting border security. So why would he speak out like this? The only possible reason is simply that he knows exactly what side his nation's "bread" is buttered on. Obviously, he's far more aware than the average American elected official of the millions -- more likely billions -- in U.S. dollars that flow back into Mexico from illegals paid under the table sending money to their families south of the border. It's a new Rio Grande of south-flowing cash, and Fox doesn't want it to dry up because no more of Mexico's sons and daughters (especially pregnant ones) can make the jump…

Keep in mind that all of that American dinero is propping up Mexico's economy, enabling (relative) prosperity without a single additional penny being expended by the Mexican government for business assistance, infrastructure development, social programs, or aggressive re-engineering of the commercial climate toward production and profitability -- ostensibly the goals of NAFTA and other trade policies. In short, every U.S. dollar that flows into Mexico without being in exchange for a good, service, or commodity weakens our economy, while doing nothing to spur our southern neighbor's advancement into the First World and ultimately into a position where more substantial and meaningful trade agreements might be forged (especially for oil).

Harsh as it is to say, it's like giving money to a derelict: As long as he can sustain himself on donation money, he has no incentive to clean up, straighten out, and start producing on his own.

Oh, and by the way, all this is not to mention the fact that Fox is exporting a huge chunk of his crime problem to the "greener" pastures in America. Mexico's drug thugs aren't stupid -- they know there's way more profit to be made on their wares in L.A. than in their largely dirt-poor homeland. This is a large part of the illegal immigration equation. Tales of brazen, rifle-toting "coyotes" (drug runners) appear more often in the news with every passing month. In many areas along the border, ranchers, miners, and property owners are afraid to venture out onto their own lands--especially after dark. According to some articles I've read, the nightly traffic of both human and narcotic cargo is so heavy in some zones that the trash and debris they leave behind is becoming an environmental hazard.

When you think about it, doing nothing about illegal immigration to the United States (except facilitating it) is an ingenious play on Fox's part: His six-year legacy will very likely include a period of reduced crime and increased GNP as more and more American dollars sent home flood the Mexican market. In fact, according to an article in The Miami Herald from last week, Fox is so concerned about keeping the border open that he's hired the same Texas PR firm that helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the Texas governorship in 1994 (and clandestinely won Fox his own election) to help favorably "spin" the immigration issue on the Hill and in the American public's eyes…

But all numbers, spin, and arguments aside; if the fact that a corrupt foreign president vehemently supports it isn't evidence enough that illegal immigration is bad for America, I don't know what could be. It's all irrelevant, though. Whether the presence of illegals favors America's bottom line or not -- even if they clearly and indisputably benefit our economy -- illegal immigration still shouldn't be allowed…

So what do we do about it -- besides building the fence, that is?

I've got some ideas, and most of them revolve around one core concept that seems to elude most everyone nowadays: an American national identity.

Soul Drain in the Land of the FREE

It wasn't all that long ago when America still had a strong sense of national identity -- a national soul, if you will. We were a people that would bear the burden, time and again, no matter the cost. A people who fought for and believed in fairness and equality -- even if it meant turning our entire system and way of life upside down (which we've done time and again).

It was this vision that attracted immigrants -- they came here to be the best they could be in a place that would allow them to hold onto their own strengths, beliefs, and desires while assimilating into a greater singular identity they could take pride in. They came here because this kind of self-determination simply was not possible anywhere except in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. Since this nation's beginnings, we've been known as a diverse and eclectic people who were united in a common support of the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and the esoteric idea of the American Way.

That "Way," as I see it, is to mine the strength our diversity invests us with to find solutions to the problems that have plagued or defeated other societal models through the ages. In other words, to bring together the best of what those who seek to become truly American have to offer into one democratic system that works (and it does, for the most part). The innovation, gumption, ingenuity, idealism, toleration and sacrifice it takes to achieve this end IS our collective identity, our national soul…

But I wonder: Is this still the case?

Is our national identity as perceived by those who hope to join us -- either as naturalized citizens or as border-hoppers -- still this same timeless ideal? Is America still the place to come to be the best you can possibly be, to change your stars and be part of something truly great? Or has America simply become the place to find comparatively high-paying employment, suckle up the benefits that only the Land of the FREE offers, score a cheap world-class education, or perpetrate crimes while basking in the protection of a system that holds sacred the sovereignty of the individual?

Think about it: If illegal immigrants were flooding across our southern border to take part in the great experiment in democracy and equality that is America -- to literally become American -- why aren't they all making a beeline to their local INS office to start the process for legal naturalized citizenship? Why aren't they walking up to Border Patrol agents waving white flags and asking for asylum?

In Part 2 of this essay, I'll tell you why I think our national soul and the idea of the American Way are dying, and how it's affecting the immigration picture. I'll also talk about some ways I think we can restore our national identity -- and make it once again something foreign people will aspire to achieve for themselves, even if it means risking everything…

After all, those are the kinds of immigrants that made our country great, and the kind that will continue to do so tomorrow -- if we don't lose (or sell off) the soul of America first.

Until then -- defending what's de-fence-able,

Jim Amrhein
Contributing editor,
Whiskey & Gunpowder

http://www.howestreet.com/articles/inde ... le_id=1987

Greg's note: Here's Jim's second - and final - missive on the fence potentially cauterizing America's Mexican border. As you would expect, he again unloads both chambers, leaving fresh powder burns on the backside of our index fingers. Below, he surmises that a surprising amount of Mexican GDP originates from illegal immigrants and criminal border activities. Then he illuminates eye-opening reasons why Los Presidentes GW Bush and Fox refuse to stop the dense influx of illegals pouring through America's Southern Border. Finally, he redefines the word "community" - and his twist seems better described ad "co-unity." Jim's solution rings revolutionary and unique, so please send your barefoot managing editor any opinions right here: greg@whiskeyandgunpowder.com


Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Jim Amrhein
Towson, U.S.A.

Mending De-Fences, Part II

"Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul." ~

Theodore Roosevelt, 1915

In the first installment of this series, I debated with myself about a topic hotly debated nowadays in the media, the blogosphere, and the government: The construction of a security wall along the U.S./Mexico border to reduce rampant illegal immigration…

To recap a bit, various plans for such a barrier have been proposed, ranging in cost from roughly $2-8 billion -- at most, about the same money as it takes to prosecute the Iraq war for two months or so. And although polls indicate that 87% of American citizens support the wall, it remains to be seen whether any 2008 presidential candidate has the cohones to embrace the idea as a plank in his campaign platform. After all, such a plan is likely to cut jobs (both menial labor posts and government positions, like in the Border Patrol and INS), stall large segments of the U.S. economy, and invite all sorts of the most vehement vitriol in the media.

Also in Part I, I briefly explored some of the likely reasons why Mexico's President Vicente Fox seems so dead set against such a plan. One would think he'd want to keep as many ambitious, able-bodied people as possible inside his country's borders to fuel the growth and development he's always promising (and that the United States has passed legislation and ratified trade agreements to help ensure). Despite all this, Mexico's economy remains virtually joined at the hip with America's, since we buy almost 90% of its exports. Our respective GNP growth has been a virtual mirror image for years.

Why hasn't resource-rich Mexico blossomed into prosperity of its own, you're asking? Because we're paying them not to…

Here's where things get dicey for me with regard to Fox and his motives (and for that matter, President Bush's motives, as I'll soon explain).

Subsidizing Stagnation, Corruption, and Crime

In Part I of this essay, I likened the prodigious flow of cash back to Mexico from illegal immigrants in the United States to a "new Rio Grande of dinero." I also equated this river of money to giving cash to a derelict -- it enables only a bare-minimum existence in continued impoverishment, while doing nothing to push meaningful change that benefits all concerned. And while this comparison drew the ire of some readers, I stand by the analogy. In fact, in researching Part II of this essay, I found out just how on target I was about the "rio de dinero." Consider:

· $15 billion southbound dollars -- much of it from illegals -- forms one of Mexico's largest sources of "legitimate" revenue

According to the Inter-American Development Bank, more than $30.1 billion is remitted to countries south of the border by Latino immigrants in the U.S. If even half of this money is destined for Mexico (it's likely far more), this $15-plus billion yearly revenue stream rivals Mexico's largest single source of revenue -- oil, at roughly $21 billion in 2004 (IEA estimates). Immigrants' dollars sent home blow away tourism's $10 billion in Mexican revenues. There's another source of cash that's even bigger, but nobody's talking about it…

· Revenues from crimes perpetrated by illegals likely funnels another $20 billion or more into Mexico every year -- off the books

According to Wikipedia, as much as 25% of Mexico's GDP comes from crime. Depending on how you calculate GDP, that totals up to between $175-250 billion. Drug trafficking is, by far, the largest single source of criminal revenue, and of course, a large percentage of these drugs are destined for the United States. Using even conservative numbers ($200 billion in crime-related Mexican GDP, 50% from drugs, with only 60% of sales coming from the United States), it's still no great stretch to conclude that at least $60 billion in American cash is making its way into Mexico per year from illicit drug sales. Exactly how much of this cash flow is facilitated by illegals would be hard to pin down. But since they're surely used as border-runners, drug mules, dealers, or enforcers more often than legal Latino immigrants, it's safe to estimate that illegals must facilitate at least $20 billion worth of the Mexico/U.S. drug trade every year. And it's probably far more…

Now are you starting to see why Fox is reluctant to shut the door between the United States and Mexico? If you had a $40 billion river of cash flowing into your country every year that dwarfed the top two or three other sources of revenue, would you want to dam it?

Fox isn't alone, either. According to an Associated Press article from Jan. 10, diplomats from not only Mexico, but also Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Belize, and Panama gathered to demand that the United States institute "guest worker" programs -- and that we grant legal status to all undocumented workers currently in the United States. In other words, mass amnesty, if not instant citizenship, for an estimated 11-13 million illegal immigrants…

Again. The United States already granted illegals amnesty in 1986 -- and six more times since!

Will this be America's great solution to the illegal immigration problem -- to every few years render them all legal with the stroke of a pen? Yeah, that's a real disincentive to hop the border…

Interdiction Contradictions

President Bush is singing the same tune as many of these foreign diplomats -- at least as far as the "guest worker" song goes. And he's completely zipped lip against the rising American chorus of "build the fence!" My question is why?

To hear his staffers tell it, fighting terrorism is both the Bush administration's No. 1 priority and its greatest collective success (again, that's what they're saying). Yet clearly, a 2000-mile stretch of insecure border invites not only illegal immigration, but terrorism as well. Besides this, immigration control is a major Republican issue -- and this is an election year. If Bush wants his party to retain control of Congress, he's going to have to "dance with what brung him," so to speak…

And Bush is a Texan, for Pete's sake! If anyone should have a hard-line stance against the flood of illegals into America, it's someone whose own neighbors are fearful of being outside after dark on their "home on the range" because of all the crossborder drug and human traffic -- especially around Laredo and points west.

So again: Why leave the back door open? What's it gaining our president to ignore this invasion -- and the wishes of 87% his constituents? More importantly, what would it lose him to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from the south?

A lot of people think it's about courting the American Hispanic vote -- a surprisingly receptive demographic for the GOP. But the data don't universally point to this conclusion. In fact, it may point to just the opposite. According to a September 2001 Zogby survey, twice as many Hispanics claimed they'd be less likely to vote for Bush in 2004 if he supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In another survey, conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a majority of native-born Latinos were against granting illegals drivers licenses (something 11 U.S. states already do). These factoids contradict the conventional wisdom that Hispanics will vote for whatever policies afford the greatest rights and access to their countrymen -- legal or not.

Others think Bush is reluctant to slam the door because of the depressive effects a sudden lockout and crackdown on illegal immigration might have on certain labor-dependant segments of the American economy -- like the construction, custodial, restaurant, and shipping businesses. Since he's been hyping his whistle-past-the-graveyard economic agenda (manipulate rates, borrow more than you can pay back, save nothing, spend into oblivion), he doesn't want to do anything that might cause a slowdown -- or a waking-up to the fiscal realities he's furthering. The last thing he wants is to cause an economic downturn that'll mar his already checkered legacy.

There's surely some validity to this point, but I don't think it's the real reason he's not taking stronger measures to stop illegal immigration…

Bush: Waiting out a $500 Billion Catch-22?

When you think about it, President Bush is in a real jam over immigration -- a bona fide Catch-22, in fact -- one that's not completely of his own making, yet one he's nevertheless stuck with, unless he can Band-Aid the problem until the next poor schmuck arrives in the Oval Office (that's probably his plan). Here it is:

If he does what the vast majority of Americans want him to -- namely, build a fence and start deporting or imprisoning illegals -- he cuts the Mexican economy off at the knees, depriving it of 20% or more of its GDP (the $200 billion or so I mentioned earlier). And although that might ultimately be what's best for Mexico, since it would force the nation to somehow take meaningful steps toward self-development and a more forward-looking economic policy, in the short run, it would likely breed utter bedlam. Such a move might trigger a true mass invasion of desperate northern-bound migrants with nothing to lose.

As ill-equipped as we are to manage the current illegal immigration situation, that kind of human tsunami might well and truly sink us economically. Here's what I mean:

Based on National Academy of Sciences calculations from the year 2000, the lifetime fiscal impact of the average adult Mexican immigrant on the U.S. economy -- that means the estimated dollar value of taxes paid versus services used (remember, few illegals pay much in taxes, yet qualify for many benefits, including medical) -- is negative $55,200.

Let's just say there are 10 million illegals in the United States right now (there are more, though). That's over $500 billion lost right there. This money would pay for the entire Iraq war, in all likelihood. Can you imagine what the long-term impact of an additional 20 million or so illegals would be -- especially if they arrived here practically overnight, on the heels of the announcement of a full-scale U.S. crackdown on illegal immigration and driven by the hope of eventual amnesty?

Another possible reason for leaving the border open occurs to me, too (though it's probably a bit far-fetched): oil. If the United States keeps Mexico dependant on the Stars and Stripes for its prosperity -- either by calculated policies of economics or simply by luring away everyone with a little bit of ambition -- we maintain the leverage to force the most favorable trading terms on their reserves of oil (the world's 12th largest). And by thus keeping their growth relatively stagnant, we ensure that the country as a whole barely develops at all, and therefore has little use for its own oil, which means more for us…

So what if the tide of illegals makes America a bilingual, stratified, identity-less welfare nation in the process? At least we'll be able to drive, right?

But if we slam the door on Mexico, it'll likely sell all its oil to China (like Canada's getting ready to do). This, we cannot afford, the Dick Cheneys of the world would claim.

Dreamers Dream, Talkers Talk -- While 40 Million Mexicans Prepare to Walk

Utopians say the solution is to create growth and prosperity in Mexico, so that Mexicans won't want to leave. In theory, this is a good approach, and was one of the main goals of 1994's NAFTA. But what has happened since that agreement? The number of illegals entering this country has exploded exponentially…

Two reasons for this: First, the rampant corruption and crime in Mexico (remember, it's as much as 1/4 of their GDP) stymies any real attempts at business development and growth, NAFTA or not. Second, even if NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade arrangements were to work exactly as planned in an ethically pure bureaucratic environment (the "perfect world" scenario), it might still be decades before real wages in Mexico approach those available just a short hop across the border. This is simply the reality, and the lure of higher wages is simply too tempting.

What's needed is not more ways to clear the way for Mexican prosperity, but for us to force prosperity on them -- not by rolling in and toppling the corrupt government (though that could work, too), but by eliminating the principal disincentive that keeps Mexico from prospering as a nation: Access to the United States.

How seductive is this "disincentive?" Well, if the 11-13 million illegals already here (many estimate it's more like 20 million) aren't proof enough for you, consider this: Four out of every 10 adults in Mexico claim they'd migrate to the United States if they had means and opportunity, according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey. This means that more than 30 million more Mexican citizens would emigrate to the United States if they could.

So clearly, a few extra border agents and some rhetoric from Bush and Fox aren't going to solve the problem.

Opponents of a wall or fence along our southern border claim that it won't be effective. Yet in zones where walls and fences have already been tried along the border, they work.. And as negative as this analogy may be, the Berlin Wall worked pretty well, too, as I remember. But even without statistics or historic examples pointing to the efficacy of a border fence, common sense tells us that a barrier of some type will work better than nothing at all. Even a 12-16-foot wall like the kind used nationwide for highway sound barriers -- which could be built for less than $2 billion -- with cameras mounted on it (now that would be some surveillance I could get behind), coupled with the existing Border Patrol, would surely just about lock things up. It would have to help, at least, and it would surely be a better use of money than simply expanding the impotent, catch-and-release Border Patrol…

Those whose sensibilities are offended by the idea of a walled-off America often tout the virtues of a national ID card. They say it's cheaper than a fence and accomplishes the same purpose: denying illegals jobs and benefits (it wouldn't do this without federal laws prohibiting employment, medical coverage, driving privileges, etc. to noncitizens). The ID card simply becomes a way of instantly proving citizenship.

As I've said before (Whiskey & Gunpowder, May 10, 2005 ), I think a "papers please" state would be a step in the wrong direction -- even if such a plan would undoubtedly help sort out who's here legally and who's not. Do we really want to resort to a system that scans our credentials every time we go anywhere, buy anything, or seek medical attention? Do we really want to grant the federal government the power to collate and examine all of that information under the auspices of safeguarding our citizenship?

I, for one, would gladly trade the unpleasantness of a fenced-in nation and a few years of deportations for the knowledge that everyone I see on the street, in the park, on the job, or on our nation's highways is a citizen by natural birth or legal immigration (which I believe is the engine of American excellence, by the way) or a soon-to-be citizen via naturalization. In fact, I'd pay just about any price to achieve that goal -- to get to a place where everyone in the country is protected by the same rights and bound by the same laws. Where everyone belongs.

Bona fide citizenship is the only answer to this. Not inventing classes of subcitizenship like "guest worker." And certainly not by looking the other way as our nation is overrun by people who, by virtue only of their presence within the borders, get most of the benefits (like medical care), privileges (like driving), and legal protections (like constitutional rights) of citizens -- yet who bear virtually none of the burdens of taxation, civic responsibility, or even the task of being American…

It's a bad dream we need to wake up from. Now.

America: Land of Community -- Not Just Opportunity

In Part I of this essay, I broached the subject of our "national identity." Some readers gave me a little bit of a hard time about this, and others wanted to know more about what I meant. First, let me tell you what it isn't: Our national identity isn't a skin color. It isn't a religion. It isn't a set of moral values. It isn't even a political system…

Rather, like Teddy Roosevelt said, it's a state of the soul -- one that's proud to have achieved Americanism and that puts America first, regardless of place of birth or prior nationality.

It's a common language (yes, English), a basic knowledge of America's history, and a competency in its civic mechanisms. It's a duty to fight, if needed. It's a pledge to abide by American law. It's a responsibility to pay taxes even if they aren't fair, to submit to American democratic processes -- and to participate in them. All these things are part of the existing legal immigration policy, by the way.

This "American Way" is NOT simply a series of hoops to jump through to get all the free goodies. It's not a meaningless pledge you hold your nose and take before setting up your own miniature version of your former nation. Does this mean leaving all that's great about your home country behind? No. The American nation owes its greatness to the diversity immigrants through the ages have bought with them…

It just means a desire to achieve naturalization and a commitment to true assimilation.

It used to be the people emigrated here to become American. And even though these people were of various colors, backgrounds, and beliefs and spoke with differing accents, they all united in their desire to become part of an American community. Now, it seems, many only want access to American opportunity. So how do we get back to a place where immigrants become Americans instead of simply being foreign nationals living in America?

In theory, it's simple: First, we stop the flow of illegals with walls, laws, or whatever and deport or detain those already here. We have the laws in place and the ability to do this, if not the will. Second, we start actually enforcing the existing rules of naturalization -- like fluency in the lingo, knowledge of the laws, basic civics (there are pages worth of these guidelines). Then we stop facilitating immigrants' ability to NOT be American. We establish an official language (there's no amendment against this) and print all our signs and documents in that language only. Third, we stop allowing illegal immigrants access to the perks and benefits of citizenry -- things like confidential medical care, drivers licenses, welfare, public schooling, employment, etc. We make it so there's no advantage to coming here through any but the legal channels…

In other words, we once again make it a challenge to become a naturalized American. The net effect of this will be the pride inherent once having done so. This very sense of achievement is what would form the foundation of true Americanism absent in so many immigrants, legal or otherwise, in this day and age. This is how we get back our national identity that has been steadily eroded over the last 40 years -- the "soul" and "spirit" of Americanism Roosevelt was referring to.

Would doing all this be a challenge? Yes. Would things get worse before they got better? Probably. Will it be exponentially harder (if not utterly impossible) to do it tomorrow? Undoubtedly. That's why we must suck it up and do it now -- whatever the cost…

If we don't, America will soon be no longer, and never again, a place anyone of quality aspires to emigrate to.

Defending what's sensible -- and what's fence-able,

Jim Amrhein
Contributing editor
Whiskey & Gunpowder

Originally Posted by Brian503a

http://www.howestreet.com/story.php?ArticleId=1901

January 9 2006

Greg's note: Here's another heaping mouthful of wellthunk vitriol from Jim. Today he tackles the "Mexi-fence" - the prospect of erecting a physical barrier between Mexico and America. He talks about illegal immigrants' effect on the American economy, how illegals benefit Mexico, and then he starts his discussion of "National soul" which he will finish in the second part of this essay. As usual, please send you opinions to your trembling managing editor here: greg@whiskeyandgunpowwder.com

Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Jim Amrhein
Baltimore, U.S.A.

Mending De-Fences, Part I

"Love your neighbor; yet don't pull down your hedge." -- Benjamin Franklin

IN A RECENT CNN Internet poll, 87% of respondents supported the building of a security fence along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexican border.

In case you didn't know, proposals for just such a measure are being bandied about by politicians and advocacy groups even as you read this. Estimates of the cost range from around $1.4 billion dollars for a simple (yet no doubt effective) wall similar to a garden-variety highway sound barrier all the way up to a double-fenced, barbed wire-and-ditch affair reminiscent of Israel's troubled borders that could top $8 billion to construct…

To put this in perspective, prosecuting a single month of the Iraq war costs around $4 billion, and to bolster the existing Border Patrol sufficiently to be as effective as such a fence would likely be could cost as much as $10 billion annually, according to pro-fence advocate groups. Currently, the Border Patrol operates on a roughly $1.4 billion annual budget, and employs more than 12,000 people to patrol our borders ineffectively.

Is the cost worth it? To me, it's a no-brainer, especially in the post-9/11 world.

However, to install such a fence would likely mean NOT expanding the Border Patrol, a goal the current presidential administration has pledged to achieve -- and one that any politician worth his salt would recognize as a surefire way to be able to say he (or she) created new jobs, increased income tax revenue and bolstered our nation's security. These are talking points a politician from ANY party would have trouble passing up on. Building such a fence does none of these things, except in the very short term, during its construction. Aside from this, a fence around the Land of the Free is a grating image for many to imagine. It just seems so un-American…

But does that mean we shouldn't do it?

Israel's fences have reportedly cut terrorist attacks by 95% in some embattled areas. And one new San Diego-area fence -- a mere 14-miler -- has already dramatically slashed the number of illegals crossing in one high-traffic area, Border officials say.

Does a Fence Make (Dollars and) Sense?

I probably don't have to tell you that the illegal immigration issue is rapidly coming to a head. In fact, it may be shaping up into the marquis issue in coming national elections. A recent Rasmussen poll (comprised of an equal percentage of Republicans and Democrats) indicates that 75% of Americans feel that a candidate's stance on illegal immigration is either "somewhat" or "very" important to them in presidential and congressional elections. And of course, I probably don't need to tell you that there are compelling arguments on both sides of the equation…

Those with a hard-line stance on the matter are quick to cite:

· The abundant crime among illegals (Example: 95% of all L.A. homicide warrants are against undocumented immigrants)

· The rampant drug traffic facilitated by the lax U.S./Mexican border (an estimated 75% of the country's illicit drugs come through this unplugged hole)

· The tremendous burden on the health care system (confidentiality laws prohibit alerting authorities to the millions of illegals that receive medical care)

· The millions, maybe billions, of dollars in lost tax revenue (illegals suck up wage money, yet most pay virtually no income taxes on it).

However, others are quick to remind us that illegals (those who are working, that is, and not just here to sell narcotics or cash in on the free health care) help keep costs down in many industries vital to the economy -- like the farming, construction, custodial, child care, housekeeping, hospitality, landscaping, shipping, day labor, and other businesses. All told, this fiscal impact is significant…

Some financial analysts predict that if the flow of illegal immigrants from the south were all of a sudden to dry up -- or if all of those currently working in this country were to be rounded up and deported overnight -- the U.S. economy would be thrust into an instant recession. They maintain things like:

· The housing market (bubble) would stall as the cost of new home construction skyrocketed in the absence of off-the-books tradesmen

· The price of food and groceries would explode as the No. 1 source of cheap, seasonal agricultural labor evaporated

· The expense of travel and lodging would soar if custodians, maintenance men, and porters would have to be documented U.S. citizens

· The price of dining out would balloon as many of the restaurant industry's kitchen workers headed south -- along with their employers' balance sheets

· The cost of shipping would skyrocket as dock-workers' unions monopolized their industry while cheap loading and package-handling labor disappeared.

I've been conflicted in the past about this issue myself. Some pro-illegal immigration advocates make convincing cases that illegals bring far more to the party than they take away. And as the debate shapes up, we'll no doubt hear even more about whether fencing off our border with Mexico really makes sense from a dollars-and-cents standpoint.

But I, for one, have already concluded that it does -- even if it doesn't. Keep reading and you'll learn exactly what I mean…

The New Rio Grande -- of Dinero!

Whichever side of the immigration "fence" you're on, it's easy to see that the whole situation's a Catch-22, a quagmire -- one in which there are no easy solutions. One thing's for sure, however: The problem won't just go away. The rate of invasion by illegals has grown exponentially over the last decade, and if it keeps up at its historical rate, America could conceivably be peopled with more illegal immigrants than bona fide citizens in just another few decades or so…

This is the possibly unavoidable condition that has many people arguing whether illegal immigration is a boon to our economy or not (the fact that it's blatantly contrary to our Constitution and other laws seems rarely to come up). The rationale behind this, I guess, is that if the trend can be shown to be beneficial in some way, the fact that it's philosophically and legally repugnant becomes a less important consideration.

Be all this as it may, I've become convinced that on the balance, illegal immigration is much more of a drain on America than a boost to it. The latest evidence of this came from current Mexican President Vicente Fox -- as he denounced recent proposals in the United States calling for the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Reuters and other sources, Fox called the proposal "disgraceful" and claimed that such security measures would violate immigrants' rights (whatever that means -- how can noncitizens have rights?).

Keep in mind that Fox can't be re-elected next year, so there's no direct political hay to be made by actively resisting border security. So why would he speak out like this? The only possible reason is simply that he knows exactly what side his nation's "bread" is buttered on. Obviously, he's far more aware than the average American elected official of the millions -- more likely billions -- in U.S. dollars that flow back into Mexico from illegals paid under the table sending money to their families south of the border. It's a new Rio Grande of south-flowing cash, and Fox doesn't want it to dry up because no more of Mexico's sons and daughters (especially pregnant ones) can make the jump…

Keep in mind that all of that American dinero is propping up Mexico's economy, enabling (relative) prosperity without a single additional penny being expended by the Mexican government for business assistance, infrastructure development, social programs, or aggressive re-engineering of the commercial climate toward production and profitability -- ostensibly the goals of NAFTA and other trade policies. In short, every U.S. dollar that flows into Mexico without being in exchange for a good, service, or commodity weakens our economy, while doing nothing to spur our southern neighbor's advancement into the First World and ultimately into a position where more substantial and meaningful trade agreements might be forged (especially for oil).

Harsh as it is to say, it's like giving money to a derelict: As long as he can sustain himself on donation money, he has no incentive to clean up, straighten out, and start producing on his own.

Oh, and by the way, all this is not to mention the fact that Fox is exporting a huge chunk of his crime problem to the "greener" pastures in America. Mexico's drug thugs aren't stupid -- they know there's way more profit to be made on their wares in L.A. than in their largely dirt-poor homeland. This is a large part of the illegal immigration equation. Tales of brazen, rifle-toting "coyotes" (drug runners) appear more often in the news with every passing month. In many areas along the border, ranchers, miners, and property owners are afraid to venture out onto their own lands--especially after dark. According to some articles I've read, the nightly traffic of both human and narcotic cargo is so heavy in some zones that the trash and debris they leave behind is becoming an environmental hazard.

When you think about it, doing nothing about illegal immigration to the United States (except facilitating it) is an ingenious play on Fox's part: His six-year legacy will very likely include a period of reduced crime and increased GNP as more and more American dollars sent home flood the Mexican market. In fact, according to an article in The Miami Herald from last week, Fox is so concerned about keeping the border open that he's hired the same Texas PR firm that helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the Texas governorship in 1994 (and clandestinely won Fox his own election) to help favorably "spin" the immigration issue on the Hill and in the American public's eyes…

But all numbers, spin, and arguments aside; if the fact that a corrupt foreign president vehemently supports it isn't evidence enough that illegal immigration is bad for America, I don't know what could be. It's all irrelevant, though. Whether the presence of illegals favors America's bottom line or not -- even if they clearly and indisputably benefit our economy -- illegal immigration still shouldn't be allowed…

So what do we do about it -- besides building the fence, that is?

I've got some ideas, and most of them revolve around one core concept that seems to elude most everyone nowadays: an American national identity.

Soul Drain in the Land of the FREE

It wasn't all that long ago when America still had a strong sense of national identity -- a national soul, if you will. We were a people that would bear the burden, time and again, no matter the cost. A people who fought for and believed in fairness and equality -- even if it meant turning our entire system and way of life upside down (which we've done time and again).

It was this vision that attracted immigrants -- they came here to be the best they could be in a place that would allow them to hold onto their own strengths, beliefs, and desires while assimilating into a greater singular identity they could take pride in. They came here because this kind of self-determination simply was not possible anywhere except in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. Since this nation's beginnings, we've been known as a diverse and eclectic people who were united in a common support of the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and the esoteric idea of the American Way.

That "Way," as I see it, is to mine the strength our diversity invests us with to find solutions to the problems that have plagued or defeated other societal models through the ages. In other words, to bring together the best of what those who seek to become truly American have to offer into one democratic system that works (and it does, for the most part). The innovation, gumption, ingenuity, idealism, toleration and sacrifice it takes to achieve this end IS our collective identity, our national soul…

But I wonder: Is this still the case?

Is our national identity as perceived by those who hope to join us -- either as naturalized citizens or as border-hoppers -- still this same timeless ideal? Is America still the place to come to be the best you can possibly be, to change your stars and be part of something truly great? Or has America simply become the place to find comparatively high-paying employment, suckle up the benefits that only the Land of the FREE offers, score a cheap world-class education, or perpetrate crimes while basking in the protection of a system that holds sacred the sovereignty of the individual?

Think about it: If illegal immigrants were flooding across our southern border to take part in the great experiment in democracy and equality that is America -- to literally become American -- why aren't they all making a beeline to their local INS office to start the process for legal naturalized citizenship? Why aren't they walking up to Border Patrol agents waving white flags and asking for asylum?

In Part 2 of this essay, I'll tell you why I think our national soul and the idea of the American Way are dying, and how it's affecting the immigration picture. I'll also talk about some ways I think we can restore our national identity -- and make it once again something foreign people will aspire to achieve for themselves, even if it means risking everything…

After all, those are the kinds of immigrants that made our country great, and the kind that will continue to do so tomorrow -- if we don't lose (or sell off) the soul of America first.

Until then -- defending what's de-fence-able,

Jim Amrhein
Contributing editor,
Whiskey & Gunpowder

I use to like Mexicans,I loved to talk to them and learn about the Art`s and culture, how they lived,now I don`t.
I don`t care for anyone that say`s to me"We are going to TAKE something from you".......Like you country.
Thanks to "bush" a people I once liked,I no longer like.Again! thanks to "bush",people that once liked me,no longer do.