SurvivalBlog.com

Mr. Rawles:

This is in response to Michael Z Williamson’s arguments concerning the ongoing illegal alien problem. I have heard his arguments for the past 20 years..they are repeated over and over on talk radio (in my consideration a waste of time–most people simply regurgitate what the government suggests via the talk radio host, usually a buffoon more interested in his 6 or 7 figure salary than solving problems). We as a nation have an obligation and a duty to retain our borders, culture and language. We owe it to those that came before us and to those that will come after. What we lack is will. The billions quoted to address the problem are a drop in the bucket compared to what we have so far expended on a foreign excursion that had no clear goals and was based on lies. A lot of the so called ‘patriots’ in this country and the churchgoers have stood by largely quite while a few have been lucid enough to see the problem for what it is, an invasion. What Americans need to do is put down the remote control and stop letting their sports games, fast food, internet pornography and silly useless hobbies dictate their lives and address this problem for what it is. You are certainly right when you stated that we will one day wake up and we will be strangers in our own land. Their isn’t an exodus of largely white americans leaving the southwest because they hate the warmth and sunshine. Its because they see an invasion within their midst and their culture being dismantled and those charged with protecting the fragile society we live in doing nothing. We can all shoot our guns, buy more ammo and prepare for the ‘end times’ till the cows come home but all that will be largely useless if we simply accept this invasion on the grounds that it is somehow inhumane or bigoted to not jealously guard what is ours. As a nation of far less people over 60 years ago we fought a two front war, produced nearly 4,500 planes a month and countless other munitions, supplies and resources and as well put nearly 20 million of our men into uniform to protect the rest of the world from tyranny. To say we cant address this problem with even a fraction of that effort is insulting. Thanks, – Jason in North Idaho

James:

Michael Z. Williamson’s letter about the problems with building a border fence is a good, logical analysis of the problem. Perhaps there are other solutions.
Asset (or civil) forfeiture is not popular with many constitutionalists, but it is in fact constitutional. It was employed by the states from before the signing of the constitution to the present. Unlike today, it was originally used at the border, to seize contraband goods. In so doing, it helped enforce our borders. And it could help us do so today. I would like to see the Federal Government seize any recordable property belonging to illegal immigrants, on the grounds that the property is being used to aid and abet their illegal presence in the United States. Illegals won’t want to stay if they can’t own real property in the US. And fewer will come if they don’t think they can stay.
I am quite against some of the other modern uses of asset forfeiture – seizures based on some “malum prohibitum” crime that offend the “morals” of the government. But if it were returned to its original purpose – to enforce our borders – it might become respectable again. – Sun Dog

Jim, I must respectfully disagree with your suggestions for dealing with illegal immigration. You stated:
1.) A stout fence and plenty of sensors, regardless of the cost, to make the southern border less porous. I believe this would be an utter waste of time and money. Here’s what I anticipate from that:
Tunnels under, which already exist for the drug trade. I also heard of a case where near 1000 Mexicans just swarmed a border crossing on foot. Perhaps 1 in 10 was rounded up.
Attacking the fence will become a sport–coyotes and dogs will be goaded across minefields, or across sensors to generate false positives. Mines would be pelted with rocks. Mines will be stolen for the explosives therein. Fences will be cut or have vehicles driven through them.
Even people who don’t intend to cross the border will find this a sport. Think of your local teenagers–would they enjoy this? Now, how much more peer credit would Mexican youths get in their culture for tearing down the fence?
This will cost billions to build and maintain (And being cynical, how many of those contractors will employ illegal Mexican laborers?) and accomplish less than the Maginot Line.
I heard a suggestion that we should just start shooting people. How very American. If that happens, it is the end of any pretension of morality and due process in this country.
~~~
2.) Local police and sheriff’s departments empowered to arrest illegal aliens
The problem with this is under what cause? This would require them to stop anyone who appears Asian or Hispanic, and certainly will not help legitimate immigrants integrate. I’ve heard people recite the classic, “I don’t like the idea of having to carry a federal ID, but…” I’d like to refer those people to Edmund Burke’s comment. “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
~~~
and 3.) A larger staff for the Border Patrol. Without those measures, the gradual demographic of cultural and linguistic change will reach a tipping point in the border states and beyond.The problem here is that for each agent on the border, there is additional support staff and infrastructure needed, and how many suspects can they actually stop? I think the whole concept of sealing the border physically is on par with Canada’s insane gun registration scheme that’s over a Billion $CAN and rising, with nothing substantive accomplished.
~~
I should mention here that I am by no means a racist. Quite the contrary, I am an anti-racist. But I must concur with talk radio show host Michael Savage: “Borders, language, and culture” matter. They, in part, define a society. If those three underpinnings are not preserved, then we will wake up someday and find ourselves in someone else’s society. I absolutely agree with you here.
[some comments on personal experiences with the INS snipped, for brevity]
The INS is a bloated bureaucracy, and even good people can have insane problems getting the paperwork they need.
Recently, I was up in Detroit and got some information from the Coast Guard for a book I’m writing. Here’s an example of one area for consideration:
Apart from the shipping channel (23 feet) the deepest part of Lake St. Claire is 19 feet. Half of it is less than 4 feet deep. The river can be crossed by a motorboat in less than 60 seconds. There are native reservations on either side, where CG jurisdiction is awkward. Also, once on US soil, a person can’t be stopped without probable cause. Both illegal aliens (usually Asians “vacationing” in Canada) and whole bags of drugs flow across this point. The CG is aware of the problem, and stops a few percent, even with 24 hour patrols.
Illegal Asian immigrants come into LA and NY in container ships. Better security at the docks will help with this, but it’s a huge job at Long Beach, and we need the resources to move, not sit in port racking up fees for hours or days. Ships move in, unload while reloading and fueling, and are gone. They’re losing money when not moving.
This is a case where everyone knows the problem exists, but not what to do. The trick is to differentiate people with honest intentions from layabouts.
My suggestions would include:
Not allowing anyone without proper ID to get drivers’ licenses or jobs. At the same time, the government cannot Constitutionally deputize employers to handle the illegals. And following up on all reports is tough.
Requiring proper ID to register for school and vote. That’s how it’s done here in Indiana. I have a right to vote. That right implies protecting it from being stolen or diluted by another voter with fake ID. Ditto for my kids going to school. It’s not unreasonable or unconstitutional to ID oneself to receive service from the government.
The proposed immigration bill is quite sensible in several provisions: identify aliens. Require those who have ONLY violated the border to pay a fine, and then return if recent. If they have been here some time and are a productive part of the economy, they may APPLY to be permanent residents, if an employer will sponsor them. This means enforcement efforts can be drawn away from the known, responsible parties and aimed at the clandestine and criminal parties.
I don’t believe most people realize that’s what the proposal says. It’s not “amnesty.” No one has suggested that 10 million people be granted free citizenship. They may APPLY to be residents, and, if accepted, then may APPLY to be citizens. And naturalized citizens are required to be literate, productive, not have subversive ties, and demonstrate a working knowledge of our form of government. They tend overwhelmingly to be conservative, moral, patriotic and good taxpayers. These types of immigrants should be encouraged, even if they fought their way in as refugees. (Why did Bush win Florida and therefore two elections? Because Cuban Americans have seen socialism first hand and HATE it. So they vote Republican.)
Consider the proposed alternative: an expensive wall that won’t stop anyone (has the 90 mile hurricane-ridden ocean between Cuba and Miami had much effect?), billions to round up illegals IF WE CAN FIND THEM, and even if we assume $500 each to deport them (the price of JUST THE PLANE TICKETS the US is chartering to send illegal Central Americans back), we’re looking at $5 BILLION. Add in the locating, the acquiring and the processing fees, and we’re talking the cost of a war.
We had a war on alcohol. We have a war on drugs. Canada and parts of the US have a war on guns. None have accomplished anything. A war on illegal aliens will simply cost more billions and destroy more rights. – Michael Z. Williamson