The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
Border Security Solves All Problems
One of the great mistakes of the Bush administration was not securing our southern border in the wake of 9/11. The President has clung to the baffling belief that immigration reform must come in a comprehensive package, and faith in this concept has done irreparable harm. Comprehensive immigration reform was exactly the wrong thing to do, and securing the border first would have ironically left the President in a far stronger position to complete reform later on, because without border security none of his plans have any credibility.
A secure border would have made amnesty, amnesty-lite or any guestworker program far less objectionable. The public is extremely wary of any kind of amnesty program, because in 1986 the Reagan administration definitively showed us not only that amnesty simply doesn't work, but that it provides an irresistible lure for millions more to sneak into the country. If we had a tight border, however, amnesty becomes palatable because it would actually be a final amnesty that would not induce even more people to enter the U.S. illegally.
Securing the border makes immigration enforcement far easier, because deportees will not be able to slink back into the country time and time again. Shutting down the revolving door means the feds only need to do their job once. This makes it possible to follow the Rule of Law as we should, rather than ignoring the immigration laws already on the books because it is such a hopeless task. It would bolster the image of the federal government as an institution that actually does what it is charged to do.
With a secure border the U.S. could, for once, finally know the exact identity of each and every person coming into this country. It is baffling that this has never been a high priority with the Bush administration - controlling and defending the borders has always been job one for nation-states throughout history, and while Bush has done a great job on national defense, he has done the poorest job possible in regard to regulating the borders. The concerns about al-Qaeda operatives sneaking over the border to come here and do mayhem are vastly overblown, but al-Qaeda is far from being the only security risk sneaking over the border. Gangs such as MS-13 inflict daily terrorism on victims throughout the country, and we simply need to control this influx. Without a secure border, national security in the homeland will always be incomplete and flawed.
Do I need to even address the concerns about increased welfare spending, educational spending, healthcare spending, balkanization etcetera and so on that would be solved by a secure southern border?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, Mr. President, build up this wall!
Posted by Ken McCracken · 8 June 2007 01:43 AM
Giacomo over at Joust the Facts waxes eloquent on this theme. First, stop the bleeding.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at June 8, 2007 07:26 AM
In reality, a wall or a fence will do little to stem the number of illegals from Mexico. It's a massive awste of money.
Ken isn't seriouus about the problem; if he were, he'd suggest the sure-fire, meaningful way to halt illegal immigration. That is: impose draconian fines and jail terms on those who hire them. Dry up the demand and supply goes away.
Of course, Ken won't suggest this because he doesn't want good GOP businesses to go belly-up because they can no longer hire labor under the table and not have to pay benefits and the going wage.
Ken also lies when he suggests illegal immigration costs us money; every study ever conducted on the matter shows illegal immigration is a net benefit to this country.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 9, 2007 05:54 PM
You are amusing Jadegold.
Of course, you have no way to know that the wall won't work, because it has not even been built yet.
The wall that was built near San Diego cut down illegal crossings by 95%, from over 100,000 a year down to just a trickle today. Building a wall does in fact work.
And of course you are no mind reader, Jadegold, so you naturally got my position on punishing employers for hiring illegals completely backwards and wrong. I do support holding employers to account.
Gee Jadegold, when I write a blog post about that issue, can I count on you to write a comment saying how totally wrong you were about me?
Didn't think so!
The costs of illegal immigrants is staggering - San Diego was short $100 million, and Los Angeles was short $170 million in 2005 alone from health care costs only!
Education, incarceration and health care for illegals costs over $10 billion for California alone.
How strange that you want to pump up the idea that illegals are a 'net benefit' to this country. You aren't in favor of 'GOP businesses' (whatever that means) making lots of money, are you Jadegold?
You are so confused you don't know which way is up.
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 9, 2007 06:36 PM
I just have to comment again about this silly 'GOP businesses' idea you came up with Jadegold.
As if the RNC is in the business of running America's corporations.
As if only a Republican would hire illegal aliens.
Funny, considering that Republicans polled are more in favor of punishing businesses than are Democrats, according to a Time poll.
How does it feel to agree with Republicans, Jadegold?
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 9, 2007 06:50 PM
Build the fence. I don't care if it's real or virtual or some of both, whatever works. At the same time, punish the business that knowingly hire illegals. Someone miss their deportation hearing? They automatically lose, and the become wanted fugitives. Ditto for visa-lapsers. Pass legislation allowing property owners to use force to defend their property if illegals trespass and refuse to leave.
NOT ONE legalization or guest worker admitted before the border is secure, to the satisfaction of U.S. CITIZENS. And when it finally does come, illegals get in line BEHIND the legal immigrants.
Posted by: Bigfoot at June 9, 2007 08:00 PM
Tell that to Bush and McCain, Bigfoot!
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 9, 2007 08:14 PM
Jadegold is the resident liberal troll, I see. His comical postings just get more and more outlandish!
If "virtual" barriers worked, banks would leave piles of money in open parking lots that had "virtual" security systems.
I agree with most of your points, but not your premise that W has any interest in stopping the Hispanicization/Mexicanization of America. Far from it: he's in favor of it. That's why he was behind this nation-killing bill.
Jorge W Busheron stated his pro-"Hispanic"* stance when he was a candidate. He continues to prefer Mexicans to Americans, as evidenced by his support for S.1348 (incidentally, 1348 is the year the Black Death that killed a third of Europe began).
In the final analysis, W has always been a liberal who wraps himself in certain positions that conservatives can agree with. That's why he keeps "betraying" the conservative base: he was never a conservative to begin with.
*How can an ethnic group be defined by language?
Posted by: Patrick Henry at June 10, 2007 03:46 AM
Patrick, I certainly don't find Bush conservative enough for my taste, but calling him a liberal and suggesting he cares more about Mexicans than Americans is over-the-top. There's plenty to disagree with without making it sound worse than it is.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at June 10, 2007 02:32 PM
Of course, the San Diego fence doesn't work; as explained here:
The fence in San Diego forced illegal traffic into the deserts to the east, leading thousands of migrants to their death. In response, the Border Patrol shifted thousands of agents to Arizona to deal with the flow. But many of those agents came from the San Diego and El Centro sectors. So once again, the number of crossers in San Diego and El Centro is increasing even though the two sectors are the most heavily fenced in the nation.
More lies from Ken debunked::
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion.
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. "The Costs of Immigration" (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle's study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion (Passel and Clark 1994).
Posted by: Jadegold at June 10, 2007 03:22 PM
Jadegold, the fact that the fence forced illegals to cross east in Arizona is proof that the fence works, not that it doesn't work. I am wondering why you put up a quote there that works so much against your argument.
Second, the Huddle study is wayyyy out of date. Here is a good criticism of it:
The Huddle Study
Because the number of illegal aliens can only be estimated, similarly the fiscal cost (government budget outlays) for those aliens can only be estimated. Dr. Donald Huddle, a Rice University economics professor, published a systematic analysis of those costs as of 1996 (see table below). The study also estimated the tax payments of those same aliens.
At that time, the illegal alien population was estimated to be about five million persons. The estimated fiscal cost of those illegal aliens to the federal, state and local governments was about $33 billion. This impact was partially offset by an estimated $12.6 billion in taxes paid to the federal, state and local governments, resulting in a net cost to the American taxpayer of about $20 billion every year. This estimate did not include indirect costs that result from unemployment payments to Americans who lost their jobs to illegal aliens willing to work for lower wages. Nor did it include lost tax collections from those American workers who became unemployed. The study estimated those indirect costs from illegal immigration at an additional $4.3 billion annually.
During the years since that estimate, the illegal alien population is estimated to have roughly doubled, so the estimated fiscal costs also will have at least doubled. Furthermore, the passage of time is accompanied by inflation in the costs of services, e.g., school budgets continue to climb. Therefore, what was estimated to be a cost to the American taxpayer of $33 billion in 1996 today would be at least $70 billion. Similarly, tax collections would have increased — sales taxes at least — so that the net expense to the taxpayer from illegal immigration would currently be at least $45 billion. The indirect fiscal costs would have also increased, especially during a period of already high unemployment, to perhaps and additional $10 billion annually.
1996 Costs Table from the Huddle Study 1
Public Higher Education
ESL and Bilingual Education
Earned Income Tax Credit
Medicare A and B
Criminal Justice and Corrections
Less Taxes Paid
Net Costs of Direct Services
All Net Costs
That's right. According to the methodology used by Huddle, illegals now cost $25 billion per year.
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 10, 2007 03:53 PM
Also, if illegals are just so darned good for the tax base, why is Los Angeles county on the verge of bankruptcy from them?
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 10, 2007 04:02 PM
I honestly don't really care if the illegals are granted amnesty or not; I know that there's no fixing the problem, the author is correct, mass migration for economic reasons is going to happen; it's happened, it's a done deal. The gov't has tacitly consented to this for the last 40 years to drive an ever expanding economy. And for the most part, the economy has been pretty good. Thus you live in a nation, for the most part, without any borders. And you call this "nation" home? You call this your "homeland"? And you think of this place as a homeland for your children and grandchildren? I can remember the day when England was considered the homeland for the English people. Today, it's homeland for know one, but was reported last week as the "nation" where for the first time, the name "Mohammed" was the most popular first name for boys. I wonder, what country do the English think of as their homeland now?
And so the greatest mystery to me is that so many readers express their outrage at the open borders policy, calling for any number of fixes and fences and improved border security and enforcement of long neglected laws, and yet as year follows year, nothing changes and ultimately there will be another amnesty because it's the only way the gov't can deal with the millions already here. And yet the angry readers keep expressing their outrage, but...............they keep paying their taxes, year after year. For what? To "what" are they paying their taxes? Wouldn't you believe that part of the "test" for legitimacy for a fully functioning gov't is that it can and does exercize some effective degree of control over it's borders? Isn't border control necessary as an expression of a nation's soveriegnty? Or to put it another way, once a country has lost all control of it's borders, has it not surrendered a significant chunk of it's soveriegnty? And yet you keep feeding the beast with your tax dollars? Do you routinely refuel an automobile with no wheels and a broken engine?
Posted by: Tony at June 12, 2007 12:26 PM
Asst. Vil. Id.,
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Considering that the abomination of an amnesty bill that W supports (S.1348) is pro-Mexican and anti-American, I have no problem with pointing out his love of the former and contempt for the latter. Here are a couple of discussions of W's long-standing preference for Mexicans over Americans:
As for his liberalism, see this:
Jorge W Busheron has consistently denigrated the American people with his "jobs Americans won't do" rhetoric (who did those jobs before the illegal alien invasion--Martians?). Now, he's saying that people who don't support his suicidal amnesty bill are racist. Has any US president ever treated the American people with the contempt W has for us?
Posted by: Nathan Hale at June 13, 2007 11:28 AM
There are other costs to invasion by illegal aliens. One is in terms of health care. Because the Federal government has mandated that everyone receive treatment at hospitals, regardless of their ability to pay, uninsured illegals have forced 84 hospitals in California alone to shutter their doors.
Furthermore, the exotic diseases they bear--drug-resistent TB, polio, leprosy, malaria, plague, dengue, Chagas disease--pose such a threat to public health that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (v. 10, No. 1) has called for a border fence patrolled by armed troops to protect us from their diseases.
Another cost is the crime and death they cause. In addition to DUI and the attendant vehicular manslaughter that "macho" Mestizos commit, illegal aliens from south of the border are over-represented among criminal and prison populations. They deal drugs, molest children, rape, and murder at higher rates than Americans.
Posted by: Nathan Hale at June 13, 2007 11:42 AM
I don't think that combining tax protests with the border imbroglio is particularly logical or effective.
I also must disagree, in the strongest terms, with your defeatist attitude. We stopped two illegal alien amnesty bills--one last year (H.R. 4437) and one this year (S.1348). We can take our country back. It won't be easy, but giving up is not an option.
Posted by: Nathan Hale at June 13, 2007 12:02 PM