Redstate

Boss Tweed.

I was reading an article on RedState last night by Pejman Yousefzadeh here http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/revealing_passage_of_th... .

In that article, an anonymous world bank official linked free markets to corruption. At first I thought the comment to be as light-headed as you might think. But then it occurred to me that the reason we're having this debate on illegal immigration is that U.S. government corruption has subverted the rule of law in the U.S. labor market. Free markets depend on the rule of law to function properly.

When a government looks the other way so that its friends can illegally enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers, common everyday corruption is the result.

We all know that the cost of digging a ditch is what it is. If the government intentionally looks the other way while an employer passes some of his expenses to the government treasury in the form of education, heath care, food stamps, and EITC in an illegal transaction (hiring illegal workers), the free market for labor in this country is corrupted.

If a government tries to back-door a law to make their illegal friends legal, and are called to account by the citizenry, and offer the following explanations:

Bush: You don't want to do what's right for America
Graham: Your a bigot
Chertoff: Youd rather have them killed than let them stay
Chavez: Your a racist

the only logical conclusion is that they are corrupt.

I wondered why, for the first time in my life, I am willing to abandon the Republican party even if it means the Democrats will take lopsided power. Then it occurred to me that it's because I would rather have a Liberal government than a CORRUPT government.

And I can only assume, not having any evidence to the contrary, that anyone who supports the amnesty of an illegal work force is corrupt.

I'll take a corrupt government over a liberal corrupt government any day. The problem w/ abandoning ship is that we are left swimming with sharks.

Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.

Please, don't tell me that you believe Democrats can't be corrupt.

Republicans get slammed for corruption by their opponents and the MSM, but the instances are thankfully few. Dems get a pass for their corruption, which is far more prevalent.

If you support the Dems, you'll only get more blatant corruption, plus the "Fairness Doctrine".

It's just that I've never voted for a Democrat.

I always thought Republicans, for the most part, were less corrupt. Now I see they've become more corrupt than the Democrats. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote Democrat. I'll go 3rd Party or just sit home, depending on the options.

You might wonder why I say Republicans have become more corrupt than Democrats. When Clinton was in office with a Democratic Congress neither he nor the congress tried to legalize this corrupt labor market. Yes, they did nothing about it. Corrupt, no doubt. But not as corrupt as the pending immigration reform bill.

We can argue all day about Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc., but this immigration reform bill is massive corruption with effects that will reach far into the future.

IMHO, it's not that Republicans are more (or less) corrupt than any others; just that R's tend to get more publicly slammed, leading to the perception that they are "increasing;y corrupt".

But, you go ahead and sit the next one out. After all, it's not like that very action didn't give us Pelosi, Inc. last time.

Some people vote for a candidate (or Party), some vote against. I'm a person who votes for a candidate (or Party). I can see you're a person who votes against. You vote against the Democrats, not for Republicans.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with either method. We just have different ways of looking at things.

I am an Independant, tired of the antics of BOTH parties. Up till now, I've felt that the R's more closely echoed my own stance on issues. With the current immigration 'debate', I'm not so sure.

It's the blanket assertion you made about R's being "increasingly corrupt" that caught my attention.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Good talking to you, seattle-ite.

Since this bill is far worse than nothing, there is no need to offer an alternative. There are plenty of alternative pieces of legislation out there, but they will never go anywhere with the current makeup of Congress and the current occupant of the WH. I'll take nothing over this.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Zuiko

Republicans had 6 years to do something about this problem, and now they want to continue to do what they do best...NOTHING.

For those of us at ground Zero for the effects of uncontrolled immigration, mostly Southern Border states, doing nothing is not an answer that is acceptable.

The Bush Bill is bad, I'll give you that, but to do nothing, to offer up no alternative just makes me want to vote for someone that will actually do the job that I am hiring them to do by voting for them, passing legislation.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

is the Bush bill an improvement on the status quo? Unless you can show that it is you should support its defeat.

It will do nothing to stop illegal immigration into America. It will do nothing about the illegal immigrants already hear.
It will greatly increase legal immingration into the US.

Given the above, how can you say it will be an improvement on what we have now?

Jon,

Yes this is a bad bill, no doubt about it, but where is the counter proposal, when will we see something done about illegal immegration if this bill fails?

My point here is that those in Congress who are complaining the loudest about the bill have offered no alternatives, just sound and fury signifying nothing.

Are we to wait until some Republican majority regains the House and Senate for legislation that features enforcement as the first step to addressing the problem is put forth. If history has shown nothing, at least the history of the last six years, Republicans are not serious about actually addressing the problem of illegal immegration in any meaningful way. Last summers hollow gestures and phony tour provided that. Politicians are too busy scoring cheap political points or spending or engaging in the Washington power game to do the people's work.

How about instead of trying to kill this bill outright, which I think will ultimately fail as a strategy, try amending the bill with strengthened enforcement provisions, more transparency in the metrics which are used to judge success of securing the border and other provisions which fix the worst of the mistakes in the bill. Standing for something instead of against everything is a much larger challenge isn't it?

We are seeing professional politicians without an ounce of backbone who just don't get the point that people care about this issue and want something done.

If you think doing nothing is better than doing something about illegal immegration with a piece of legislation that may be weak is a good thing, then we disagree.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

How about instead of trying to kill this bill outright, which I think will ultimately fail as a strategy

I think you are wrong. This bill is doomed. It isn't going anywhere. The only way this bill was going to get passed is if they rammed it through within a week of it being put together, before anyone could read it and mobilize against it. That was McCain and company's plan all along. When that didn't happen, it spelled big trouble for the bill. It cannot survive scrutiny.

try amending the bill with strengthened enforcement provisions, more transparency in the metrics which are used to judge success of securing the border and other provisions which fix the worst of the mistakes in the bill

The bill is not fixable. If it somehow were fixed, it would be unrecognizable from its current form and would not pass in the Senate or be signed by the President anyway.

Standing for something instead of against everything is a much larger challenge isn't it?

Enforcement people have made it pretty clear what they stand for, they just don't have the votes to do anything about it. We also don't have an executive branch that is at all interested in enforcement, or they could be doing it right now. All the more reason to not buy into the fake enforcement measures included in this bill.

If you think doing nothing is better than doing something about illegal immegration with a piece of legislation that may be weak is a good thing, then we disagree.

So is it your position that passing any bill with the words "immigration" in the title is better than nothing? Or do you actually like this bill? You must like the bill if you want it passed. It is not logical to demand a bill you hate be passed.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm pretty sure the American people don't want "something" done. They want certain things done, things which are ignored or undermined in this bill.

if you think doing nothing is better than doing something about illegal immegration with a piece of legislation that may be weak is a good thing, then we disagree.

I'll ask you again, what good things do you think will come out of this bill? How is it better than doing nothing? Which real world problems will it solve, and are they out-weighed by the new problems it creates?

Standing for something instead of against everything is a much larger challenge isn't it?

Sure. Standing for something of neccessity means standing against other things. Standing for nothing allows people to be for everything and anything. I don't see how this helps your argument since you are saying we should not stand for and against anything.

try amending the bill with strengthened enforcement provisions, more transparency in the metrics which are used to judge success of securing the border and other provisions which fix the worst of the mistakes in the bill.

You must be joking. You are assuming that the same people who have stubbornly refused to fund and enforce the existing laws will suddenly start doing so if this bill is passed. Why would you think that?

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

Appearently lemming-like jumping off a cliff is the order of the day. Because doing something is always preferable to doing nothing, regardless of what that something is.

This bill looks to do for the whole country what has already happened in California - make left-wing Democrats the natural rulers. But hey, we have to do something!

Jon

Seems you care more about the base policial nature of what the influx of millions of people "could" do instead of the reality of what millions of illegals aliens here right now free riding on the back of tax payers on the underground economy are doing or the threat from terrorism from an uncontrolled porous border.

As to your comment about making the rest of the US like California, I am taking by inference the failure of the CA Republican party from your comment. If California and the Republican party out here teaches nothing, it's that nominating hard line candidates that are out of step with the vast majority of voters in the state is a sure way to loose elections. Take State Senator Tom McClintock as exhibit A for that philosophy, a good guy who is just so hard core that he could not even win the Lt. Governor election with the backing of the Governator. Worry instead about nominating good men and women who have understand that what ever your problem is, governement is not the answer and the Republican party will be fine. I think you'll find that new immigrants who start paying all them taxes the rest of us do are open to a Republican point of view on the size and role of governement.

Me, I'm less worried about the future of the Republican party and more about having a state and country where my children are not taxed to death supporting freeloading illegal aliens.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

If California and the Republican party out here teaches nothing, it's that nominating hard line candidates that are out of step with the vast majority of voters in the state is a sure way to loose elections.

The CA GOP is dead because of all the hardliners it runs for office? Hardliners that like to raise taxes, borrow money, jack up spending, create new government programs for everything under the sun... fun conservative stuff like that, I guess. I can see why the CA GOP is dead. I can't imagine supporting that organization if I were unfortunate enough to live there. People like Pete Wilson and Richard Riordan and Arnold Schwarzenegger make wonder what the point is. I know a lot of people who DO live there who feel the same way.

I think you'll find that new immigrants who start paying all them taxes the rest of us do are open to a Republican point of view on the size and role of governement.

Not a chance. Economics trumps everything else in elections. The vast majority of the poor vote for Democrats. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are poor. They'll buy into the Democrat's socialist message in a second. It's the middle class where the Republican Party does the best. The people streaming across the border from the poorest regions of Mexico (the same areas that supported our buddy AMLO in the last election) to do unskilled labor illegally are not middle class. They'll pay minimal, if any taxes. They'll want their free stuff.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The weak CA Republican Party is a "country club" set. As represented by the Governator, it just wants power and control, and could care less about philosophy, ideology, costs of immigration, the welfare state, taxes, etc. Very little will affect them. Their primary philosophy will be to give the voters anything they want in order to retain personal power and status.

There are small, sparsely populated areas, represented by real conservatives, like Tom McClintock, but they have little clout. Democratic CA will keep getting more Congressional seats, at the expense of the Plains, and will use their Congressional power to demand more federal money to support their immigration and welfare state. The only hope for the Republicans is that they split the state into two parts. If we have a "balkanization" of the country, CA will be the first to go.

If California and the Republican party out here teaches nothing, it's that nominating hard line candidates that are out of step with the vast majority of voters in the state is a sure way to loose elections.

California shows us that changing the voters in a state, and by extension in the United States, has political consequences. A hard line candidate named Ronald Reagan once was elected in California. Another named Pete Wilson was also. If people like that are no longer electable there is is because the composition of the electorate there has been changed, by government action.

You are sorely mistaken in thinking that the GOP in California is in trouble because it is too "hard line". It's positions are in the mainstream of American thought and used to be in the mainstream of California thought. The party is in trouble there because the voters there changed, and more to the point, were caused to change. The bill you support as "doing something" will have the same effect nationwide as we have seen in California.

The Democrats admit this. Heck, they boast about it. But what accounts for the willingness of Republicans to assist them in their schemes?

Why do Californians think that their opinion equals "the rest of America"? Have you spoken to anyone in Yakima, Wa.? Migrant labor is the norm there, but the costs usually outweigh the benefits.

you care more about the base policial nature of what the influx of millions of people "could" do instead of the reality of what millions of illegals aliens here right now free riding on the back of tax payers on the underground economy are doing or the threat from terrorism from an uncontrolled porous border

Are you under the impression that "what millions of illegals aliens here right now free riding on the back of tax payers on the underground economy are doing or the threat from terrorism from an uncontrolled porous border" is not "base political reality"? If so, why? What you you think base political reality is?

The current bill will do nothing at all about "free riding on the back of tax payers on the underground economy". Nothing at all.

The current bill will do nothing at all about "the threat from terrorism from an uncontrolled porous border". Nothing at all.

It was not designed to do these things. Heck, it was carefully designed NOT to do these things. The things which you say you want, you don't seem to want.

About sums you up then.

We understand each other perfectly, Mr Moby.

There's a difference between "do this specific thing (enforcement only for now)" and "do something, anything, I don't care what (amnesty, guest workers, etc)!"

The "do something, anything!" crowd is mostly on the other side of the aisle. That's their philosophy when approaching anything. It doesn't matter whether what they do actually improves the situation, they just need to be seen as doing something. It's the thought that counts, not the results.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

SteveLA really misses the point. The majority of voters don't want to just do "something." They want Congress to secure the border first. No immigration reform is possible until this happens.

You can pass all of the laws you want, but the executive branch has to implement them. There is a huge question about the Bush Administration's intentions and capabilities? I am not assured by McCain's guarantee that the bill will get enough agents and fences on the border in a timely manner.

It will greatly increase illegal immigration as well. People will want to get in on the visas and citizenship by sneaking in after the fact and using easily forged documentation (that will be for sale on every street corner) to "prove" they were here on 1/1/07.

The status quo is far better than this bill. That's why this bill needs to die.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Doesn't he, like about 75% of the American people support securing the border first?

SteveLA has a point.

Its easy to talk and say its a bad bill, but a specific counter proposal or step by step plan would be helpful here - even if it has no chance of being introduced in the current Congress.

Nothing is better than this bill, but not by much, because neither 'nothing' or this bill will fix the problem.

Mr. Hunter, Thank you for writing. I believe this is an excellent opportunity to put specifics on paper for potential supporters to see.

Better bills are easy to introduce. Perhaps you mean they won't pass, which is true, but besides the point.

The current bill ignores the existing problems and creates new ones. What is needed instead is a series of seperate bills addressing each seperate issue. For example, a bill to end the existence of "sanctuary cities". Such a bill has been introduced several times, and never goes anywhere. The reason is that most people are unaware that the bill even exists so there is zero public support behind it. Yet polls show an overwhelming majority in favor of such a bill.

Build the fence, secure the border, and then start ENFORCING THE BLEEPING LAWS!!! True, we can't just round up 20 million people and deport them over the next two, but why do we need to? Why not just round them up by the tens and twenties and deport them, then round up ten or twenty more? Sure it would take longer, but make it much harder to cross back and forth from Mexico, and really crack down on employers who hire illegals, using the laws already in place, and many, if not most, will self-deport.

We're conservatives, right? Aren't we supoosed to be suspicious of quick-fix, instanteous solutions to problems? It's the liberals who think we can solve terrorism with a lightning, three-month war in Afghanistan, liberals who think that one bill, at one time can solve one of this biggest issues facing the country since the end of the Cold War. Not us. We live in the real world.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

Jon

Pass the bill with a moratorium on implementing normalization procedures until real triggers are met.

Trigger 1

70 Percent of the already authorized 700 miles of fence on the border is in place.

Trigger 2

"Unmatched" SSN numbers reported to SSA drops to some threshold. Any illegal immigrants identified by cross checking SSNs would be required to register for adjudication under normalization procedures once the other triggers are met. Tax Payer ID numbers along with full biometric identification, full criminal record checks would be required if discovered during SSN employment checks.

Trigger 3

Illegal border crossings are reduced to some fixed number (not 0), certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security to Congress and validated by the GAO along with approved by a Super Majority in the House of Representatives.

Trigger 4

Expansion and certification by the GAO of effective operation the Pilot Employment Verification program.

Trigger 5

All US places of incarceration have screen and identified all persons incarcerated who are not legally entitled to be in this country along with full biometric recording of same before expulsion from this country.

Trigger 6

A secure ID card, linked to Pilot employment verification system.

I could think of more, but those will do, and they could all be put in as amendments to the current bill.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

What does it tell you that these provisions, which should have been the starting point for any "comprehensive immigration reform" bill, may or may not be added as amendments later on?

And the odds are heavily against them being added.

Fine, none of these points will make it into the final bill, but so what?

If anything, some smart Republican needs to introduce these points as amendments to the bill and force a on the record vote for each provision. If the bill goes through without these sorts of measures, there is the makings of one heck of a club to beat every politician over the head with who does not vote in favor of them.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

The majority in Congress consistently vote to protect "sanctuary cities". Has there ever been any punishment for their doing so?

I think there might have been if the issue ever recieved publicity. But it has not, does not, and may never do so. Majorites in Congress consistently vote against things favored by the majority in the country where immigration law is concerned. Making English the official language seems like it should be a no-brainer, but it never goes anywhere. It's another thing missing in this bill.

Trigger 7

Deny federal funding to cities that declare themselves "sanctuary cities" and have "don't ask" policies such as Special Order 40 (Los Angeles Police Department) which mandates that police officers cannot ask a persons immigration status".

Trigger 8

Forbid banks and lending institutions from allowing illegals to open up checking, credit card and loan accounts.

Trigger 9

Certify that 90% of businesses do not have illegal immigrant employed.

All good points, and all amendments that should be put forth by the Republican minority for an up or down vote.

If from a Tactical point of view, if the President's immegration bill is going to pass no matter what the objections are, then it is critical to get a good package of sensible measures on the table to strengthen the enforcement provisions for members of Congress and the Senate to vote on the record on. If those measures are defeated, thinking must turn to how Republicans can run on against Democrats and weak Republicans who are not serious about the enforcement side of immegration reform as evidenced by their votes.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

And the executive has no interest in doing it. There's very little Congress can really do to force the executive to enforce the law. The problem is really the White House, not Congress, as it has been all along.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Precisely the reason to have separate bills. I do not trust that it will be enforced if passed together.

Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.

We don't need a new bill, and there shouldn't be one. Our laws on the books would do a fine job of dealing with this problem over an extended period of time IF the executive branch would enforce them and/or fund them (in the case of Rep. Hunter's border fence). That's one of the reasons why 2008 is so important, and why Rep. Hunter is my favorite of the "dark horse" candidates.

The problem is not the lack of some new legislation/normalization process/guest worker program/amnesty, it's a bunch of elites looking to profit financially and politically from the continued and increasing prescence of unskilled/cheap labor. Right now voters are fed up with the problem of illegal immigration, so the Bush-Democrat-WSJ axis is trying to get the heat off by passing this BIG IMPORTANT BILL THAT WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING, while in actual fact changing nothing except the number of cheap workers.

The day when crisises can only be solved by further legislation is the day I weep for America.

Bush uses the excuss that we can't round up 20 million people and deport them, right this second, to support this inane bill. Yet he still fights the war on drugs and that is a bigger lossing battle then trying to export the illegals.

Fact is start with closing the borders. Finance ICE with fines to employers and landlords of illegal aliens. Don't allow non-citizens who are here illegal access to the courts via appeals. That way they won't get clogged. They aren't Americans they don't have American rights. And start by deporting the easiest ones to find and keep going until you retire and the next guy continues the fight in your place or there aren't any more left to deport.

A fence? That's the solution? What of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in country? What about the maintenance costs of the fence? What about the fact that much of the fence travels across depopulated areas and will be troublesome (if not all-but-impossible) to maintain? How many more border patrol personnel are required? Where is the money coming from? What taxes with Rep. Hunter raise? What programs does he wish to cut? How many new law enforcement personnel will be hired, who will pay, and who will be reassigned (and from where) if we add-in stiff employer penalties? What will be the effect on the business community of all of the foregoing? What about the consumer?

Like most who favor enforcement-only, Hunter offers only inadequate solutions to the problem and fails to recognize the fact that we have a large number of illegal immigrants because the free market incentivizes them to come and for employers to employ them. You can take actions to change marketplace incentives, but the central lesson of intervening in the market is that it will have unintended, and in some cases negative, consequences. And, as we've discovered from the marketplace experiments by socialists and democrats, the fact that you're super well intentioned and trying to solve a real problem -- as Rep. Hunter is -- matters not a whit.

There are bad parts of this bill. It may not be worth passing it, and accepting the current situation (which is amnesty de facto). But Hunter provides no reason to think that he has the answer to this particular problem, and no reason for us to prefer the amnesty of today for the (alleged) amnesty of tomorrow.

By the way, enforcement-only was tried. Once. For six months in the 1950s. And never repeated. Do you think there's a reason for that?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

your bizarro world economic theories. For one thing this is not the thread for them.

What of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in country?

What of them?

What about the maintenance costs of the fence?

If the richest country in the world cannot afford to maintain a fence, maybe it needs to be taken over by competent management. Maybe the Arabs can show us how its done.

How many more border patrol personnel are required?

Lets say 50,000. Right now the entire 5,000 mile US land border is guarded by 12,000 BP officers. By contrast NYC is guarded by 36,000 police officers. What is wrong with this picture?

i>Where is the money coming from?

Again, the fantasy that the trivial amount needed to guard our borders is beyind the financial abilty of the US, a country which spends a half-trillion dollars per years on a "defense budget" which for some reason cannot be used to protect our borders.

we have a large number of illegal immigrants because the free market incentivizes them to come and for employers to employ them

No. We have a large number of illegal immigrants because the law against the practice is not being enforced.

You can take actions to change marketplace incentives, but the central lesson of intervening in the market is that it will have unintended, and in some cases negative, consequences.

No kidding. You are intervening in the market by opening the borders and seeking to drive down the cost of labor in the US. The consequences have been and will contine to be negative, and in some cases, unintended.

as we've discovered from the marketplace experiments by socialists and democrats

Who the hell do you think is behind this bill? This bill is a marketplace experiment by socialists and democrats. Why do you think it was crafted by Ted Kennedy and has the overwhelming support of Democrats in Congress?

as we've discovered from the marketplace experiments by socialists and democrats, the fact that you're super well intentioned and trying to solve a real problem -- as Rep. Hunter is -- matters not a whit.

There you go again. I don't know why you suffer from the belief that you are some sort of free market economic expert, but its getting pretty tiresome.

Spare me your bizarro world economic theories. For one thing this is not the thread for them.

Jon, thanks for clarifying that you think macroeconomics, as well as basic supply-and-demand, are "bizarro world economic theories."

What of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in country?

What of them?

What does Representative Duncan propose doing to/with them? What do you?

If the richest country in the world cannot afford to maintain a fence, maybe it needs to be taken over by competent management. Maybe the Arabs can show us how its done.

Securing and patroling a 1951 mile border -- some of it urbanized, some of its desert, some of "other" -- ain't the same as going down to the Home Depot and picking up a premade fence. By comparison, Israel has a much smaller fence to maintain, and even it spends a considerable amount to build/maintain it.

Again, the fantasy that the trivial amount needed to guard our borders is beyind the financial abilty of the US, a country which spends a half-trillion dollars per years on a "defense budget" which for some reason cannot be used to protect our borders.

You keep saying that it's a "trivial amount" and within the financial ability of the US to absorb. I don't disagree that the US could pay for whatever measures you and Rep. Hunter might dream up (250,000 BP agents, a fence to rival the Berlin Wall, etc.) If it chose to, that is. But, before it makes that choice, it would be nice if you or Rep. Hunter would say (1) what the proposal is, (2) how much it will cost, and (3) where the money would come from (higher taxes or spending cuts).

Since no one on the enforcement only side seems to know the answer to these basic questions, I have to question whether they are being realistic.

No. We have a large number of illegal immigrants because the law against the practice is not being enforced.

Good. What are you going to do to enforce them? Do you have any studies regarding the likely effects on small businesses, or other economic effects from sudden decrease in labor supply? What are they? What is the effect on wages? The consumer price index? Corporate profits & the stock market?

Who the hell do you think is behind this bill? This bill is a marketplace experiment by socialists and democrats. Why do you think it was crafted by Ted Kennedy and has the overwhelming support of Democrats in Congress?

Yes, the WSJ is a famously socialist institution. Meanwhile, opponents of the bill call basic economic theory -- H.S. material, really -- the product of a bizarro world, and can't or won't answer the most basic questions regarding their proposed alternatives.

There you go again. I don't know why you suffer from the belief that you are some sort of free market economic expert, but its getting pretty tiresome.

I don't think I've ever claimed to be a "free market expert," whatever that means.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The estimates for a fence along the entire border were in the low to mid single digits (billions). That is less than we paid just to replace Marine One, for instance. I'd rather we had a protected border, even if that meant the President had to go without a cool new fleet of helicopters to fly around in.

We could build a border fence the entire length of the border for what the Federal government (which doesn't actually run schools, educate kids, or pick up most of the education tab, remember) spends on education over the course of only 10 days. If we spent 1/20th as much on the border as we spent (so far) on New Orleans, we'd have a fence along the entire border. The money the federal government spends on everything is mind boggling. The cost of the fence is nothing in comparison.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The estimates for a fence along the entire border were in the low to mid single digits (billions).

I've also seen estimates for building the fence in the mid-billion dollar range, but that's not what I'm after. (Like all government estimates, this is probably too low -- everyone highballs tax revenues and lowballs exepnses.) I want to know what the year-to-year cost will be of adequately maintaining and staffing the fence in order to get the results that Rep. Hunter and Jon Sanders are looking for. Building a fence is relatively easy. But that's just the price of admission. The rest is considerably more expensive over the long term.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

It is not part of the cost of the fence. The fence pays for itself because it lowers staffing requirements. That's why people build fences around industrial plants, military bases, prisons, and farms. They could simply hire lots of people and post them around the border of their property, but that would be considerably more expensive.

Now, we may very well need to add more border patrol agents, but if we need to add 10,000 more with the fence, that number would be many times higher without it. It is not an expense of the fence.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Don't we need to address it all? And after you start addressing it all -- employer enforcement, BP staffing, etc. -- aren't we simply looking at a different kind of comprehensive reform.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The fence isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but it needs to be done and cost is no excuse. The only reason it hasn't been done is because people do not want it there. They don't want to tick off Mexico. They don't want to stop the flow of illegal labor. They are afraid building a fence might lose them votes with the Hispanic community.

If it was just about the money, we'd already have the fence.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Just do the math. Say we are talking about 1500 miles of fence (some urban areas are already fenced and some areas of the border are impassable, so 1500 seems like a good number) at the cost of $5 bln. That is $3,333,333 a mile. Or $631 a linear foot. Or $52 a linear inch. For a fence. That doesn't seem that unrealistic, even with the government involved.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There was enough pork in the War Supplemental funding bill that the President just signed to build the fence a couple of times over and to maintain it for the next decade too.

We could have lots of free labor using all the illegals that are in prison now to learn a skill by building the border fence. Ooops, oh yeah, we can't ask prisoners if they are illegal or not. My bad.

Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.

Since no one on the enforcement only side seems to know the answer to these basic questions, I have to question whether they are being realistic.

I don't think these unknown unknowns are as unknown as you think they are. The cost of the current Border Patrol is $1.4 billion per year. That covers the costs of 11,000 BP officers who guard our 5,000 mile long land border. This strikes me and many others as a laughably small amount for the worlds wealthiest country to spend on defending itself. And as I say, the half-trillion dollar "defense budget" is not allowed to be used to guard the nations borders for some reason.

It has been estimated that 50,000 officers would be needed to properly secure the borders. That would require raising the BP budget from $1.4 billion to about $7 billion per year, a trivial sum in the context of the Federal budget and a pittance to pay to secure our country. As for where the money would come from, I don't care much. A tax raise for such a small amount would be almost unnoticed. But I'd favor taking the extra $6 billion out of our increasingly misnamed half trillion dollar "defense" budget.

As for the cost of a fence, I've seen estimates for 700 miles of fence ranging from $20 billion to nearer $50 billion. It depends on a number of factors, including how many humans we have watching the border and what their "rules of engagement" are. A lot of people in government are opposed to a fence and have every incentive to high-ball the costs.

The real "free market" solution to the problem would be to pressure Mexico and the rest of Latin America to adapt a free enterprise system themselves, along with its most basic requirement - rule of law. Instead we are set to adapt the Latin American system here in the US.

I'm not going to get into your self-described HS economics in this thread. Start a blog on it, or I will, and we can discuss it there.

At least we're beginning to have a discussion of pros and cons.

Assume an initial cost of $25 billion for the fence, and yearly outlays of $10 billion for the BP increases and fence upkeep. (I tend to think both numbers are too low, but let's take them for the sake of argument.) Assume that it reduces illegal immigration significantly. It does nothing for the illegal immigrants in country. And there's no analysis of the effect on the economy or the labor market.

I also think it's unwise to (1) propose a tax increase in a Democratically-controlled Congress (you may not like what you end up with) or (2) take money from the defense budget. Indeed, I would like to see the external defense budget increased, not decreased. (The threats, both major and minor, keep increasing -- China, Putin's Russia, Chavez, instability in Pakistan, instability in Somalia, the crisis in Sudan, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea -- and our forces are dangerously overstretched.)

Finally, the notion that markets require laws is of course correct, but incomplete. The laws required by a market are not laws that exclude persons from market participation, which is being proposed here. They are laws that regulate such participation -- e.g., enforce contracts, resolve disputes, etc. When you get exclusionary laws, you end up with market distortions. Drugs, for instance, become much more expensive. Now, this is sometimes (on net) good and sometimes bad, but it is never cost free. Excluding illegal immigrants from the labor market -- rather than normalizing their participation -- is likely to increase the wages of some low-wage, unskilled legal workers. But this may end up being worse for the economy as a whole, including the majority of workers.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Then what? You appear to think that this amount is too much. Is that correct? How much is the right amount to spend defending America's borders?

I also think it's unwise to (1) propose a tax increase in a Democratically-controlled Congress

I don't see why.

Indeed, I would like to see the external defense budget increased, not decreased.

The "external defense budget" is not permitted for some reason to be used to defend the nation from invasion from abroad and to secure its borders. It is not a "defense budget" at all in the that sense. Given that, what useful purpose does it serve? I'd slash the whole thing myself. I see no reason a few billion cannot be taken from it to actually secure the nations borders, which is a legitmate function of the Federal government. The same cannot be said for our expeditionary forces abroad.

The threats, both major and minor, keep increasing -- China, Putin's Russia, Chavez, instability in Pakistan, instability in Somalia, the crisis in Sudan, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea -- and our forces are dangerously overstretched.

What are they threats to? The current invasion is not originating in any of these countries. Do you think we are in danger of the Somali Army rolling its tanks down the streets of Washington? If these countries are the major threat you say they are, don't you think its possible that rather than building an elaborate ICBM system, they might drive a nuke across the border or ship one to us in a container?

The laws required by a market are not laws that exclude persons from market participation, which is being proposed here. They are laws that regulate such participation ..

I'm not having this discussion in this thread. Suffice it to say that your issue is with the basic concept of the nation state itself, which has always been understood (even by economists) to have the right and the duty to "regulate" who does and who does not reside within their borders, which preceeded and made possible the "free market system", and which is a neccessity for that free market system to survive. And that you don't know what laws are required by a market.

...by the savings in not supplying non-citizens with social services.

Indeed it is.

Your problem is you are hung up on an old-fashoned definition whereby socialism seeks the good of all. In practice it has always been a movement which sought the good of a small number of politically powerful and connected people. The best interests of the free enterprise system and the desires of businessmen are not comptatible. So said all the economists from Smith to Friedman and Sowell.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Socialism doesn't mean "a movement which sought the good of a small number of politically powerful and connected people." It actually has a specific meaning. The Wall Street Journal has many problems with its positions, including on immigration, but how about we stick to the facts, and the real meanings of words?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And all this time I thought that socialism was the government owning or controlling the means of production. I guess the new-fashioned definition is however a person wishes to define it.