What is the Real Reason the Government Refuses to Seal the Southern Border?

Arguably, the one issue on which the US public and elected officials are most disconnected from one another is the porous US-Mexico border, and the 11 million illegal immigrants who have migrated to the US through it. 

At least 70% of the US population wants the border to be sealed, and immigrants to, at the very least, come here through legal means.  Any politician who takes strong action on this matter is bound to gain tremendous popularity, from voters of both parties.  So why does nothing happen?  None of the popular explanations hold up, as there are just as many politicians, lobbies, or corporate interests that would oppose each as would support them.

1) The border is open because businesses want cheap labor. This cannot be, because illegals use hospital emergency rooms and trauma centers for free, without having paid taxes into the system.  This causes the cost of healthcare to rise, and premiums that corporations have to pay for their employee medical insurance rises.  These costs are huge, and more than offset any savings from being able to hire these illegals at low cost.  Corporations that don't employ many low-skilled workers, such as software companies or investment banks, would thus oppose this.

2) The border is open because 'of the Hispanic vote'.  This is obviously not the case, as in the 2004 election, Hispanics voted 39% for Bush and 61% for Kerry.  That would give the GOP, which controls both houses of Congress, a strong incentive to seal the border, if anything.  But they are making only minor efforts. 

Furthermore, the suggestion itself is derogatory to law-abiding, legal Hispanics, who certainly don't want illegal immigrants coming here any more than non-Hispanics do.  Do whites want illegals from Canada?  Do blacks want illegals from West Africa?  Then why would Cuban-Americans or Puerto-Rican Americans want illegal Mexicans to come here, just because of a common language (not even a common race, in many cases)?

3) The border is open because to seal it would be racism.  Vicente Fox has said as much, even though every single person of power in the Mexican government is white.  Fox has also said that Mexicans in the US do work that 'even blacks will not do'.  Mexican postal stamps show caricatures of blacks that would be a national scandal in the US. 

There are a number of extremist groups that want to push a radical agenda of creating Mexican states-within-a-state, where US laws and language do not apply, and eventually return the US Southwest to Mexico's possession.  The number of American's that would oppose this is far larger than the few fifth-column proponents of it.  Plus, non-white politicians could push the agenda.  Plus, law-abiding Hispanics don't want this to happen either. 

Bogus accusations of racism from fringe groups have not stopped our War on Terror.  Why is it stopping this? 

4) The border is open because sealing it would ruin our relationship with Mexico.  Mexico is a nation where drug trade and corruption have created a wealth distribution that is among the most skewed in the world.  The poor underclass has no employment options, and Mexico wants them to go to America not only to get rid of them, but also because they remit $50 billion a year back to their families in Mexico.  Mexico's entire economy is dependent on this flow of money.

There is no other country in the world which has the luxury of dumping the poorest 10-15% of its population into another country, and get $50 billion per year injected into its economy in return.  Despite this, the US acts as if it has no leverage over Mexico.  It is a colossal failure of the US State Department that despite the huge dependency that Mexico has on the US, the US is not even a position to ask Mexico for basic favors in America's hour of need, such as a contribution of 5000 troops to our coalition in Iraq.  They can't even do that much for us?

Angry yet?

So why does America do nothing to seal the border?

I thought and thought about it, and finally an explanation dawned on me.

After the birth of the baby boom generation concluded in 1964, the number of babies born in the US dropped.  Furthermore, Roe v. Wade passed in 1971, and since then, 43 million Americans who may have been born, were not.  This resulted in a demographic pit, where the number of babies born was suddenly and permanently lower than in prior decades.  Whether abortion should be allowed or not is a separate issue, but what is indisputable is that there are millions of fewer people as a result of it. 

Many things that support the US economy, from rising real-estate prices to social security, depend on the US population growing 1% per year, and the ratio of young people to old people remaining fairly stable.  European countries are already on the brink of catastrophie due to the shortage of young people in their societies. 

US politicians of both parties might have made a sacred agreement to keep the border open so that young Mexicans, born after 1971, can come here and fill the demographic gap that exists in the US.  US politicians don't reveal this to the public, because it is too difficult to explain and would result in pressure to overturn Roe v. Wade, lower taxes, provide incentives to families with children, and other political minefields.

That is why they let this continue.  This is the best explanation I can think of.  Why else would both parties choose to do nothing, despite so much public pressure, yet not explain why?

This is also the worst possible way to solve the demographic shortfall problem, as the current practice :

1) Encourages people to break the law.  If they broke one law to get here, why not break more after coming here?  In California, one third of the prison inmates, each costing the taxpayer $50,000 per year, are illegal immigrants.

2) Has ensured that much more than 50% of the 11 million illegals are male.  Women are less inclined to go to the lengths of crossing miles of parched desert, hide in car trunks, or be smuggled in by drug dealers.  The gender imbalance only leads to more crime and social problems within these communities.

3) Has ensured that these illegals are concentrated in border states rather than spread throughout the nation, thus making it harder for them to assimilate into American society.  Legal immigrants do go to all major cities and college towns, and thus assimilate, but these illegals instead become a majority in towns near the border, changing them into being more like Mexico and less like America.

4) Has ensured that the majority of immigrants are from one language and culture.  If this goal was pursued through a policy of legal immigration, then we would have gotten Chinese, Indians, Russians, Brazilians, etc., who would have to interact with each other and the only language they could do it in would be English.  Assimilation would be automatic. 

The US may have avoided a massive demographic collapse like what Europe is tumbling into, but the same could have been achieved in so many better ways.  This policy of achieving a demographic goal through condoning massive illegal immigration of mostly men from one country will cost American society for decades to come. 

What will ultimately result in the border being sealed?  One of two simple things :

1) If the US government decides that enough young people to fill the demographic gap have arrived, and no additional illegals are needed, then the border will be quietly sealed under the guise of some other reason.

2) If a large terrorist attack occurs in the US, and it is found that the terrorists arrived through the porous border with Mexico, then it will be sealed almost immediately, through popular demand by a furious public.

Hopefully, reason 1) occurs before reason 2).

Comments

[The Apologist]

This is interesting.

[Walter E. Wallis]

Perhaps the border is open because of silly judicial decisions that say we cannot deport an illegal entrant until all legal steps have been exhausted, and we don't have the capacity to jail them until we can dump them. The solution, send them home and let them file their appeals through the embassy.

[GK]

Walter,

It may be hard to deport them, but that does not have anything to do with why they are allowed here in the first place. It would be easy to seal the border, but the politicians don't do it for the reasons stated in the article.

[jeffolie]

Part of the reason they come is that there is no deterrent. No bad consequences are imposed. ICE never does sweeps. The laws on the books are not enforced.

The President is to blame. The enforcement agency, ICE is part of the executive branch of the federal government under Home Land Security.

[GK]

But the whole point is that the government secretly wants them to come here, to fill the shortage of young people, as explained above.

That is why politicians don't stop the flow, even though they would gain a lot of public approval through it.

[hgwells]

Inertia is the simplest explanation.

The border is a complex, hot-button issue. Sealing it would require expending substantial time, money, and political capital in a long, messy battle. Sure, the majority of Americans may want the border sealed, but that desire is not yet a high priority.

[GK]

But it would be an easy way to boost the economy, as the drag on the healthcare system (which is 15% of the economy) would be lessened, and crime rates would drop a lot (which expend police and court system resources).

The jobs filled by illegals could be done by LEGAL immigrants who come in after proper background checks, and pay taxes..

[hgwells]

To be sure ... however, like healthcare, sealing the border is a big, nasty issue and any politician who takes it on will also be taking on big, nasty career risks. I suspect it would kill the career of any major politician who did so.

It's a classic problem that gets put off until it absolutely must be faced.

[GK]

Hgwells,

Why, if 70% of the population wants to take tough action on the issue? Only 10% would skewer that politician, but 70% would support him?

This is accounted for in the article..

[jeffolie]

The decision maker immediately is the President. I do not know why he wants illegals. We can only guess why.

The voting public has NOT made this a one item do or die, hot button, bullet issue when deciding who to vote into Congress. Some but not many elections have turned on this issue. And even among these elections some of them have gone to electing the pro illegals candidate. The greatest factor in deciding who is reelected is the encumbancy. Over 97% of encumbants get reelected.

[jeffolie]

US Government Printing Office ^

Posted on 02/22/2006 2:05:15 PM PST by Rick_Michael

Sen. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) commented on illegal immigration:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, there was a very subtle illegal guestworker plan stuck in the budget the administration just submitted to Congress.That budget calls for the United States to allow over one million new illegal immigrants to infiltrate our borders during 2007.

As a matter of fact, last year's budget is allowing one million illegal aliens to enter this year as well. That is how many immigrants enter our country illegally each year under our current enforcement plans.

We know it will happen because it happens every year under current enforcement policy; and we are going right ahead with the same old plan, knowing in advance that it will be a near total failure.

We continue talking about how we are adding 1,500 new border agents in 2007. That won't be in the field until 2009, letting another two million illegal aliens to walk across our border.

We talk about how we are adding technology and fencing, but that won't be ready until 2010, allowing another million illegals in our country.

Right now, with our current budget and reform plans, we are, by default, agreeing to allow an additional four million illegal aliens into our country. That is equivalent to the population of South Carolina or Oregon.

Think about that. We are being asked to add a 51st state populated entirely by low-income illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot find an excuse for this. We know right now how to bring this flood of illegal immigration to a virtual halt, and I think within the next 2 weeks. We need somewhere between 36 and 48,000 troops immediately deployed to the southern border.

Now, the Minuteman Project in April showed that with between 18 and 24 additional enforcement personnel per mile, we can effectively secure our border for the first time. And it was not just the Minuteman Project that revealed these statistics. The U.S. Border Patrol conducted similar demonstration projects in 1993. Operation Blockade in El Paso and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego produced the identical same results.

[[Page H355]]

We have a good idea on how much a deployment like this would cost. $2.5 billion a year. But, you know what? That is less than 4 percent of the minimum $70 billion a year we are currently spending covering the health care, education and the different costs for illegal immigrants.

We already know how long it would take to get these troops on line and end this nightmare. One week. That is how long it took NORTHCOM to place 70,000 National Guard and regular Army troops on the Gulf Coast in response to Katrina, and we are still railing about how that took too long. One week.

If the burden of the National Guard is too heavy, we can ask our governors to loan the Nation's 15,000 State defense forces to help. We can call up the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the U.S. Air Force Civil Air Patrol.

We have laws in place, thanks to changes we made in the 108th Congress. Title 32, Section 9, U.S. Code now allows our governors to call out their National Guard for homeland security missions such as this at 100 percent Federal expense.

{time} 1215

Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona has supposedly made such a call on the Department of Defense. Her State legislature voted earlier this week to force her to follow up on that request.

Mr. Speaker, we need every Member of the House to urge their Governor to deploy all necessary forces to combat this invasion. We need the President to order the Department of Defense to fund this mission at 100 percent, and we need new legislation forcing the issue if action is not forthcoming. We can solve this problem if only Congress has the will.

[GK]

Yep. See, enforcing the border would SAVE money, not cost it. Whenever an illegal shoots a US citizen and steals his car, that costs $1 million of YOUR taxes in police, hospital, and judicial costs.

The 'we need cheap labor' argument is incredibly stupid. We may need a lot of LEGAL workers, but certainly no ILLEGAL workers.

Plus, we need a 50/50 balance of men and women among those LEGAL workers, not the 95% male composition of the ILLEGALS that come here, dammit! Just more crime and social problems within the Mexican community...

[jeffolie]

ICE QUEEN FREEZES OUT THE SHEEPLE

Following in the footsteps of former Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Doris Meissner, Julie L. Myers, the newly-appointed Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) probably has more women in top management positions at her side in the federal immigration bureaucracy than ever before.

But with all this highly-paid female brainpower in the new ICE management team—like Julie’s assistants Marcy (Investigations), Traci (Professional Responsibility) and Cynthia (Intelligence)—maybe someone would finally tell the public exactly how and where to report illegal aliens and criminal alien residents?

Still not one lousy press release on the subject . . . ever!

[The Apologist]

You’re right. We’re looking at a 26 million worker shortfall when the Boomers retire. The idea is that Mexicans will work manual labor jobs for twice what they can make in Mexico and Americans will be the managers and small business owner/operators. There’s no “collusion” involved it’s just simple economics/demographics. This is why Bush is pushing for the guest worker program. As usual the WH doesn’t communicate this very well.

Also, the reason we’re letting the manufacturing jobs go overseas is that in 10-15 years automation and robotics will eliminate almost all those jobs anyway. We get a gradual 25 year easing into a technological revolution so it doesn’t shock the system. Plus, cheap goods from Chinese workers at your local Walmart in the short term. Plus-plus, Chinese agricultural workers who can’t find work because their country is finally coming out of the 13th century are going to find jobs in factories making your slacks instead of forcing a militarization of China to deal with mass riots which would otherwise ensue. It isn’t garaunteed to work, but it’s the best option we have right now.

So enjoy your cheap pants, start a small landscaping business in Texas and wait for the Iranians to make it all irrelevant when they start the Last World War.

[hgwells]

>Why, if 70% of the population wants to take tough action on the issue?

Your article stated "At least 70% of the US population wants the border to be sealed..." That's not the same as taking "tough acton."

If you've got more pointed statistics, let me know, but I have no sense that sealing the border is a "tough action" priority item for the majority of the US. Until that changes, I don't see what any politician has to gain from taking on this issue. It will be a nasty fight.

Bush, for instance, has made the Iraq War a priority and he's having enough difficulty keeping that on course without calls for impeachments and charges that he is destroying the Constitution. It's understandable that he doesn't want to risk alienating more voters at this time.

[GK]

hgwells,

But you offer no evidence that the number of people who want it to remain open is more than the number who want it closed.

There are many surveys that suggest far more Americans want it closed. Do you have any evidence that the opposite is true.

The demographic filler scheme is the real reason the border remains open.

[hgwells]

You keep avoiding my point that the intensity of the desire counts, not just the numbers. I imagine that 70% or more of the US population would tell pollsters that they would like the US to improve schools. That doesn't make it a viable political issue. Nor does it mean that current leaders want the problem to remain unsolved.

In my personal experience I only know one person--from Los Angeles--for whom sealing the border is a high priority issue. I never hear people talking about in the Bay Area. I rarely read about it in the papers or on the internet except from conservatives, and even they usually have more pressing priorities on their minds.

[GK]

hgwells,

No, you are avoiding the point that your information is only anecdotal. So you only 'know of one person', when you aren't discussing this with ALL the people you know, AND there is no reason to believe the people you know are an accurate sample size. That sure seems to be a credible scientific survey.....

During the 2nd 2004 Presidential Debate, Bob Scheefer said he got emailed this question more than ANY other, to be posed to the candidates.

[hgwells]

(Eyes rolling) Yes, I understand the information I offered was anecdotal. But it is hard for me to take "sealing the border" as a slam-dunk political win when almost no one I know in the entire US is talking about it and I see little evidence in any of the media I look at.

You have offered one 70% data point without a cite. The best I can find is a Fox poll of 65% favoring a *temporary* sealing of the border until the war on terror is over.

And then there is still the hurdle, which you ignore, whether this concern about the border is high enough that people will choose it as a priority over any number of other issues.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_rd-dont_slam.htm

[GK]

Don't you remember Bob Sheefer's question in the 2nd 2004 Presidential debate?

Anyway, the people 'you know' is not a survey of the nation.

Your Fox News poll stated 65%, and the War on Terror will never be over - we win as long as we avoid an attack. There will never be a time when 'we no longer think there is a chance of a terrorist attack'..

[tax]

The answer to the immigration question is easy. Follow the money.

Illegal immigrants pay social security and medicare taxes but are not guaranteed benefits. The Government sees this as free money and who ever says no to free money?

[nope]

No, the truth is in fact the exact opposite. Illegal immigrants DON'T pay taxes (they are illegal) and hence BURDEN the government with costing our healthcare system while not paying into it.

This point has already been made repeatedly in this thread.

[usnjay]

Although I agree with most of this post, I believe the net effect of businesses is to support illegal immigration. The ones that lose money do so indirectly, b/c of taxes caused by immigration, while the ones that gain do so directly, by cheap labor. The direct beneficiaries are likely to take action to support illegal immigration. I don’t see the Microsoft board saying “Hey, we can lower our taxes if we fight illegal immigration”. I agree with your overall conclusion, except I think unethical businesses (which is a tiny minority of business) have a pro-illegal immigrant effect.

[Jake Jacobsen]

Outstanding post! Thanks for the link in my comments.

I agree with all of your points and would add one more.It is the defining characteristic of American policy since time out of mind.

Regional stability.

Put simply, if this administration did everything we'd like them to do. Remove current illegals, close the border, only legal immigration. Mexico would experience an almost guaranteed bloody revolution in pretty short order.

I highly dount our government wants a hot war on our southern border, hence status quo ante.

[GK]

Jake,

Thanks for your encouragement.

Regarding Mexico's stability, it is true that Mexico has one of the largest rich-poor gaps of any country in the world.

However, it is not that poor in aggregate, particularly when compared to India, Indonesia, China, etc. In terms of human development, Mexico is not too far down the list relative to other parts of the world. It is their racism and unwillingness to help the advancement of Mestizos that is the problem.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/un_human_develo.html

Plus, now many illegals other than Mexicans (OTMs) are coming through too. This has unlimited potential to destroy America.

[Jake Jacobsen]

Could not agree more.

[GK]

In fact, even this current practice is hurting Mexico - in terms of their brand.

China's brand is rapid economic growth and high-tech... but also communism.

India's brand is high-tech, democracy, and poverty (but rapidly decreasing).

Mexico's brand is merely exporting people it does not want, into a country that is generous enough to take them, and let them send $50 billion back to Mexico each year. This is what Mexico is known for across the world. Such a brand does not help a country rise, attract investment, trade, or gain geopolitical importance.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The border is open because actually closing it is freaking impossible.

[GK]

Charlie,

Not at all. The border is 2000 miles long. If we had 10 troops per mile (enough that each troop is only 528 feet from another on either side), that would still be just 20,000 troops.

We already have 80,000 troops stationed in Japan + S. Korea.

[Big Bill]

First off, no employer I know worries about dumping social costs on the system and therefore does not worry about the real cost of Mexicans. Added medical costs are transferred to workers. Thus, more and more people work without insurance. Do you think for one minute that agribusiness in California worries about the rrising costs of ITS medical care? No! It just dumps broke-down wetbacks on the city. and county. Do you honestly think that it was "ineffeicient" for Perdue Chicken to open up an illegal wetback pipeline to Mexico when theyarranged for massive hiring of illegals?

Your first argument fails.

[Vulgorilla]

Since the politicians won't throw the illegals out of the country, then the only non-violent option left is to throw the politicians out of office. For the first time in my 62 years I'm going to vote straight Libertarian party. It may not solve the problem, but putting the same ones back into office certainly won't for sure.

[M. Simon]

Is it possible that our war on drugs is a war on a phantom menace?

Is Addiction Real?

Is it possible that we have a system that is designed to make border jumping profitable?

[M. Simon]

GK,

You have to multiply that number by at least 4 to allow for 24 hour coverage and week-ends off. Now what about support troops, relief, patrol troops, troops to handle paperwork, the return of border crossers, etc.

Secondly no competent general would tell you that 528 ft of coverage per border guard is adequate.

Modern divisions are capable of covering a ten mile front per division. Suppose we say that because the opposition is not well armed we can cover 50 miles per division. A division is about 10,000 troops and support personel. That is 40 divisions. 400,000 troops. Then we have the East and West Coasts plus the Canadian border. Did I mention airports and troops to collect those who overstay their visas?

The requirement is for a force at least as large as our current military. Maybe 2X or 3X as large.

How will you pull it off? Economics wise? Conscription?

[GK]

M. Simon,

It would not require that many troops. They numbers you state assume that the US-Mex border has to be as airtight as the Korean DMZ.

10 troops per mile would itself be enough of a deterrent to stop 95% of illegals. The MinuteMen were just a few hundred in number, patroling just a small stretch of the border, yet were effective enough to get MS-13 to threaten them.

But 5% would still get through. Are you saying that it is not worth even doing 10 per mile, despite that being a big improvement from the situation now, since that would not seal it off 100%?

[F15C]

Regarding how intensley Americans feel about immigration issues, here is example data from a lot of polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Scanning through the results, it is clear that Americans see immigration as a serious problem, and want the government to control that problem. Statistically, there is no one statistic (ie. the 70%) that tell the story. But, when you scan through the results of the above polls the trend is very, very clear. Ignore the AP polls they are purposefully sample biased, and I suggest ignoring any poll with no MoE (Margin of Error) reported. I think the results show that Americans would prefer the border be closed and entry and exit tightly controlled, but that they are also compassionate about allowing guest workers and controlled legal immigration.

Now, regarding the article. Very interesting theory and for a great part, explains the facts of the matter - as you laid them out. However, this statement raises a clear question in my mind that tends to work against your theory:

"US politicians don't reveal this to the public, because it is too difficult to explain and would result in pressure to overturn Roe v. Wade, lower taxes, provide incentives to families with children, and other political minefields."

This statement would be a wet-dream come true to a true anti-abortion, tax-cutting, family values politician. What possible reason would such politicians have for hiding this? Forget politicians, how about the hangers-on and rabble around the politicians? Some former staffer wanting to screw their former boss or someone else's boss? Way too tempting. Such a thing would not be secret for long.

Having said that, I agree that demographics are at play in this. But from the business perspective as I think some other commenter alluded to. Business thrives on growth and modern business is addicted to growth at any cost. Even the soverignity of our nation is not to high a price to pay for growth induced profit. The indigneous population of American citizens are not replacing themselves at a high enough rate (though much better than most of Europe who has serious problems) to sustain the kind of growth businesses desire.

Since those in DC all live in areas immune and isolated from illegal immigrant induced societal problems, they can afford to sell our nations future for money and votes. It is a win-win for them. The republicans get below-market priced labor and a portion of the brown vote; and democrats get the bulk of the brown vote. Money and votes.

I don't think abortion is a first level factor in the politics, just one of the underlying factors causing the demographic changes.

[GK]

F15C,

For every business that gets 'cheap labor', there are many more businesses that don't have a use for unskilled illegals (like Microsoft or Merrill Lynch), but have to pay MUCH more in health coverage for their existing employees, after the illegals drive up costs. Do you think knowledge-based companies like it that their health insurance costs are 10% more than they were last year? They would (and do) lobby *against* illegals, as it costs them money.

Thus, at least as many businesses would be opposed to the current situation as be in favor of it. So they cancel each other out.

Furthermore, the GOP doesn't benefit from 'cheap labor' nearly as much as it would lose out from these Mexicans voting Democrat. The current situation is overwhelmingly negative for the GOP's electoral situation. What do you think turned California from a Republican state as recently as 1988 to a blue state today?

The only reason the GOP permits something that introduces voters that would vote against it AND alienate many businesses is the broader demographic issue described. The 'cheap labor' point that many people pin to the GOP is entirely oversimplified and incomplete.

[F15C]

Mr. Simon: "The requirement is for a force at least as large as our current military. Maybe 2X or 3X as large."

With all due respect, that is absurd. All that is required of the military is to provide enough troops to create and maintain the perception of a credible deterrent to crossing the border illegally.

The perception of armed troops patroling the border a few hundred feet apart, on top of air patrols, regular border patrol, drones, walls, cameras, etc., etc. would cut the illegal crossings from a million per year to a few thousands at most.

To the military presence, add real sanctions and penalties against those hiring illegals and a reasonable guest worker program and BAM! Illegal immigration rapidly becomes prohibitively expensive for those who benefit from it and is no longer a problem.

The solution is not all about the military or any other single tactic. Rather it is about a coordinated systematic approach to solving the problem before it is too late. The military is only one part and all pieces are needed to solve the problem.

The illegal immigration problem is neither impossible nor even difficult to solve, but just try getting our good-for-nothing congress to do anything worthwhile...

[F15C]

GK. "Do you think knowledge-based companies like it that their health insurance costs are 10% more than they were last year?" I'm a business person (CEO of a smallish tech company) and my healthcare cost breakdowns do not show illegal aliens as 10% of the cost. And I'm in California (The northernmost portion of Mexico as we are rapidly becoming). I would be the last to argue that illegal immigration is not a burden on healthcare resources, it is. But most of those costs are borne by taxpayers, not medical insurance carriers.

Also, in my comment on your theory, I did not mention cheap labor. I referred to 'growth'. Illegals are consumers and workers. As consumers they contribute to growth. Their marginal propensity to spend is lower than an average American citizen, but that can be overcome by volumes. Just import more of them to make up the difference in per capita spending. It works if you ignore the social an political costs to the nation...

[tigerjuju]

whatever. You might be naivie enough to believe our monkey politicians would put their consideration for our country's future above their political power, I am not. They are going for any possibility that can either:
1. get them votes
2. get them $$$
Even if some of the vote believes might not seem very poosible/rational, or some of the $$$ from business sponsors are not very cosher.

As for business hiring illegals, don't forget how most ppl are short sighted. They can directly see the savings in cheap wages while the expenses indirectly cost businesses can be rationalized and explained away easily b/c of the 6-degree of separation.
For immigration issues, I always believe it will have to get a lot worse before things will get better. Too many U.S. citizens are too dumb or dillusional to see the train coming before they get hit by it.

[flicka47]

I would suggest that you check out the US census bureau.

This is not EUrope.The birthrate for the US is something like 2.2%,while Mexico's is 3.8%

Also you are failing to take into account that the immigrant groups ALSO age,so that any gain from #s there is lost when they retire and collect SS....

And,the illegal immigrants,even if made legal,do not make the same wages and therefore pay less into SS.

[GK]

flicka47,

er... Have you not heard about how the Baby Boomers are retiring, and there are not enough young people to pay into Social Security, and how Social Security will be bankrupt as a result?

Plus, the US birth rate is 2.0, and Mexico's is about 3.0. This is the nunber of children per woman, NOT the PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE.

[Ric Locke]

You guys aren't paying attention, and you need to start.

Mexico gets $50 billion a year from illegal workers here. It lives on that money. The oil revenue and business revenue all disappears into the oligarchy and emerges as French wine and Lear Jets. Without the money sent home by workers in America, the lower class and lower middle class would have nothing.

They know it. The workers in parts of the country that don't contribute many emigrants, primarily Mexico City and south and east of there, are radical as a result. The mayor of Mexico City is SDP, for which read "Leninist". The radicals are held in check by the fact that remittances keep enough of an economy going to let most people pretend they're making a living.

Close the border and the remittances go away. If the remittances go away, within five years you'll have PAN and PRI politicians up against the wall in a genuine, Fidel-style revolution. The result will be an avowedly Communist regime that is unremittingly hostile to the U.S. and happy to invite America's enemies over to play. Won't that be fun thirty miles from our biggest remaining Naval base on the West Coast?

George Bush knows all this and has been trying to avoid it. It ain't gonna work. I used to lampoon the wall notion -- when there was such a place I visited East Germany regularly, and once ironically proposed that we import the Grenztruppen (border guards) en masse to "seal the border" -- they did have experience, after all. No more.

Build the wall, and punish the people hiring illegals. Worse, if Captain Ed is correct, some employers are subsidizing the "coyotes" who shepherd people across the border. Great pains should be taken to explain to those people that this is not acceptable. Bastinado would be about right. Boiling in oil should be reserved for the politicians who support it.

Regards,
Ric

[alzaebo]

So much to agree with here. Yes, it is demographics, bad practice, and corruption.

We pay for them now, and hope they pay for us later.

Cheap labor is subsidised labor. It moves money side to side rather than growing the pie.

Myself, I'm getting quite sick of the 'attack the employers' argument. There is a great deal of truth to that- I've hired 'alien residents', but couldn't keep them because I didn't pay enough.

However, what people miss is the largest industry that benefits from illegals- the government industry!

Let the welfare office and schools demand and verify I.D.
Let the lawyers get fined. Expose them to risk.
Let the pandering legislators and judges lose their business license.

If you're gonna open the border, then close the welfare office.

Workers are consumers- its the expensive freebies, the welfare magnet, that are robbing us. Note the Futurist's article on how rising benefit costs are soaking up any rise in real wages.

I won't believe anything said to mollify us is serious until I see the infrastructure to move large numbers of people- not 500 deportation employees.

We would only need about 400 miles of fence, the rest of the land has too many hostile natural barriers for easy entry.

Quickly build fences and place troops. Offer a cash bonus to the private contractors who can bid for the quickest construction.

(If we do build a wall, I guarantee that we'll suddenly have the thousands of government employees down there that we can't seem to get now. They'll be there to stop private American efforts. Already judges are awarding ranches to aggreived illegals, and obstructing private fences.)

Immigrants can already qualify for fast-track immigration status after 6 years service in our military. Let's expand that.

Legal immigration is a expensive, years-long nightmare. Attorneys milk the system.

Regulations, lawsuits, and red tape that have made criminal labor and voters so attractive.

If demographics are the reason, reform to allow a steady flow, not the spillover effect of desperate refugees from failed socialism. Bush was pilloried for asking the same for Social Security.

If Mexico does fall, we'd better have that wall in place.

Welfare voters and an apartheid class didn't save the economies of Europe.

[whiteboy]

The article states that the economy depends..."on the US population growing 1% per year."

It is impossible to maintain constant population increase, eventually it would get too crowded, so that econonimic principle must be flawed.

There was no mention of the secret "Northern Alliance" planned to meld Mexico, Canada and the USA. What about that?

There is an inference here that most politicians are conspiring a secret agenda to allow illegals. Very creepy stuff, that the American will is being defeated by a nonpartisan cabal.

Illegal immigration is in the interest of the well monied, not American workers who are having great difficulty finding jobs, complaining that illegals, etc, have taken them all and driven down the wages. Do not underestimate illegal's intelligence, for they are as smart as anybody here, and after attending school free on your dime, they will take your white collar job, or capture your business. It has been my experience to apply to a large US corporation and be interviewed by an Hispanic manager who could barely speak English, his staff was the same. In the same vein, white collar jobs have fled the country, not just "factory" jobs, which can be broadly defined to suit big business needs. Please note that doctors and nurses can be replaced by excellent medical personnel from India, as well as accountants, etc. Why not outsource the government? Not so farfetched these days considering the considering the loss of American sovereignty to the Northern Alliance. The American standard of living could fall to a level similar to the third world, except for the rich elite. I guess that as the standard of living deteriorates, the equation will change dramatically at some point.

It is difficult to believe that American business is not pushing illegal immigration agenda.I read that the housing boom, which is now bursting, was driven by illegals used as cheap labor and offered easy mortage loans to drive up sales. The food/hotel industry uses them as well. Meanwhile American's wages have fallen drastically, steady work is hard to find, especially that offers the same standard of health benefits. In other words, most Americans are getting poorer, having greater risk of suffering for lack of medical attention, being ignored by politicians, all while big businesses are raking in record profits, and government heads are rolling due to corruption scandals. Is there a website that lists the business interests of our politicians, and the political connections of big business, and possible conflicts of interests or corruption?

I suspect that there is a connection to the outsourcing of American jobs; the invasion by illegal workers, the talk of a North American Union. President Bush really scares me because he is acting against the will of the vast majority of Americans with seeming impunity, while suspending Habeas Corpus with the Military Commissions Act. President Bush is moving towards absolute power. Please don't mistake me for a partisan, I am not attacking republicans, because I think that both parties are illegally controlled by big money. That powerful money can come from for example, Saudis who build a fifth column with mosques, bribing universities, to weapons, drugs, racketeering (illegals), as well as legitimate business. I am frightened about the fact that the will of the vast majority is being flipped off, as the standard of living deteriorates and politicians and big businesses are constantly being exposed for corruption. Corruption is what makes authoritarian rule possible as in a coup. Speaking of fifth columns, it is chilling to consider that the author has indicated that the will of the vast majority of Americans is being ignored by politicians with a secret illegal immigration agenda. Is the sixth column globalists, I wonder?

What does the author of this good blog have to say about the Rico Act lawsuits being brought against the President and companies who hire illegals?

Ruin our relationship with Mexico? I beg your pardon, but President Bush does not seem to be the type to worry about hurting anybody's feelings. After all, the military industrial complex also needs work, and to lighten the shelves of excess inventory. I fear that there are "economic" reasons, which leads to speculation about the drug trade, the mineral wealth of S. America, and racketeering. Somehow I suspect that we are couldn't give a hoot about Mexico's "feelings", we just want the booty. And it's all about booty, money, power and corruption. Our constitution is supposed to protect us, and is being severely tested now. The key word in illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. What is it that our lawmakers and leaders do not understand about the word ILLEGAL?

Is it is true that the economy requires a population growth a 1% growth whose economy? Here is a link to an interesting definition to economy:
http://www.projectusa.org/Library/articles/2006/01-19-us_chamber_commerce.php

I am no econimist but I believe that the above link taks about the difference between the GDP per capita vs the GDP for the country.

Sure, sure, the "economy" needs this and that, but whose economy? Are Americans being sold out by globalists?

Finally, it would help if the good author of this blog would clarify why a 1% population growth is necessary, and what happens when it simply gets too crowded to live?

[GK]

whiteboy,

Too crowded to live? You apparently don't know that the US has a lower population density than the world average, and a lower population growth rate than the world average.

And the secret 'Northern Alliance' you mention seems to be little more than some conspiracy theory. Why do you think this would actually happen?

[Justin]

Man o man. how do you keep from getting cynical?

[mike]

They need them to come here illegally, get fake ssn's, pay into the slush fund they call social security for many years....because they will never collect. Follow the money.