The Death of the US-Mexico Virtual Fence 467
eldavojohn writes "A couple of years ago it was announced that the Boeing-built virtual fence at the US-Mexico border didn't work. Started in 2006, SBInet has been labeled a miserable failure and finally halted. A soon-to-be-released GAO report is expected to be overwhelmingly critical of SBInet, causing DHS Chief Janet Napolitano to announce yesterday that funding for the project has been frozen. It's sad that $1.4 billion had to be spent on the project before the discovery that this poorly conceived idea would not work."
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking immigrants to follow the law and immigrate legally isn't being a xenophobe.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:2, Insightful)
"Couldn't that $1.4 billion have been better spent buying Valium for the rampant xenophobes in Congress?"
Yes, I couldn't agree more. The only thing coming out of Washington that is good for 'We The People', is gridlock. When they actually do stuff, it always seems to cost us more.
Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if we can just put an end to the asinine "war on drugs", we'll be in good shape. When the laws surrounding a substance are more harmful than the substance itself, there is a serious problem.
As far as the fence is concerned, if we had just poured $1.4 billion into Mexico's economy instead of this cluster fuck of an idea, workers would have less of a reason to leave Mexico and try to sneak into our country. They come here for jobs, but if we help create jobs in their own country...
We will never be able to keep them out, so why not make it so they have no reason to come here?
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped. Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends on the content of the law.
California Agriculture Wins Again (Score:4, Insightful)
They say they can't compete without cheap labor, but it they'd have invested as much in robots as they have in lobbying for protection and special access to illegal immigrants, then they'd be competitive without having to load NAFTA with special protections just for them. (free trade. ha!)
Now the restaurants and building industry are spraying malathion on the middle class suburbs. (just call your critics "xenophobes" and you WIN the argument. wtf? )
Just fine the crap out of people that hire illegals and the problem goes away.
but no. let's build a virtual fence and make sure it doesn't work.
If picking lettuce and sweeping floors is scarce labor, how come wages have gone down in these industries? Why is average working Joe making less? Wouldn't wages have gone up if the labor was as scarce as some people whine about?
This project was not about building a fence (Score:5, Insightful)
This project was about two things:
1) Lining the pockets of a lot of people
2) Making those who fear illegal immigration feel better
Goal 1 was *very* successful. Goal 2, not as much but...there will be other mufti-million dollar projects coming up that will.
Seriously, did anyone really think this would work? Of course not. Plain common sense would immediately tell you this was destined for failure. Government and corporations simply ignored that and moved forward, That's a difference between "them" and "us."
Re:Poorly conceived idea? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:2, Insightful)
I grew up in a small midwestern town, and maybe this makes me xenophobic, but would it be too much to ask if people immigrating to this country would culturally integrate themselves to the point of at least learning the language?
A a woman who proudly defined herself as a Russian Jew, made it a point to tell me that her son, who was born in the USA, was learning Russian as his first language because she wanted him to have a Russian accent - and that he could learn English when he was in kindergarten.
She wouldn't let him watch American television at all, so no Sesame Street, Barney or Teletubbies.
And she has the right to do that, but isn't she perpetuating "us"-vs-"them" and making sure that her son doesn't assimilate?
I dunno ... maybe I "am" xenophobic or racist, or whatever. Intellectually, I don't think that people from other cultures are "bad" - but I'm also kind of sentimental about the small town homogeneous culture I grew up in. :\
It's just frustrating ...
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:2, Insightful)
No, if the hassle of being "legal" is too much for you then you should just return to your country.
And I say this as a Mexican who does not plan to go to the USA due to their current policies against immigrants.
Having said that, I believe the USA really needs to fix their immigration programs as they are broken. As I heard some American guy who used to work at IBM: Mexico does not have a problem with immigration, it is a USA problem. Mexico just "exports" very cheap labour. The problem is that the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to fill up the demand of international labour in the country.
As our racist ex-president (Vicente Fox) put it: Mexicans do things that not even African-American (I believe he did say "Negros") want to do. So, if people in the USA do not want to work for whatever payment the market is offering, then let aliens do that work.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one other country with a statue considered to be a national symbol that says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free."
If we don't mean it, we shouldn't have that written on the Statue of Liberty. Just sayin'.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
So we need to revise the legal immigration path. That's fine. But this labeling anyone who opposes open, rampant border crossing with zero control a "racist" or a "xenophobe" is unfathomable bullshit that needs to stop so the problem can actually be debated. It's an anti-intellectual tactic trotted out by the other side to clamp down on open discussion.
And, I'm sorry, but we can't take everyone who wants in. We can't afford it even in the best of times. Eventually you are taxing all income over X dollars at 100% and confiscating all corporate profits, and still don't have enough money. Then what? No other country in the history of the world has ever been expected to allow this willy nilly open border nonsense.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens
Just as I don't want to find some intruder walking around in my house without permission, neither do I want an intruder entering my country without permission. Pack them up, hand them a VISA application form, and send them home.
As for jobs, given the current ~10% unemployment rate, a lot of these businesses don't need to hire intruders from Mexico or Canada anymore. There are plenty of hungry or homeless Americans willing to pick crops or defeather chickens or whatever else it takes to earn money to survive.
Final thought - My Japanese and Chinese friends are not intruders. They applied for and got permission to come here (and eventually gain citizenship). I don't see why there should be an exception for any other group.
.
>>>The real problem is that our legitimate businesses are legally shipping planeloads of cash overseas for crappy products and services.
True but when oil rises to $200/barrel during the next decade that problem will self-correct itself. It will no longer be affordable to ship goods all the way from China, and instead the factories will be built on this continent.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
And, I'm sorry, but we can't take everyone who wants in. We can't afford it even in the best of times. Eventually you are taxing all income over X dollars at 100% and confiscating all corporate profits, and still don't have enough money.
This assumes that each new person is a net cost to government coffers. If that's true, then we have bigger problems than immigration.
Re:They're still lawbreakers. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if you do not want Mexicans involved in trafficking drugs then Americans should stop consuming the darn shit. The only reason we keep pumping drugs through the Mexican transport channels it to make them arrive at the USA is because its population is gladly paying whatever price for them.
I am glad that at some point their dream-world gets touched by the reality of drug trading. Just look at the state of Cd. Juarez and the majority of the North of Mexico. If there was no demand on illegal drugs in the USA then the majority of the crimes related to that would be decreased considerably.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way to "create jobs" in Mexico without first staging a revolution. The problem is that the upper class owns just about everything and isn't interested in employing people and is very interested in keeping prices for things like food down. So the farmers get nothing for their crops and end up living as subsistance farmers. Understand that it is completely divided across racial lines in Mexico - the Mexican Indians are poor, the Castillians are the upper class. Why we in the US should help perpetuate this system is beyond me.
How do you fix that? Well, building foreign-owned factories doesn't do it. Sure, it makes a slight difference in an area around Juarez, but nothing else. And because there is no foundation to build on, the people with jobs at the factory have no idea what to do with their different life.
Today, if someone crosses the border from north to south into Mexico they will be met by the Mexican Army, arrested and likely confined, possibly for a long time. There is no possibility that someone is going to stay there unmolested - the people will turn the "invader" in if they manage to elude the Army and the police. This is the complete opposite of what happens to a border crosser going from south to north - which means pretty much we deserve exactly what we are getting.
The only way that this will end is when the standard of living is equal between the two countries. Since raising the standard in Mexico is impossible because of the culture and financial system, it means that the US has to have the same standard of living as Mexico does today. With 25% real unemployment, very tight credit and a collapsed housing market we are well on our way there. When the amnesty is passed later this year we will likely see that there are 20-30 million people from Mexico in the US in a few years. This will pretty much put the finishing touches on the labor market.
A strong border is simply not a priority with most people. Either they don't see the effects or they somehow believe that we "owe" it to Mexico to help the poor people so the upper class can continue to ignore them. Of course many businesses welcome the minimum-wage labor force that is supplied from Mexico. The work that cannot be outsourced can be done in the US by people to whom minimum wage for a week is 10 times what they could make in a year back home.
Sure, we could have built a strong border - but without support of the citizens of the US it would never work. And we clearly do not have support of the citizens. Napolitano wanted to throw open the border when she was governer in Arizona, probably mostly for the benefit of the businesses here. The fact that it makes getting a entry-level low-skill job impossible meant nothing to her.
We better build a really strong social safety net, because when we are at 30-40% unemployment we are all going to need it.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same logic that says the problem of Mexican drugs being imported into the US is the US's fault? Sure, there needs to be demand, but this is a bit like saying that murderers wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for all of these *living* people around!
Honestly, I believe the problem needs to be solved on both sides of the border. Americans are willing to pay a fraction of what they would to a local, to do a menial job. Mexicans are willing to risk life and limb just to get a chance to do that job. Something is very wrong with every part of this situation.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because the U.S. welfare/medicare system is already overburdened and therefore wants educated/professional people who will ADD funds to the system, not suck more out.
I'd also argue that the U.S. has enough people already. When the oil crisis hits in the 2020s (price rises about $200/barrel), we'll have a hard enough time feeding the 310 million persons we have now. We don't need more bodies to make the situation worse. I'm not saying we should completely stop immigration - just be selective in who we let in.
This is no different than how I only allow certain people into my home, not everyone who asks.
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE:
Let's just invite all 6 billion people to live here, even the deadbeats who have nothing to contribute. Let everyone enjoy the U.S.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Run the numbers... If you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of income earners you are likely to be paying more into the system than you are getting out of it. For the rest of us, the system is so overbearing that we have no hope of paying for it. We are leaving that for our kids and grandkids (in the form of debt). It's simple, really.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the republicans get back into office, they'll go back to railing against immigrants
You may not be aware of this but the last immigration bill was pushed heavily by Bush, McCain, and other Republican leaders.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was 16, I worked "flipping burgers". Rather than a high-school or college student doing it now, there's a 30 some odd polite (yes) Hispanic lady doing it. Is she here legally? I can't say, but I suspect she is. As well several of the staff.
On a higher level, at my current job (before our buy out), several people were making near or over $40k using bogus SSNs. Were THEY here legally? Cant say -- but they all bailed during our company buy out (and re-hire screening). I dont know about you, but I'd say $40k/year is far from your "[not] exactly great jobs [for] Americans" comment.
That said, my wife is a legal immigrant (from Syria). Came here when she was 19. Here entire family is from either Syria or Lebanon. Two of my grand parents immigrated legally. The others (except maternal grandfather's family) came one generation sooner. Apparently Pop-pop's family goes back to the early 1700s or earlier in Deleware.
What bothers me is people try to make this about race or "xenophobia". It's not. Its about national sovereignty. Why would it be bad to protect our southern border in the exact same way that Mexico protects it's southern border? I understand why Mexico protests -- as it would mean an end to a HUGE part of it's GDP (money flowing back in from the US from Mexican nationals working in the US illegally).
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but how do you detect drugs in the hair of somebody who doesn't do drugs?
It's sad that $1.5 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sad that $1.5 billion had to be spent to try and protect honest God-fearing Americans from poor Mexicans who wanted to pick our fruit for minimum wage.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
As I said... bigger problems than immigration. And, actually, given the Ponzi-scheme nature of what we've been doing for decades now, plus the decline in native birth rate, we may NEED massive immigration just to have a prayer of eventually every catching up.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing coming out of Washington that is good for 'We The People', is gridlock. When they actually do stuff, it always seems to cost us more.
Well, that just might be the intent. After all, for several decades now the US government has been mostly run by people who consider corporate profits the most important thing in the world. Of course, we've long used the term "pork" to refer to Congress passing laws designed to funnel money to companies in their district. This story is just a more blatant recent version of this, where the money is funneled to construction companies while openly ignoring questions about whether it'll even work. The real answer, of course, is "Who cares?", since the actual goal was enriching the officers and stockholders of the construction firms.
The other growing example of this is the US pseudo-debate over health care. If you listen to this "debate" at all, it rapidly becomes clear that they almost never discuss health care itself. Rather, they always talk about the money, primarily insurance money. The main consideration in both Congress and the White House is that the existing insurance companies and the flock of other medical management firms, which do no actual medical work at all, maintain or increase their income. Actual medical care is far down in the list of priorities. Even when corporations such as hospitals are discussed, the "issues" are things like profits, mergers & acquisitions, etc.; they rarely deal with any actual medical issues.
It was especially blatant in the recent "bank bailout". Many analysts reported that the government's support money went almost entirely into three things: officer bonuses, share dividends and acquisitions of smaller financial firms. Almost nothing went into fixing the problems that had got the financial system in trouble. So this was yet again a way of funneling money into the corporate owners, with no concern for whether it solved any actual problems.
But none of this should be surprising. We've even read here frequently how the only important thing is corporate profit, and corporations exist for no other purpose. When this is the major source of almost all campaign funding, you should expect exactly what we've got. And it's the main ideology in US politics these days, in both major parties and several minor parties.
Too much sensing, not enough firepower (Score:3, Insightful)
This was all about "sensing". It didn't actually do anything to stop border crossers.
Multiple fences with a patrol road between them, plus a chain of towers to discourage people cutting the fence, might actually work. The sections with physical fences are doing their job now. There's solid fence from the Pacific Ocean to Yuma, AZ., which has pushed crossing attempts into Texas and the desert.
Re:This project was not about building a fence (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept and goal is completely feasible. It has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with private companies that live within there own world where everyone is just as likely to stab someone else in the back as they are to actually try to progress a project.
Had in been a government design, and implemented in a manner where companies bid for pieces to complete, instead of the whole thing, it could be successful.
I mean it's not really needed and does nothing but pander to irrational fear, but the fence is possible.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:2, Insightful)
but jumping to conclusion on the effect of immigration is xenophobic.
It is a pretty clear sign of xenophobic when people are only concerned about having a fence on ONE border... racist, really.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of packing plants in the midwest that used to provide men a living wage for their families. Those guys are almost all gone and in their place are 30 guys named Jesus who all share the same social security number.
American citizens had those jobs and DID those jobs for years and years. It wasn't until outfits like Hormel, IBP, and other found it was cheaper to higher the Hispanics that supposedly no one wanted them.
I'd posit that this is true for MANY of these jobs that Americans supposedly don't want.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to create jobs.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PATROL THE FUCKING BORDER
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:1, Insightful)
No the problem is that you and your elected officials gave away millions in tax incentives and you agreed to work for less than a living wage to get companies to move to Georgia and the rest of the south. The problem with your plan is that once you gave away everything, you did not have the resources to pay for the infrastructure that was needed to support those companies. Now you are paying the price your stupidity and rather than admitting you made a mistake you go zenophobic and try the place the blame elsewhere and on someone who has nothing to do with the problem you created. The majority of the country doesn't care that you screwed only you and the rest of the uninformed uneducated zenophobes.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it has. Unemployment benefits expire after a little while, at which time job-seekers will lower their asking price and the rest will sort itself out.
Anybody can find work. They are just having trouble finding work they like, at a pay rate that supports their prior lifestyle.
Re:Poorly conceived idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
This thing has been shocking for years. At every major point in the development, Boeing basically said, "trust us" and the Government basically said, "OK".
Where is the design and analysis, where is the small-scale working model, where is the prototype, where is the incremental build up, where are the TEST RESULTS?????
I mean come on people! Committing to full scale production before you've seen a working model is foolish. Committing to it AGAIN, even when you've NEVER seen improvement in the original performance is just asinine.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:1, Insightful)
So we should all live with 15 people in a 3 bedroom house and cars parked all over the lawn?
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Three points;
1. The argument that legal immigration into the U.S. is wrong and invalid. The U.S. grew, up until around WWII, largely through legal immigration. Since then, we have not needed to grow via immigration, though we permitted it even after WWII. The reality is that we do not need legal immigration to satisfy our labor needs; we are told by industries that we 'need immigrant workers', when in reality the demand from them is for lower-paid workers. Technology, service, every industry that employs legal or illegal immigrants does so to lower costs. The H1B program is an exampole of the abuse of a legal immigration program. Illegal immigration speaks for itself.
An example of illegal immigration causign problems is the Maine blueberry harvest. This used to be, in the 60s and 70s, dominated by Mic Mac indians and local people (like me) who could make decent money for a few weeks' work. It is now 60% Hispanics, many illegal immigrants. Some stay and take other jobs in Maine.
The refrain is ';who will clean the toilets? Americans don' want thosejobs' My question is, who cleaned them before Hispanics came to Maine? The answer is, Mainers. Americans. But they will cost more. If it's about wages, let's have that discussion. ok? It is my contention that Americans will do the work avaialble if they have a chance, and if they need to. If it's about minimum wage, ok, fix that. If it's about working conditions, fix that. But if it's about letting illegal immigrants do the work for less, then either legalize them
or send them home.
2. No one has a dog in this fight except for everyday citizens. Business obviously likes cheaper labor. Politicians like new voters, and cater to them. Unions see them as potential new members. Government and other agencies see them as needing services and increasing demand for their services. Other nations use them as 'safety valves', sparing their own economies the trouble of providing jobs or services. So how do we fix this?
3. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Let's either address that and stop the flow, or change the rules. I don't mind if we decide to allow unfettered immigration, or lower the barriers, but we should certainly make the choice. Until then, when will our government address the problem? Do we need to vote them out again and again until they get the point? When does our government stop listening to the corporations and start listening to us?
And just declaring amnesty doesn't work. Stopping the flow is the only first step, securing the souther border first. We cannot expect Mexico to do anything at all, as it is not in their interest. And if we do secure the border, expect Mexico to react harshly. The Mexican government most certainly has a stake in this, and will
be significantly impacted if we do shut off the flow. Then we can begin to have honest discussions with them, perhaps. But not before. We've proven to them that we do not have the will. We will need to change that first.
Complaints that legal immigration is difficult miss the point that it is supposed to be. The U.S. is much more welcoming of legal immigration than most any other nation. But we do have the right to choose who we let in, don't we?
ps- I used to play soccer with MANY foreign nationals going to school in the U.S., several if which were Nigerians. Wonderful people, and very different. Why does your wife's friend think they are a good candidate for legal immigration? We probably do give 'highly-educated' people a much easier path, but that makes senss to me. Is Italy so bad a place? I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you tell me?
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Mexico operates a strict immigration policy which seeks to protect the interests -- especially the job interests -- of its own citizens. You will need to prove an income from a foreign company or have specialized skills to be granted leave to live and work in Mexico.
From http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/livingconsiderationsmexico.php#4 [mexperience.com]
The truth of the matter is, US immigration policy is far more lenient than most countries in the world
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped.
... You sure those crops aren't being picked by migrants that show up during harvest season and vanish soon after?
Immigrant ninjas?
And when exactly is burger-flipping season, anyway?
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's that or kill all the old people. Your choice.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to create jobs.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PATROL THE FUCKING BORDER
It's also the gov't's job to seek out and prosecute the employers of illegal immigrants, and not turn a blind eye to it because that cheap immigrant labor helps its corporate sponsors keep labor costs down.
What disturbs me most about the anti-immigrant backlash of the last few years is that so much vitriol is directed at the illegal immigrants while little is said about those who employ them. Is all this illegal immigration a conspiracy of poor migrant workers from Mexico who hoodwink innocent US employers into hiring them, or do US employers have the clout to lobby/bribe gov't into lax enforcement because it is in their economic interest to keep labor costs low? Does anyone believe these people would risk so much to cross the border if US employers faced any real risk in hiring them?
But no, let's focus the blame on the poor Mexicans, because, well, they're just so much easier to hate. But it's not racism or xenophobia, no sirree!!
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your comment. My wife is a legal immigrant and we are against illegal immigration. It seriously feels like a kick in the nuts every time, we hear that illegals should be allowed to stay/given amnesty.
I say kick 'em all out, get a sane work program going and make them all re-apply to come back.
That's the real issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guarantee that if the employers of illegal immigrants started having to do the perp walk, illegal immigration would drop to nothing in about 2 seconds. But that'll never happen, because it would embarrass rich people and more importantly, cost them money.
Trying to build fences and the like to keep out illegal immigrants is like trying to hold back the tide. If we were serious about the problem, we'd go to the source and start arresting the people who employ them. But we're not serious about the problem - the government has chosen instead to pretend to do something about the problem, while not actually inconveniencing the rich and powerful (and oh, by the way, dumping huge amounts of money into the pockets of various defense contractors for silly projects like the "virtual fence").
Re:Awesome (Score:1, Insightful)
Like with absolutely any job, it depends not just on what the work requirements are, but also on what the pay is. Difficulty is compensate by money.
Would Americans pick lettuce for $5/hour? Hell no. Federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour? Probably not, when you can do less physically demanding work for more pay. $10? That's close to the median hourly wage for janitors. (lots of neat wage facts at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000 [bls.gov] ). The same site gives $8-$12 for agricultural labor in general. So these are the jobs Americans are already doing, at the wages they're already doing them for. If we assume a few decades of illegal labor has depressed wages in that sector, but only by two dollars an hour, then we should be asking "will enough Americans do this for $10-$14/hour to meet demand?".
I'd say yes. That compares favorably to a lot of other industries. (Check the wage for sales clerk - $10. Food preparation - $8-$11). It's physically demanding, but requires less skill than anything else, and at $10-$14 would be paying equal or MORE than a lot of things that actually require a fair amount of skill (like, say, a cook, or an electrician's assistant, or a college student interning somewhere over the summer). You'd get a lot of people doing seasonal retail work in the fall/winter and seasonal harvesting work in the summer/fall, and actually making more money in the fields than in the stores. Last harvest, there were news stories about the huge crowds that showed up to scavenge fields just for the food; obviously those same people would be willing to do the exact same thing for more than the price of the food in wages, right?
Re:Awesome (Score:1, Insightful)
"Why we in the US should help perpetuate this system is beyond me."
Perhaps because it's pretty much the same as the US system.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, if someone crosses the border from north to south into Mexico they will be met by the Mexican Army, arrested and likely confined, possibly for a long time. There is no possibility that someone is going to stay there unmolested - the people will turn the "invader" in if they manage to elude the Army and the police. This is the complete opposite of what happens to a border crosser going from south to north - which means pretty much we deserve exactly what we are getting.
Have you ever actually been to Mexico, or are you just reciting a joke you heard once at a Tea Party? Crossing into Mexico doesn't even require sneaking -- just walk right through the border crossing station. There *might* be a guard there, and in some rare cases he might actually be doing more than a cursory random inspection of bags. The reason you never see a line going south at any of the border crossings is *not* because there aren't just as many people crossing in that direction; it's because the "security" you cite is demonstrably absent.
That's not to be confused with committing a crime in Mexico, which will likely result in the consequences you describe. But crossing the border is trivial, and gaining permanent residency is only slightly more involved. Most people are pleasant, though you may encounter implicit or overt hostility in some areas -- away from tourist towns in particular. But that's no different than a foreigner in *any* country.
I agree that we're getting what we deserve -- but I heartily disagree that what we're getting is detrimental on the whole. Illegal immigration is a minor annoyance at worst, and beneficial to the economy at best. Even the idea that it takes away jobs is fallacious, because jobs are not a fixed value. Immigrants create added demand for existing goods and services, just like anyone else. People -- even Mexicans -- need to eat, so they buy food. They also procure other basic necessities such as water, shelter, transportation, and eventually fulfill higher level desires, all of which contributes to the demand for "legitimate" jobs; skilled or not. They are certainly less damaging than our mutual ancestors were, and their offspring are assimilated into our Borg collective more readily than immigration provocateurs would like to admit. Sure, many immigrants, legal or illegal, send money back to their relatives, and some may end up moving back at some point. The net result, however, is beneficial for everyone in the long run, because increased prosperity for our neighbor increases both our security and the market for our products.
Complaining that you can't get a job as a consequence of immigration is like complaining that you can't get a girlfriend as a consequence of alternative suitors. It is the very sense of entitlement, of anti-free market sentiment, that those opposing illegal immigration so often decry in every other context. In a word, it's hypocritical.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed fraction of the wealthiest person is impractical, because that changes so much and so rapidly and randomly.
What one could do, would be fixed fraction of the average income in the top 10% or top 25%.
Most Americans aren't aware of it, but the income-differences in USA really -are- grotesque as compared to 95% of the developed world. GINI is a measure of income-inequality where 1 would mean only the richest person had income at all, everyone else earns zero, and 0 would mean everyone has identical income.
Real countries are somewhere in between, offcourse. The tendency is for dictatorships, fascist countries and poor countries to have high indexes (only a tiny elite has good education and good income), whereas developed countries where reasonable education is available to all, has much lower indexes.
Have a look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png [wikipedia.org]
Most countries as developed as USA are at under 0.30, 0.30 is the average for european union for example, and the tendency is that the poorer countries are more unequal whereas the richest countries such as Sweden are around 0.25
USA ? 0.45 -- surrounded by countries such as the ivory coast, uruguay and uganda.
In short, if you're poor in USA, you're as far away from the rich-elite as you are in typical third-world countries that are ruled by a tiny elite that holds all the priviledges.
Grotesque.