July 27, 2007


Senate presses border security: A $3-billion amendment for enforcement is added to a spending bill that exceeds Bush's budget. (Nicole Gaouette, July 27, 2007, LA Times)

After a day of partisan feuding over illegal immigration, Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed Thursday to commit $3 billion to gain "operational control" over the southern U.S. border within two years.

The money would be used to build more fencing, vehicle barriers, and camera and radar towers, as well as hire additional border and immigration agents.

The decision to attach the funding to the Homeland Security spending bill puts President Bush — who has said he would veto the overall legislation — in the uncomfortable position of opposing a popular initiative to improve border security.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 27, 2007 7:17 AM

Dumb. Gun contol mentality. It doesn't solve the problem, it only makes it look as though something is being done.

The solution is simple, alter the demand for illegal immigrant labor be increasing its cost. Increase its cost to include the risk of severe penalities on those who employ such labor. The penalties must be so severe that the risk of being caught is unsupportable--mandatory jail, forfeiture of property, that sort of thing. If one could lose his house over having an illegal cut his grass, there would be a lot fewewr illegals cutting grass.

The grass police pull up, check the biometrics, and off you go in handcuffs with your children out on the street. Voila', no more illegals cutting grass. Same with a farm, or a chicken processing plant

This isn't happening, of course. Not even Guiliani would consider such a thing, because the whole business is just a cynical sham.

Posted by: Lou Gots at July 27, 2007 7:43 AM

Racists aren't going to punish themselves. The point is to punish the brown people. Tom Tancredo wants his lawn cut cheap. He just doesn't want to know how it happened.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2007 9:02 AM

Since the President doesn't want a fence, I don't see how he is made "uncomfortable" by the amendment.

Posted by: Bob at July 27, 2007 9:35 AM

Mr. Gots, I love your comments and they are one of the reasons I keep coming back to this blog. Are you ok? This last comment is completely out of character for you. Are you really ok with governments stealing houses and land with nothing more then a mexican trying to stay out of jail?

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at July 27, 2007 10:36 AM

Robert M. Thank you for the kind remarks. I am recovering from eye surgery right now, But I don't believe that this is effecting how I think about this issue.

My import was to dramatize the hypocracy we are seeing about immigration and "walls." Oj has the right idea in the above comment. I may go on to point out that the talk of "walls" is but demogoguery, cynical exploitation of the concerns of the unsophisticated.

Now, all those consumers of below-legal-market chicken, vegetables, short grass, whatever, are participating in this travesty. At present they hide behind assumed ignorance of the illegality of their hires.

Valid biometrics would establish one of three permutations. Either we know that we are employing lawful guest workers, or we know that we are not, or we don't know whether we are employing lawful guest workers. At present, the cynical sham is perpetuated by feigned, or at least welcomed, "ignorance." To reply to the objection, no wetback could denounce you unless you had hired him without checking his status.

The cure is to make that ignorance vincible,, that is, culpable, by providing the means to overcome it by ordinary diligence.

Oj's point, and mine, is that this is not happening. All we get is demogoguery and "walls."

Posted by: Lou Gots at July 27, 2007 1:06 PM

I'm sorry I was not clear, and I hope your recovery is quick and successful. I guess I am Evil by nature. When you wrote up your example, my first thought was of city governments with a "pet" illegal . Send the "pet" to mow the lawn of the lot you want to steal, arrest the "illegal worker", and the forfeiture rules get you the land for free. How can the land "owner" prove he didn't pay the "illegal" under the table? Good luck with that. Biometrics don't help with the base problem, they just make it easier to form a new class of "Untouchables", something we have lacked in the U.S. up to this point. I think that's one of the reasons all we get is demogoguery. No one has figured out how to cut that knot....

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at July 27, 2007 1:35 PM

Lou, let me add best wishes for a swift recovery.

Posted by: erp at July 27, 2007 4:18 PM
« THANKS, MOOK: | Main | BLAME W: »