*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone."

� Secure this line!

---

Fuzzy even manages to snark the resident 27inch zipper.

*sigh* 'Nother entry in the "How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth" Department...

posted by BillT on February 9, 2008 11:03 PM

---

Laying on the guilt trip, huh? After telling not to feel guilty an another thread? Get it to together, man! ;)

posted by FbL on February 9, 2008 11:19 PM

---

Heh. Everyone lays the tracks for his or her own guilt trip. I'm just the conductor who punches the ticket...

posted by BillT on February 10, 2008 10:36 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

At first I thought the top photo was a target getting hit by a bullet photographed by a very fast camera. Then I noticed the light reflecting off of the ground below, which gave me a better scale.

I'd say it's a nuclear explosion shot by a very fast camera. Maybe a UV or IR photo, cuz that thing looks really freaky.

The second one is evidently WW2 German. That looks like some sort of towing connector at the top-left, with what appears to be electrical connection wires right below. Narrow tracks, and doesn't look like a full-sized AFV, so I'll guess it's a ammo trailer for a self-propelled gun.

Probably way off-base for the second one, though. :)

posted by Casey Tompkins on February 9, 2008 10:40 AM

---

I am not getting caught up in this nonsense. You are not going to drive me crazy all weekend.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 10:50 AM

---

Top photo is by Harold Edgerton. More here:

http://www.nevadasurveyor.com/atomicbomb/

Bottom photo is the original TOW or Tank On a Wire guided missile system.

posted by Fred on February 9, 2008 11:14 AM

---

The Germans called that a "Goliath" Tracked Mine. I think it carried around 200 lbs of high explosives, was guided by wire from a joystick control box. It was mostly used by their combat engineers or "Pioniere" auf Deutsch. Good concept, but they weren't very effective.

posted by WS on February 9, 2008 1:41 PM

---

#2 isn't a Goliath....It's a Minenräumpanzer III - mine clearing/mine destroyer tank, a prototype based on the Panzer III chassis.

posted by WS on February 9, 2008 2:56 PM

---

"I am not getting caught up in this nonsense. You are not going to drive me crazy all weekend."

Too late.

posted by jim b on February 9, 2008 4:46 PM

---

I believe that was one of the "Snapper" shots done in May and June of 1952. From the nuclearweaponarchive.org web site:

"Cause of the surface mottling. At this point in the explosion, a true hydrodynamic shock front has just formed. Prior to this moment the growth of the fireball was due to radiative transport, i.e. thermal x-rays outran the expanding bomb debris. Now however the fireball expansion is caused by the shock front driven by hydrodynamic pressure (as in a conventional explosion, only far more intense). The glowing surface of the fireball is due to shock compression heating of the air. This means that the fireball is now growing far more slowly than before. The bomb (and shot cab) vapors were initially accelerated to very high velocities (several tens of kilometers/sec) and clumps of this material are now splashing against the back of the shock front in an irregular pattern (due to initial variations in mass distribution around the bomb core), creating the curious mottled appearance."

posted by Pogue on February 9, 2008 9:19 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Glamourous photo. Looks like Bill parked his bird on a boat. Just like Lex does!
Thankee kindly, birdman, for your service wherever you are bound, doing whatever you will be doing. Sounds like there is some stuff that needs to be done, and done well, and perhaps quietly, so we know we may have to wait for the TINS stories. Be careful out there.

posted by John on February 9, 2008 2:26 PM

---

The primary purpose for forcing civilians to go to CRC is to cull those with a low tolerance for BS. It is a psychological rite of passage.

posted by Cannoneer No. 4 on February 9, 2008 4:30 PM

---

Hi, John -- ol' Hubert's parked on Sea Float in the Nam Can River, which was JF Kerry's domicile when he wasn't delivering CIA guys (who had evidently forgotten they had reserved seats on Air America UH-1Bs) into Cambodia and being shot at by drunken South Vietnamese Buddhists celebrating Christmas.

Cannoneer No. 4 -- Right you are. Which is prolly why 87+% of the civilians passing through were prior service...

posted by BillT on February 9, 2008 5:58 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone."

� Secure this line!

---

I thought that some context would be appropriate for your American readers.

All members of the Canadian Forces that die overseas, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere, are flown to CFB Trenton and are then driven to Toronto for autopsy. The section of Highway 401 between Trenton and Toronto was renamed in 2007 as the Highway of Heroes. Members of police and fire departments, Royal Canadian Legion members and private citzens come out to salute the fallen, rain or shine, no matter the weather.

Pat

posted by Pat on February 8, 2008 3:56 PM

---

Made me cry like a baby but I was glad for the link.
Losing a servicemember is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to knot up your stomach.
I light candles every night and I always try to think of someone or the family of someone when I do. Tonight it was for the Canadians.
Things like this should be on the news every damned night...not the latest Britney update.
We shouldn't all be at the mall..the grownups should know.

posted by Carrie on February 8, 2008 4:25 PM

---

That was AWESOME. I can't agree with Carrie enough, why is it always the bad (*expletive deleted*) that gets reported on the news, and not good things like this??

posted by sandman6actual on February 8, 2008 4:45 PM

---

Right there with you on this one Carrie.

posted by HomefrontSix on February 8, 2008 7:22 PM

---

Our Canadian ALLIES are on the right side in the war on terror. We appreciate their service as we jointly fight our common enemy, and mourn their losses as our own. Unlike many of our supposed friends, many more threatened than either Canada or the US, the Canadian troops are in the thick of the fight, knowing the stakes are high. I am not sure their political leaders have the stomach for the Long War, but their troops are to be commended, and can be relied on.
They have shared our losses in combat, (sadly including tragic friendly fire incidents) but freedom is not free.
Duty. Honor. Country. Both of them!
Ditto for our loyal British allies.

posted by John on February 8, 2008 11:35 PM

---

Thanks for that, Damian. Made my eyes wet, a bit. The lone guy in the t-shirt, with hand over heart; just this guy, ya know?

posted by Justthisguy on February 9, 2008 3:17 AM

---

Yeah, Justthisguy, I know what you mean. My vision got a little blurry putting the post together.

posted by Damian on February 9, 2008 2:30 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

'such as inability to forget prior candidate performance'
Aye, there's the rub...
But thanks for the laff, BCR!

posted by Neffi on February 8, 2008 10:23 AM

---

What will they think of next; with all these great advances in technology. Thanks BCR.

Though I have a concern: If after taking Gravitras, I experience a 4-hour long event of full resplendency, would that be considered Primarism? I would hate to take Gravitras and experience this embarassing side efect.

posted by Boquisucio on February 8, 2008 12:07 PM

---

I'm just worried about the after-affects. Could I live with myself afterwards?? Or do I get hooked on Gravitra as a way of fending off a bad case of the Willy's after I accidently vote for Billary??

posted by AFSister on February 8, 2008 12:40 PM

---

Late-onset? Pffvbbffth! I've been this way my whole life, and actually voted for Ron Paul the last time he ran!

That said, looks like I'll have to hold nose, grit teeth, and vote for the Naval Angriator. Definitely.

Oh, and I would never buy underwear from K-Mart. Jockey Classic, size 30, for the last 40 years.

posted by Justthisguy on February 9, 2008 2:40 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

Hillary Clinton: She has proven to the entire solar system *she* doesn't think an intelligent, ambitious woman can achieve anything unless a man opens the door for her. With regard to the Iraq war, conservative commenters have claimed she would never allow the US to be defeated when it would be her prestige on the line as well. Perhaps, but how the hell would she know how to accomplish this? Her contempt for the military is bone-deep, so I very much doubt she's been reading Small Wars or Sun Tzu. She couldn't be bothered to read the NIE when it was her JOB. Plus every time she opens her mouth my wallet shivers in fear.

Barack Obama: Unlike Senator Biden, he can talk at length pleasantly-- and remarkably free of pesky details such as *how* we are going to give everyone a pet unicorn and banish meanness forever. Real presidential candidates know that for every omelette, there are broken eggs. And I'd be more impressed with the great strides for racial justice if he'd written "Dreams from my Mother". You know, the lady that bore him, raised him, and loved him? But no, she's white and doesn't count, so the focus stays on a guy who left when Obama was two, but is black. We've still got a long way to go. Sorry, MLK. We'll keep trying.

Ron Paul: or, "I have no idea where all that Stormfront paraphernalia came from, or maybe I'm storing it for friends who I would not *dream* of asking awkward questions because that would violate their free speech rights and oh, am I even in the right house? Did I mention the Constitution yet? I am so rigid in my beliefs I never get anything done, but I am PURE!" 20cc Thorazine, administered by blowgun. STAT.

Huckabee: God apparently wants him to be president. To quote Phillipe the Mouse, "I talk to God all the time, and he never mentioned you." Go away, already.

John McCain: You know, I could have sworn we already saw the episode with the president that was vindictive, angry, and dealing with an unpopular war. It didn't end well. Note that I have not disparaged his physical courage or service to this country in the military. He could have singlehandedly stormed Omaha Beach and he'd still be political nitroglycerine. Very useful, yes! As long as you don't set it off by accident. The very fact that he is unable to hide his temper points to a certain lack of political acumen. There are probably Bushmen of the Kalahari who know he's got a volcanic temper. How is he going to work constructively with *anyone* (allies, Congress, Supreme Court, visiting Girl Scout troops) when he can't be trusted not to bite? And once having bitten, carry a grudge to the end of his days? I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who have short fuses but they know it should be hidden from public view, like their toenail fetish, and we only find out years later.

Mitt Romney: What a well-oiled weathervane. Props for herding the Olympic cats, that can't have been a trivial exercise. However, where Mr. McCain has too much vim and vinegar Mitt doesn't seem to have any. That's like trailing blood in the political shark tank. Sorry, you can't be nice *all* the time. One well-executed, clearly deserved kneecapping usually makes it clear you can be nasty if necessary, and then you don't have to *keep* kneecapping. But you do have to make it clear that you can do it if they act up. Otherwise you are just an inflatable doll in a room full of reciprocating saws.

Sigh. I keep pushing the fast-forward button on the remote but it's not working ....

� Secure this line!

---

**By which I mean, nobody is really looking forward to it**
Someone is! Woohoo! Over here! Way up in the upper right hand corner of the country. In the Hub of the Universe. Here I am!

Hilarious post.

posted by Maggie on February 8, 2008 8:50 AM

---

So, what if McCain has a temper, at least he's passionate about something... I’m personally getting tired of all the experts that keep saying we need to control our anger. If it wasn’t for them, maybe we would have gotten really angry and killed lots of jihadists before 9/11… Personally, I think anger management classes are part of a conspiracy against ethnic Celts (I’m really just kidding on that last part although I did think of it, didn’t I?).
BTW - The president has a rather lengthy job description, and most of the time, all of those duties are pretty equal in importance. However, as long as the jihad exists, I believe, the duty of Commander-n-Chief trumps all others. That said, I'm convinced that that leaves out everybody running except the Senator from Arizona.

posted by Oldloadr on February 8, 2008 10:23 AM

---

I'm one who said I would NOT vote for McCain in the primary and haven't decided yet in the general election. There are only so many times I want to hold my nose when voting for someone. Clinton? No. I want my president able to be their own person and not have their spouse run to their defense. Obama? His resume is weak (so is Clinton's) but he has a nice speech.

It's going to be a long 9 months.

posted by andrewp on February 8, 2008 4:51 PM

---

Oldloadr, as one who has both the long, narrow head of the Priest-Ridden Race, and the bad teeth of someone from the big island, (i.e., Scots-Irish) I know exactly what you mean.

I am a Jacksonian. Rubble don't make trouble.

We are the friends of Liberty everywhere, but the guarantors only of our own.

Neo-Cons are, as Jerry Pounelle has said, really just Neo-Jacobins.

Kicking the a$$es of our country's enemies is good, as long as we do that thoroughly enough to scare them out of ever attempting to mess with us again, and then leave. Senator McCain seems to have Neo tendencies.

Owheel, that's better than just rolling over and displaying the tummy, so yep I'll prolly have to vote for the old guy. I just hope he picks a good veep, in case he strokes out or somethin

posted by Justthisguy on February 9, 2008 3:45 AM

---

Thank you BCR for the cross posting of this. I usually try to drop by the snark patrol when stateside, and I miss reading your work. I also have to agree with Andrew, this is going to be a LONG 9 months.

Now that my primary candidate has dropped out, the dream that I am having is that Mitt is selected as VP, and John actually listens to him on some things. Will it happen? Not in this version of reality, but I can have dreams, can't I?

posted by Jon The Mechanic (From Germany) on February 9, 2008 5:41 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

The wall is unsound economically, politically, physically and in regards to security, a trade off between shooting ourselves in the foot and the possibility of someone else shooting us in the foot.

The cost to erect such a wall, a wall such as would be necessary, is cost prohibitive. Not because some "pro-amnesty" person told me so, but because I crunched the numbers on the back of an envelope and wondered why anyone would pay that money for a wall when we wouldn't want to pay it for national health care or education. Not that I want to pay for NHC, I am simply wondering how the balancing of future taxes and budget deficits work in the minds of alleged fiscal conservatives.

I know, I know. Security trumps all. Don't make me pull out my Benjamin Franklin quote.

The cost of the wall would nicely pay for an improved INS program with advanced bio-technology, integrated computer systems and personnel necessary to actually have and control a larger immigration program. Which we need, as shocking and horrifically "liberal" as that may sound. I'll get to the "why" in a moment under "increase immigration".

Yes, there is a trade off in where we would spend tax money, but, unlike the wall which is a passive, inanimate object that cannot make any contribution to the economy (and just may damage it), legal immigrants actually do come to live, come to work, put money in the economy, etc, etc, etc. I think the only issue here is that we cannot truly anticipate the amount of revenue that would flow through our system and where it would come from (ie, new immigrants vs established resident) to truly evaluate the "cost to benefit" ration of such a program. However, I think that it has a 100% possibility of helping put money in the economy as compared to a wall that will put 0% in and probably cost much to maintain, repair and replace it.

I also believe that, that money and our ability put it into an improved INS program would cost less than the 100's of millions (if not billion or so) we are or will spend attempting to offensively apprehend "illegals", house them, try them and send them back. Opps. That also goes under my "why I would support amnesty" argument.

All along, we are talking about the cost to tax payers and the future burden on tax paying citizens of the United States. Of which, I am one, and already resent the taxes I am paying so Senator Byrd can get another highway or building with his freaking name on it. I'm waiting for the sections of the wall that will be named after notables who spend our money on this magical wall.

Ever hear of JIT? Just In Time inventory. It is how the world turns. For those who are unfamiliar, it basically keeps a company's costs down by allowing them to buy "just what they need" and have it delivered "just in time" to put it out, sale it or use it. This means that their immediate and upfront costs are smaller, the total cost of business is spread out over time, they spend less money on warehousing and that cost savings is passed on to the consumer. At least, it is not an added extra like the rising cost of fuel to deliver inventory.

There's a back end cost savings, too, since the manufacturer or agri-broker manages his/her inventory in such a way as to manufacture or pick the vegetables/fruit/grain just in time to send it to the wholesaler and then on to the middle man. Cost reduction.

Now. Build the wall. Restrict access points to very limited, very crowded and under staffed ports of entry where there is additional paperwork, additional verification and very long lines to get product into the country. Now we have just put an invisible tariff on these goods because, you can bet, neither the manufacturer nor the wholesaler is going to swallow that cost, or the potential cost of warehousing the product at borders, by themselves.

Not to mention, wholesalers will now change their purchasing practices to meet the delay by increasing their purchases and advancing their orders. Money which comes out of their pocket and eventually out of yours. To include now having to build more warehouses to store product in and more people to manage it at this end of the delivery process. More cost to you the consumer.

Now you not only built a tax boondoggle of a wall, but you will pay more for those lovely products made in Mexico or the Honduras or any place else that is traveling up or down through our borders. Yes, that means, whatever we do will effect Mexico and Canadian ports alike.

Am I boring you with the economics lessons yet? Well, somebody has to keep reminding the "pro-growth" party that "growth" requires the capability to build our trade while costs stay down when the cost of imported and exported goods stay down. It's that simple.

Did I mention the increased price and scarcity of perishables? If you really want to understand JIT from a layman's position, the next time you are in the grocery store, check out the produce section. How often have you thought about how fresh bananas, oranges, tomatoes and lettuce gets to those aisles in any manner that is edible? How often have you thought about why a fresh batch of tomatoes or bananas is unripe or too ripe? How often have you thought about how fast those items "perish" on the shelf or are turned over with fresh new produce?

The picking and shipping of these items are based on growth, harvest and shipping time. One extra day in any of these areas means whole lots of produce "perish" before they make it to the shelf. The cost effect is multi-fold and we will pay the price in the end.

In short, you will see either extremely unripe or over ripe produce in minimal amounts on your grocers' shelves that will be cost prohibitive for your family's diet. Don't forget, the same impact will flow to canned goods since they have to make it to the cannery in something of a decent condition to get canned. School lunches, your favorite fruit or vegetable salad at the restaurant, the cost of a supreme pizza and on and on and on.

One mishap in the distribution of product today can already have serious effects on the cost of goods. One extra day (if not more) that we force on it willfully by a wall will be an ongoing pain.

I haven't even begun to talk about the likely increases to energy costs from oil, gasoline, coal or liquefied natural gas that comes over our borders via trucks on the road as much as trains or pipelines. Then there is that little "quid pro quo" where our exports are also held up and cost more. NAFTA? CAFTA? And all the other "AFTA's" that support and help grow our economy. No one is going to care to buy our products in Canada or places South of the Border if it becomes expensive. At the very least, it will slow down.

Guess what happens next? Does the word "unemployment" mean anything to you?

This part of the discussion, the part about real costs, is probably boring to most Americans. It's not "sexy" like crime, drugs, or security. For the most part, everyone thinks they could live with the hit in the pocket book and the economy, better than they could with an act of terrorism or the cost of crime. No pundit is going to touch it with any depth, nor pretend to understand it or explain it because it IS boring and the effects are so wide and variable, they'd rather close their eyes and tell you that our physical security is priceless.

Apparently, right up to and including the price of a economic instability.

To follow: Castles Under Siege

� Secure this line!

---

Kat,

That might just be the first time I've seen anyone offer a cogent, considered argument against a physical border fence. And it's a good one. In response, I'd like to ask two questions and offer one observation:

Q1: You say you're against a wall, while in favor of "an increased border patrol capability." Is it fair to say, then, that you support a virtual wall rather than an actual physical wall? Why don't your arguments against a physical wall also apply to a virtual wall?

Q2: What is your position regarding the illegals who are already here? Do you support the passage and enforcement of laws against employing illegals? Do you support the passage and enforcement of laws against permitting illegals to use taxpayer-funded programs and facilities?

Now the observation: I think there's a hole in your economic critique of a physical border fence. Large quantities of goods cross the US border at places where they can -- ie, roads, rivers, airports, and seaports. It isn't possible to transport large quantities of goods across open land. However, it's quite possible for illegal immigrants to come in across open land. Thus, a fence built across the open country borderlands will not stop, or even materially affect, the movement of goods. It will only affect the movement of people.

posted by wolfwalker on February 8, 2008 3:30 AM

---

Very interesting points. I have also questioned if it is economically feasible to hunt down all illegals and deport them.

Part of me wonders if this has again become more of a political issue, being fed by the MSM than an issue that people are willing to sit down and talk rationally and logically about solutions to our immigration issue.

Thanks for an interesting post. Will make me think about this issue. However, having said that, I do want our borders secure. We have no idea of who (or what) is coming into this country, and we could pay dearly for that ignorance.

posted by David on February 8, 2008 5:40 AM

---

Hear, hear! good post, Kat. I would offer the same points for those proponents of the DHS DNDO initiatives of putting rad detectors in every sea port, airport, bordercrossing, and major city. We can't afford the maintenance of such a system nor can we afford the bottlenecks, false alarms, and impact on our economy for such a low probability threat. Better intel, improved law enforcement, and interdiction would be far more cost-effective and much easier to implement. I would dare suggest that the "virtual wall" of better intel, improved law enforcement, and interdiction ops would also be a good all-hazards approach, come to think of it.

posted by J. on February 8, 2008 6:54 AM

---

Wolfwalker:

1) A real wall stops everything
A "virtual wall" with sensors every two feet? No, I don't support that. But police forces building and using intelligence to react to penetrations? yes. I'll explain more about that on a security post I'll follow up with, but my answer is: a "virtual wall" only stops the things we want it to.

2) I do not support grabbing up and sending every illegal back to Mexico nor actively searching for illegals. I mention the cost in passing, but it is very real. I would focus our forces on specific groups including those that commit violence.

ON the other programs, I have an upcoming post about effects on SS, etc and what we really need to do in total, and it barely has anything to do with illegals who, by the way, largely come here when they are young. Crossing the borders illegally is very hard and is not for the old and perilously ill. Those that do come who are older, are from specific areas and are pretty limited.

People beating that drum are overhyping the numbers considerably to put fear into the few economically minded folks.

Otherwise, no I do not support any law that would keep any "illegal" from using "tax payer" public facilities. Like the library, city hall, police station or any community hospitals.

In case I wasn't clear enough, I do support amnesty for a very big reason that is economically driven too.

posted by kat-missouri on February 8, 2008 7:36 AM

---

Very interesting and very well reasoned. However, I don't know many people who (among those who really understand the problem) are proposing just "A Wall". That would be silly. A wall is part of a bigger plan. The components of the virtual wall are part of the plan. Neither, by itself would work. It is my belief that the costs of these two walls will be offset by the savings we realize when the tide of illegal immigrants is stemmed. Many illegal immigrants will leave when economic incentives to stay dry up. Those that stay will assimilate and become productive.

I know, I know. Security trumps all. Don't make me pull out my Benjamin Franklin quote.

Do you mean this quote?
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

What *essential* liberty does the wall take from me? Also, why would the security provided by the wall be *temporary*? I agree that there would be economic sacrifices to be made in securing the border. However, I have always found that when a problem like this comes up, someone comes along with an innovative idea to remedy the situation. I know there are ways for legal commerce to occur after a wall is built. We just don't know what they are yet because no one has had any reason to figure them out.

For me this comes down to the difference between asking me to sacrifice something and someone stealing from me. I am paying these costs now, simply in a different form. Illegal immigration is costing every American taxpayer, right now, today. The wall will have costs involved. The difference? The majority of Americans are volunteering to pay for those involved with securing the border. We learned that this past summer during the illegal immigration debate.

As far as what the dollars spent on border security could buy (*"why anyone would pay that money for a wall when we wouldn't want to pay it for national health care or education"*) - What good would it do to spend our dollars on that or anything else if we are pouring good money after bad. Spend money on healthcare now and watch hospitals go under providing care from people who are not paying into the system. Spend money on education now and watch costs skyrocket as we educate children of parents who are not paying into the system. I don't want national healthcare either, but it doesn't make sense to even discuss it before you repair the holes in our border. It's like pouring water into a sieve.

posted by Maggie on February 8, 2008 9:21 AM

---

Kat,

So in other words, you support granting citizenship, with all the rights pertaining thereunto, to an individual who:

* crosses the border illegally, demonstrating contempt for US law and incidentally avoiding all the background-checking, fees, etc. that go with the legal immigration process

* gets a job for which he/she is paid cash under the table, thus avoiding paying income, FICA, and Medicare taxes

* gets a job with an employer who pays him/her under the table, thus avoiding paying payroll taxes and incidentally breaking the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act

* lives in a house with ten or twenty other illegals, which is owned by a front company or individual, thus avoiding paying property taxes

* drives a car without a driver's license, thus avoiding paying the license fees and incidentally meaning he doesn't know the rules of the road

* drives an unregistered, uninspected car, thus avoiding paying registration and inspection fees and incidentally driving an unsafe car that poses a threat to other drivers

* keeps only enough of his pay to live on and sends the rest back to his relatives in the Old Country, thus ensuring that none of that money will be spent in American stores or go to pay American sales taxes

* goes to the emergency room when he catches a cold, uses precious and limited ER resources for a non-emergency, then gives a fake name and address and skips without paying the bill

Is that more or less correct?

(Yes, I'm deliberately offering the worst, most extreme example of illegal behavior I can think of. If you support giving amnesty to an individual who does all of the above, then there are no grounds for discussion between us on this topic. If you don't, then there's hope.)

posted by wolfwalker on February 8, 2008 11:37 AM

---

Kat, for most people that push for a wall the better description is a tall fence with wide gates. Legal immigration and commerce would continue (grow?) through the wide gates. Thus many of your arguements are false or mis-leading. Our great country takes in more legal immigrants than anywhere else, by far.

A physical fence will not stop the flow of landcrossers what it does (to use a military term) is shape the battle field so the virtual fence has increased chances of success.

THe virtual fence must include enhance employment enforcement. Using basic economic principle many will decide to leave on their own.

posted by Dave on February 8, 2008 12:34 PM

---

I understand and can identify with the arguments on both sides of this fence (no pun intended, really). I tend to stand on Kat's side of this issue, though, partly because of her reasonably sound economic argument.

I also see illegal immigrants as economic refugees--they are coming here because it is very difficult to escape crushing poverty in the corrupt economies where they come from. I don't begrudge them that, and I think they may contribute as much to our economy as they take from it.

I don't know the numbers, but many illegals get employment by using "fake" ss numbers, and as such do pay into the system.

I see this as a human problem that needs sane and humanitarian solutions. A physical wall seems viscerally East Germany to me, and it's hard for me to support it.

posted by April on February 8, 2008 12:51 PM

---

April -

I understand and can identify with the arguments on both sides of this fence (no pun intended, really). I tend to stand on Kat's side of this issue, though, partly because of her reasonably sound economic argument.

I agree Kat's argument is good as far as it goes. However, those of us on the other side would say that it only goes so far and doesn't take into account the economic burden of illegal immigration.

I also see illegal immigrants as economic refugees--they are coming here because it is very difficult to escape crushing poverty in the corrupt economies where they come from. I don't begrudge them that, and I think they may contribute as much to our economy as they take from it.

If your neighbors ate all the food in their house and had no grocery money, is it alright for them to break into your house under cover of darkness and eat yours as long as they wash all the dishes, wrap up the leftovers and do a little extra housework? After all they would be contributing to your household.

Mexicans are coming from a country with vast natural resources. It's not Eritrea or Chad. They should stay and settle their our problems.

I don't know the numbers, but many illegals get employment by using "fake" ss numbers, and as such do pay into the system.

Using a social security number means that you pay FICA and the Medicare tax. But you can choose not to have Federal and State taxes withheld. Those are the taxes that pay for the services illegal immigrants are abusing. As far as the "fake" social security numbers go....in most cases they are not "fake" but STOLEN. Stolen social security numbers cause untold grief to those they are stolen from.

I see this as a human problem that needs sane and humanitarian solutions. A physical wall seems viscerally East Germany to me, and it's hard for me to support it.

I can't think of two things which could be more different! The Communists built a wall to imprison their population. They were trying to stem a brain drain. Their purpose was to oppress. Our wall is for our protection. Our purpose is peace and security.

posted by Maggie on February 8, 2008 1:48 PM

---

Kat,
I've got little time to reply so I'll keep it short. Woflwalker has you. You've got a non-sequitor going. All the legitimate trade you talk about with CAFTA/NAFTA comes in on rail and OTR trucking that's already constrained EXACTLY like you mention(ever been to Nogales? Port of Long Beach?)---and we grow economically non-the-less. This as a support for your claim is not logical. A wall will not cut these arteries. That part utterly falls apart. Sorry.

On the larger point of 'it costs too much' I got nothing, but one part of your support is kaput.

I do agree that CSIS needs to be reworked and many things about immigration changed(including us getting real about how many immigrants we need to fill slots). Rounding up all the illegals who are already here, while not really all that palatable, is practically impossible. It gets very complicated, and difficult, really quickly. Pragmatism rules there. But your 'we dam up the economic river' is flat out wrong. It doesn't. legitimate trade, like an army, moves on road nets. Those nets are already there with the understaffing and road congestion and all that bad stuff you mentioned. We do just fine.

posted by ry on February 8, 2008 2:18 PM

---

I have answers, my friends, but will have to get back to you later as I am just barely getting time to tell you that I am too busy to answer. ;)

Once quick note: 20,000,000 illegal aliens currently in country are currently contributing to our economy, even if they are being paid cash. There are issues with SS, etc that I did say I would address. I did not want the post to go so long you would drop off in a snooze. One issue at a time. First was the economics of the wall.

Ry, sorry, I'll answer you back this evening but the long and short is, when we put in the wall, some of those roads of entry are going to be constrained or eliminated simply by the need to be able to manage the security. Secondly, based on what is happening in Canada and what I've read, there is a high likelihood that addiitonal security checks, documents, etc are going to be required. Thus "the wall" encompasses the entire practice, not just the bricks, wire, gadgets, etc that will build it.

More coming up when I'm free this evening.

posted by kat-missouri on February 8, 2008 3:29 PM

---

1. Build the fence. The first step in solving this mobius loop is to first stop the bleeding.

2. apply small tweeks to title 8 USC. Remove the economic incentive to hire IBC's (illegal border crosser)by uping the penalty for knowingly having IBC's on the payroll. ($50,000 and 5 years in prison for each IBC found to be on the payroll) and enforce the law without pity.

3. Guest worker program. Work permits are to be issued for no longer than 6 months at a time. These permits WILL NOT be issued with in the United States, only at US embassies or consular offices in the country the requester holds citizenship. Renewals WILL NOT be approved wile the person is inside the US. Violators of the terms and conditions are subject to arrest and summery deportation and permanent exclusion.

4. Up arm the border patrol as so to be able to deal with any threat that could arise.

5. If Mexico is offended, tough s**t. They just have to get over it.

posted by Eric on February 8, 2008 3:45 PM

---

Are we at war with Mexico and I didn't know it? Have we caught more terrorists coming through the Mexican border than the terrorists we've caught who are already in the United States and are here legally, usually as naturalized citizens?

If you ask me, sounds like you're more worried about Mexicans than terrorism.

posted by kat-missouri on February 8, 2008 4:47 PM

---

Kat,

Are we at war with Mexico and I didn't know it?

Some people would tell you 'yes.' I've seen stories of men in Mexican federal police or army uniforms crossing the border with loads of drugs and/or illegals. And of course the Mexican government furnishes would-be migrants with information on how to evade US immigration law after they get here.

posted by wolfwalker on February 8, 2008 5:37 PM

---

To me it makes no difference which border the IBC comes across, or if the person overstays a tourist or student visa. That person is in violation of 8USc along with any person that provides matterial assistance.

As for medical care for IBC's: For humanitarian reasons, medical treatment for life threating injuries is to be provided. Requests for reimbursements shall be made from HHS through DHS through State to the embassy of the patients nation of origin. IF the home nation fails to pay, then the funds will be withheld from any aid provided by the US.

posted by Eric on February 8, 2008 9:10 PM

---

Yes Kat, I too am aware of the changes happening up at the Northern border. People are pissing and moaning about having to show their passports at the border---which is resulting in an extra 15 minutes to drive time to and from border towns on either side. People are *threatening* to not come into the US---but that went away as soon as the Canadian Loonie(sorry Al and Damian, couldn't pass that up) became stronger than the US dollar(you mean that the inconvenience was offset by an extra couple of cents exchange? Why, yes, it was.).

Some of those roads and rail lines will be re-routed. People aren't stupid, at least not the people who are really in charge. That which carries essential(read as economic traffic) will be left alone or re-routed. Even teh Great Wall had places for trade to go thru. I liked someone's Great Wall with Gates analogy.

Plus, hell, you do know it actually is easier and cheaper to send it by boat from some port in Mexico to some port in the US and then OTR road it, right? It's actually cheaper to send it by bulk on a ship than it is to send it bulk by rail. (JIT is saved, can I get an amen?) That's what we do with things from even farther away and closer than Mexico. It's cheaper to ship it down the Columbia river, down the Pacific coast to SF, from Portland than to either drive it or rail it. That's only if you need it over night.

then we're talking about the little to medium sized border towns where MExicans drive across to buy stuff at the Wal-mart and American's drive across to buy cheap health care kind of thing. So we put something like the a small version of the Tijuana/San Diego crossing point in, so what? That sucker flows sufficiently well. It's a matter of staffing and priorities. Minimal gov't never meant absolutely no agencies and no taxes, after all. These will be places where we'll have to pay to have USCIS and the Border Patrol man 24/7 properly. It will have some negative affect. TANSTAAFL. Why is that change, which I say will be negligible just as it has been up on the Can-Am border, a deal breaker?

Something else you've failed to quantize is sovreignity. What's that worth? I'm not just talking about a pride thing either. What is that worth? Sometimes things are unquantifiable, and I believe this to be one. You can't put a price on sovereinity. The ability of a nation to define itself, who crosses in and out, and who is and is not a citizen is a binary-ish proposition. Either it is worth having or it isn't. this isn't a hyping of terror threat. It's stating the obvious. If we don't control our borders we're not really a country(I'll get the full argument on that from HLIC if you want. He's shouted it at me often enough that I should be able to repro it, but better to get it from the man himself---he's less wordy.). It is a matter of self determination, and that's really rather unquantifiable.

You're taking a run at the isolationists, and what a beautiful body check it is(okay, technically charging, but it is fun to see Tancredo's gloves and helmet go flying). But you're also getting things wrong. The Tiajuana crossing isn't going to be shut. Neither are the main arteries into Texas, NewMex, Cali, and Arizona(Nogales being a nice place due to the cross border trade, but the ranchers, well, for them it's not so nice). An all electronic fence won't cut it. We've tried that at different times in CA. It always fails. People like the folks who set up aide stations in the desert mess with the sensors. Things like that. You're right, we need to discuss and decide what/or if we will do and what it costs. But simply shouting it costs too much is weak sauce. They said that about Reagan's arms build up and the MX (Peacekeeper) missile in particular. It was necessary, we built the arms, and enjoyed the benefits there-of. So too here, potentially, we could undertake a massive expenditure that could also potentially bankrupt us(as did Reagan's arms build up).

You skipped a step, me thinks. It costs a buttload, and may bankrupt the nation. Fine. Why is that enough not to do it when we've done things like that before(the Keynessian policies of the New Deal to get out of the Great Depression, Reagan, current Bush admin and the way it is getting funding for OEF and OIF,...). The Gulf of Mexico is a nice place. Lots of ports can be established there. Ports all across the AMerican South can be constructed to accept all the trade that was lopped off if(and I'm not certain it is going to be, I'd love to hear why you think that it will be) with a wall being constructed. There's another method that is almost as fast and actually cheaper(pick the food a little green, use gasses to ripen it, just as they do right now sending it OTR). It's going to hurt financially, a lot. Why is that cost so prohibitive that we shouldn't do it, Kat? I don't see it.

Okay, I've rambled enough. (Shudder). Sharpen the rhetorical claws like I'm a scratching post, you know you want to. (shudder)

(I've got things to say to the SS issue as well, as well as the other costs that their donations to SS may or may not cover. Or maybe I should shut up and let Sanger weigh in. He did do his thesis on this not to long ago.)

posted by ry on February 8, 2008 11:22 PM

---

To one and all: I have not read the comments above because I just don't want to get all PO'd before I write this, so without knowing if what I am about to say is good or bad, or duplicated above, here goes.

KAT touched on many excellent and perfectly accurate points. But there is SO much more....

1) Most of what most people 'know' about immigration to the U.S. is WRONG. Just plain, flat wrong.

2) Almost every single thing I hear on TV, or read in on-line journals, or read in politicians websites, or overhear in my offices about immigration (and all of its effects, real and imagined) is WRONG.

3) The long-term national negative effects of legal immigration to the U.S. are NONE. The long-term national negative effects of illegal immigration are far less than most people believe, and even those are more than offset by the positive effects of immigration, regardless of whether it's legal or illegal.

4) Immigration to the United States is beneficial to the U.S. economy. Period. It always has been and that remains true today. The nature of the immigration (legal vs. illegal) only affects the extent to which it is beneficial. Legal immigration is more beneficial than illegal immigration, but even illegal immigration generates net-positive economic and social benefits to the Nation.

5) The U.S. is the _only_ industrialized nation that does NOT have a negative birth rate. The reason is immigration, not because all the old timers are making enough babies. If you don't know why this is vitally, crucially important to the future of the nation and even of democracy, read about the impending (and in some cases non-stoppable) economic decline and fall of Europe, Russia, Japan, etc. Then read where the babies are being made, as well as what the projected populations and economies of places like Italy and Germany are going to look like in 30 years. Be afraid, be very afraid. And be thankful for every American born baby, no matter where its parents come from!

6) Illegal immigrants DO generate revenue, and they DO pay taxes, and they DO pay for services they use, but in fact they often get screwed because the people who employ them are collecting the SS taxes, etc., and paying it to the government (to avoid IRS problems), but those illegal immigrants are most often unable to use the services they are paying for.

7) Crimes committed by illegal immigrants are often what I call second-tier crimes they are forced to commit because they are here illegally, e.g., driving without a license or insurance. And it's not like plenty of good 'ol 'Murcans don’t do the same.

8) In relative terms, the number of immigrants to the U.S. is still less than the number of immigrants who came to the U.S. between 1850 and 1918, during which time the U.S. had the greatest number of foreign-born residents ever (most of whom, BTW, were Irish, continental European, Jewish--my great-grandparents among them).

9) The U.S. has never been as welcoming and open to immigrants as we like to boast about (for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 suspended immigration of Chinese laborers under penalty of imprisonment and deportation--in force until 1943; and in 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that first-generation Japanese were ineligible for citizenship and could not apply for naturalization!). Moreover, the U.S. has been both ruthless and cruel in its treatment of immigrants, especially Mexicans, we STILL treat them like second class human beings! In 1988, Christian Joppke wrote (in "Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration," in World Politics 50.2) that "the problem of illegal immigration is [really] a by-product of the attempt to build a unified, national system of immigration control, which no longer exempted Western hemisphere immigration." He also wrote that "The three-step effort entailed:1) stopping (under the pressure of domestic labor unions) the Bracero guest-worker program in 1964, which for more than two decades had provided Western growers with cheap foreign fruit pickers; 2) establishing through the 1965 Immigration Act a ceiling of 120,000 immigrant visas for the Western hemisphere, which had formerly been exempted from numerical restrictions; and 3) applying, in 1976, the Eastern hemisphere individual-country limit of twenty thousand annual visas to Western hemisphere countries, which resulted in Mexico instantly developing a severe visa backlog. ... Tellingly, [illegal immigrant] apprehension figures rose steeply after the end of Bracero in 1964. They first crossed the one million mark in 1976, at the very moment the first national immigration regime, which applied the same control criteria to Eastern and Western Hemisphere countries, was completed. Without belittling the physical dimension of a two thousand mile land border that divides the First from the Third World, the problem of illegal immigration is quite literally a social construction. [emphasis mine].

10) Of the 17.3M immigrants to the U.S. between 1986 and 2004 (known to the Census Bureau, which counts everyone, regardless of status), only 4.2M were from Mexico. Of the remaining 13M, 987K were from the Philippines, 787K from India, 777K from China; 710K from Vietnam; 549K from Dominican Republic; 446K from El Salvador. You might note that the next six countries after Mexico together contributed about as many as Mexico, which still leaves almost 8M immigrants from everywhere else, like the 259K from S. Korea; 254K from Cuba, 133K from Russian Fed, and so on.

11) NAFTA IS working exactly as it was expected to, in spite of claims to the contrary.

---

I could go on and on, trust me. In fact, I did in about 80 pages of a thesis I submitted for my degree completion in early 2007. The thesis was only supposed to be around 50 pages, but the topic was huge, so I was given some leeway. I could have easily written another 80 pages without problem, and I ended up having to delete or leave out a lot.

And with all that said, I will now add the insulting part: I find the idea of a wall across the borders of my country entirely repulsive, and I find the people who are most forcefully for such a barrier to be mostly ill-informed, fearful, or ignorant, and to some extent even racist (I mean, why not a wall across Canada, that's where some of the 9/11 killers came to the U.S. from, and as far as I know, none came through Mexico). This observation is not meant to be inflammatory, it is just truth as I've seen it. I see it every day, as do a couple of Americans I know whose parents are Mexican immigrants.

You know, I spent a good part of my life looking at and patrolling miles and miles of barbed wire border fences, and I even saw a person get shot-up one night trying to get to our side of the fence. I spent weeks, months, and years staring at the Iron Curtain or thinking about it, so one of the most satisfying moments of my life came in 2005, when I drove freely from what used to be West Germany into what had been East Germany, and thence in the Czech Republic, down through valleys and towns I used to stare at for hours at a time, from across the fence! Even better, when I came back into Germany from the Czech Rep., I discovered the evidence of the former border barrier (in that area at least) had been obliterated. I could find no single landmark from the cold war that showed where the fences and mines and towers had been. I'm sure they could be found, but even with old pictures, I couldn't do it. Which suited me just fine.

I hated that cold war fence with real passion, and I am even more opposed to a cold-war style fence across our borders than I was to the real one. We need to promote growth and stability in Latin America so people will want to stay home (yes, NAFTA is indeed helping with that), and not because I don't want them here, but because an economically powerful Mexico is a better security partner than a weak one. We also need to allow people to travel more freely to and from Mexico and the U.S., and In fact, I’d say we ought to join with Mexico to become one country or a commonwealth (there are at least a dozen excellent reasons), but I don't think the Mexicans would want to ruin their country by doing that. Heck, considering how badly we've treated Mexicans over the past 100 years, I'm surprised they haven't built a wall themselves to keep _us_ out.

And finally, I'd say we ought to watch what we ask for. The U.S. is increasingly disliked south of the Border, for some pretty good reasons, and while it may not be true today, it could yet turn out that we are the one's left standing out in the cold.... Hopefully, however, all of this nonsense will pass, and we'll get back some semblance of sanity and reason.

posted by SangerM on February 9, 2008 3:05 AM

---

SangerM, I was interested in what you had to say -- even though it generally contradicts what I've read and heard elsewhere -- until I read this:

In fact, I’d say we ought to join with Mexico to become one country or a commonwealth (there are at least a dozen excellent reasons), but I don't think the Mexicans would want to ruin their country by doing that.

and then any interest in or respect for your position that I might have had dissolved. Instantly and completely.

Next time you want to convince me of something, you'll have better luck if you don't sound like an anti-American moonbat.

You'll also have better luck if you actually address some of the other side's claims, such as:

* the widespread shutdowns of hospitals in border states, which go under financially because illegal immigrants use them like regular doctors' offices and then skip without paying

* the high percentages of illegals that are involved in organized crime

* the way that the current crop of illegals not only don't assimilate into our culture, as previous waves of immigrants usually have, but have the gall to demand that we assimilate to their culture.

* the fact that along the more popular routes for illegals crossing the southern border, there are established campsites where you can go and pick up tons of trash and abandoned property. Acres and acres of land that the landowners can no longer make any use of, because the illegals have trampled it into worthlessness.

* the fact that having towns and cities declare themselves as "illegal immigrant sanctuaries" in violation of federal law breeds a dangerous contempt for the forces of law and order, and also violates the chain of authority established by the Constitution.

Then when you're done with explaining away the cost to our side of the border, you can cross over and start explaining why it's a Good Thing that

* coyotes charge five, ten, twenty thousand dollars cash per person or family, leaving those families destitute and desperate before they ever set foot in the United States. That money gets channeled into Mexican organized crime operations, just like money spent on illegal drugs.

* there are villages in Mexico where every able-bodied male between the ages of sixteen and sixty has "gone north," leaving the village unable to survive.

You can also try to explain why you think Mexico has a strong economy when the primary reason Mexicans go north for work is because they can't find work at home.

posted by wolfwalker on February 9, 2008 7:22 AM

---

I'll answer some of these questions now.

Wolf hit on a point that is right up my alley and I'll answer first. Sanger makes the first point about how the positive impact outweighs the negative impact.

Closing hospitals and clinics in any town is reported as "negative". Yet, the service sectors are booming including health care. How or why is this possible?

Just because there is some "negative impact" does not mean that the aggregate effect is negative. In regards to hospitals on the border shutting down, I would imagine that there is much more to the story than the whole "illegal immigrants" forced them out of business. Again, I work in the health field, what I could tell you about the operations and issues, such as reimbursement (my specialty) would make your head spin. I'll start here:

Hospitals just don't close down because they have too much open claims (unpaid services) or low reimbursement (Medicaid). Most hospitals and other health facilities I've worked for, Medicaid, even in the poorest parts of town, with the highest rate of "illegal" immigration (San Diego) is about 30% of their patients, but only about 15-20% of their revenue. The rest is BC/BS, Medicare, that type of thing. Thus, if they suddenly no longer had medicaid patients, they could survive, if their base revenue was still high enough. That goes for private pay (that would be people with out insurance). Every hospital and health care provider expects certain amount of low/no profit reimbursement and bad debt.

The problem is, when everyone else with good insurance moves away and/or HMOs and other insurances tighten their reimbursement and limit the raise in reimbursement, it may not match the rate of inflation in cost of supplies, maintenance of the building, and most importantly, the cost of labor in a shrinking labor pool.

When people start moving away from those little border towns to big cities where the pay and jobs are better, the base revenue goes with it, along with a base of labor that helped keep the costs down, leaving nothing but a minimum amount of other payers and the remaining, already existing, base of state assistance, private pay and other. It's not because these places were suddenly overwhelmed with illegal immigrants and unpaid bills. IT IS because all the other people and all the other money went away.

That is happening in communities all over the United STates, not just communities where there are high rates of "illegal immigration". It is the same reason that doctors and clinics in rural communities are closing down or getting subsidized by the government. The young people move away to follow the business. All that's left are the old people with medicare or who can pay a little cash.

maybe we should blame the loss of those communities on the Old People and demand no more old people?

Or inner city community hospitals where the more affluent move away and leave the poor and indigent. Not that they weren't there in the first place, its just that they become the overwhelming majority. Maybe we should throw out all the poor people?

Because economics and basic human migration changes the pattern of populations continuously.

So, Wolf, as with many other points about illegal immigrants, the information is only half right. Yes, hospitals and clinics go under all the time, but not just because they are overwhelmed with a flood of indigent or state reimbursed patients due to illegal immigration, but because everyone else who would pay differently moves away for better jobs and a raise in living standards. The great expectation of most Americans. And an absolute positive effect.

But, here's what's even better, even as those poor communities are struggling because of the limited income, huge communities are being built along with hospitals, clinics and specialty practices, all over expanding cities. We aren't being drug down by the poor and displaced. We are leaving to create bigger and better things. That's not only the history of the United States, but the migratory history of humanity.

And, you know who is helping to build those communities? Whose cheap, under the table salaries, help build new houses, new business, NEW HOSPITALS in these new and wealthy areas? And why we can afford to do it?

All those paperless immigrants.

Here's the second part of these "numbers" that everyone keeps talking around and never mentions:

The distribution of our population, including legal and illegal immigrants, across the economic spectrum. We have over 300 million people in this country, including both of those subsets. the percentage of "poor", "middle class" and "wealthy" has not changed. The percentage of those that are "Hispanic" or other also remains the same. What that means is that, even as the illegals and legal immigrants come in and our essentially "poor", they establish themselves and improve their economic standing so that, eventually, like all Americans, they appear across every spectrum of the socio economic dynamic.

Which means that, yes, they do not remain some horrendous burden on our system continuously bringing it down. As Sanger notes, they become an important part of our economic base and industrial might.

Not only do our population and wealth statistics, but the unemployment statistics which remain floating within a percentage mark or less of 5%. For nearly three decades now. Even though three recessions. The percentage of which that is "Hispanic" also remains pretty constant against our over all population. Again, that doesn't equate to an over burden on us by some horrendous immigration issue.

We aren't France or Germany with their 11% unemployment or communities with little movement economically or internal migration. We are not stagnant.

I'd love to see the numbers Sanger has on the effect on Social Security because I would bet that they jive with my "back of the envelope" numbers. Our problem with Social Security is not about the added weight of immigrants, legal or otherwise, but entirely of our own design within that system and the over all aging of our population which we can only off set by three methods:

1) Increased immigration with working aged (or younger) people (the largest part of even the "illegal" immigration numbers) who can work long and hard paying into the system.

2) Increased birth rate at or higher than the the rate of aging and disability within this country. We can either do that by increasing our birth rate across all population ethnicities and economic ratios of people who are here or we can do that, as we are, by the birth rate amongst the immigrants. Or both would be good at this point.

3) WE can close the ranks of Social security now or decrease the rise by significantly decreasing the amount people will receive (based on other income) or the age they can retire or the disabilities we are willing to pay for.

Frankly, I'd take all three and that's knowing I've been paying into it this whole time and may not see much of anything from it in the future.

No. I did not get these numbers from Hillary, MoveOn.org, McCain, La Raza nor any other organization. I looked it up for myself.

Most of the arguments I've seen that are pro-wall, anti-immigration are only half the story and usually leaves out any mitigating or exculpatory information in order to put the fear of Mexicans into the rest of the nation.

Of course, I would not agree with Sanger that we annex Mexico. But, I would agree to make Mexico a strong economic partner. For Mexico to do that, it has to change internally. No, I do not think that we can force Mexico to deal with their problems by forcing Mexicans to "stay down on the farm".

posted by kat-missouri on February 9, 2008 2:45 PM

---

It's funny, as soon as I started reading SangerM's comment, I knew who it was. I didn't have to scroll down to check the name because I heard all this over pizza in Arlington one night.

SangerM, I may be missing it, but the primary objection I have, you don't address. Sovereignty. Ry brought it up directly, my own coment was somewhat more oblique. This is *My Country*. It is for Americans to say who enters. Do you realize that on the yearly Foreign Policy "Failed State" index we are "stable" but not "most stable" because of our failure to control our own borders.

Assuming ignorance or racism in those who oppose your viewpoint reflects poor debating skills.

I like to fall back on the house analogy. If a criminal breaks into my house to eat and he happens to be black or hispanic is my objection to his presence racist? I think not.

As far as the Canadian border goes, as soon as Canadians start POURING across and sucking up social service resources in Vermont, I will ask for a wall up there.

As far as merging with Mexico, my sister says all the time we should annex them, so I guess that's not too crazy.

That last line about the Mexicans building a wall to keep us out is hilarious. The whole notion that because, in years past there were some wrongs committed south of the border, we in the present day should make allowances is silly. It's the Slave Reparations arguement. I have the same answer for both. When these wrongs were being committed, my people we bog-trotting back in the old country.

Whatever happened between Mexico and the United States in the last century should stay there.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 2:54 PM

---

* the fact that along the more popular routes for illegals crossing the southern border, there are established campsites where you can go and pick up tons of trash and abandoned property. Acres and acres of land that the landowners can no longer make any use of, because the illegals have trampled it into worthlessness.

This assumes that the land that was damaged was being used in the first place. I thought the illegals were crossing in the desert? (that's a little sarcasm if you didn't catch that)

Don't get me wrong, I am familiar with the issues of ranches in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. But those do not make up the entirety of the border. Maybe, since were worried about our sovereign borders, the government should buy the property? Secondly, if people had a good, safe and legal way to move across the border, that would be a non-issue or very limited. Along with the criminal coyotes.

We need immigration. That's a fact jack.

posted by kat-missouri on February 9, 2008 2:58 PM

---

We need immigration. That's a fact jack.

We need *legal* immigration. Controlled by our government, conforming with our laws. posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 4:37 PM

---

The Effect of Illegal Immigration on the US Healthcare System

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA), all American hospitals must provide emergency medical treatment to any who may come to their facility (Cosman). This includes those who are uninsured, are not citizens, and cannot pay. While the government obliges the hospitals to treat these patients, no refunding of their unpaid services must ever occur under the bill�s duties. In other words, hospitals must give unpaid services to their communities, without any guarantee of repayment by a government facility that made it do so. Although a very sensible idea (it is unethical for hospitals to deny care to an uninsured gunshot victim), certain areas of the nation have become overwhelmed by an abuse of this system. As a prime example, between 1993 and present day, over 60 hospitals have closed down in the state of California due to the surge in critical care given to those without insurance, mainly illegal immigrants (WND). While some may blame this simply on business fluctuations, since hospitals are usually run by private firms, one cannot deny a problem in the system when many of these closed hospitals reported no payment for over 50% of their services. To combat this, the US government gave California emergency hospitals approximately $72 million annually to care for illegal immigrants, for which many have praised the system (Darmiento). However, when one looks at the number of hospitals the $72 million suddenly does not become nearly as much as it may seem in the beginning since it is for all California hospitals, and not only one. The figure goes down even further when it is estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state of California approximately $10.5 billion every year (Longley). As was mentioned earlier though, emergency medical services cannot be denied under any circumstance under penalty of stiff fines from the federal government for breaking EMTALA ground rules. With approximately 10,000 immigrants crossing over to the US each day, one can now observe how easily hospitals in border states can be sunk into debt due to not being paid for medical services.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 4:41 PM

---

Effect of illegal immigration

Illegal immigration, while not a new thing, has become a very noticeable nuisance for communities, especially in the border states where the problem is easily seen. Movement into the US was mainly overlooked by many Americans a few years ago due to great economic stability left by President Clinton.

Wow. You quoted from that report? I'm still reading it, but i'll get back to you. The most interesting part so far is that, well, we were okay with immigrants, illegal or otherwise until 2001 when, allegedly, our economic situation turned for the worse.

How about, we were attacked by 19 Arabs and suddenly we went nativist looking side ways at anyone that didn't speak or look like "us"?

Still reading. However, California, the socialist state of the universe, is probably not the best pick for the aggregation of health care in the border states. Plus, there is a solution...don't provide that health care. problem solved. ;)

reading.

posted by kat-missouri on February 9, 2008 4:50 PM

---

The paper makes my point for me and which you missed in your zeal to show me that my argument about "why hospitals close down" is wrong. But you're cherry picking my because I believe that I distinctly note that yes, those people do become the only payer, but I do disagree that the reason is the immigration or that in the long run the aggregate effect is negative. It's positive:

It is easier and much less costly to prevent diseases through immunization when the child is young than it is to treat full-blown illness. Not having health insurance would cause physical damage to the individual and put financial stress on the American public (i.e. cheap inoculations as a baby are favorable over allowing the child to get sick so that he/she has to stay in a hospital for much time to recover). In the same spirit, one has to give illegal immigrant women the right to proper facilities and services when delivering a baby in order to prevent complications associated with a home birth, which many would resort to if hospitals would not take them. The overall trend, once again, seems to lean towards preventing disease at a young age since the children of illegal immigrants will become the taxpayers who eventually help the future American economy.

And this one:

As they following medical protocol to improve the life and well-being of those that come into their doors, hospitals must be supported in their quest to aide this new wave of immigration. In the spirit of how this nation was formed, a small sacrifice now will hopefully work to pave the way for a new generation of immigrant children who are legal American residents and who pay taxes to help make their new nation grow and prosper even more.

A-freaking-men.

Now, let me re-iterate. CAlifornia is probably the worst state to talk about in regards to distribution of funds, state health care and what immigration is doing to the health care system. While the Hopkins paper is pretty close, in all their discussion about the emergency medical treatment act, they forgot to mention California's other laws that place even greater demands on the health care system than national laws and requirements.

They also have some of the poorest reimbursement rates for hospitals in a state that taxes itself into near oblivion and certainly drives away many companies and the potential for additional revenues. On the other hand, they like to vote themselves in all sorts of benefits and extra special services that tax their budget.

Let's say that california, as the single example presented, is nearly as misleading as trying to pretend that illegal immigration is suddenly the reason why the country is about to explode and disappear from the rolls of nations on this earth.

posted by kat-missouri on February 9, 2008 5:12 PM

---

Again, the article says "immigration" is good, and it is. LEGAL immigration. The article explains that the cumulative effect of *illegal immigration* since 1985 became more noticable after 2001. It became more noticable because of economic factors, not 9/11 and nativism.

Nativism - code for racism. Once again let me state that if lily-white Canadians come pouring into Vermont and hospitals are overwhelmed & shut down, I want a fence there.

I also work in the healthcare industry (I flirt with elderly gentleman and make them breathless & then bill Medicare for their home oxygen equipment). I observe illegal immigrants who get on MassHealth (the state medicaid program) and come get their DME from me. In Boston a not inconsiderable percentage of illegal immigrants are Irish. I resent them all. Is that racist? Is that nativist? Boston regards itself as the western most parish of Ireland, I can hardly view a fellow Irishman as *less* than myself, can I? Yet, I can be angry that they broke the law. I can be deeply resentful that they parasites on the system.

Plus, there is a solution...don't provide that health care. problem solved. ;)

What? Are you serious? First off, that is against the law. Second it's morally wrong. Third, you're arguing against yourself above "Otherwise, no I do not support any law that would keep any "illegal" from using "tax payer" public facilities. Like the library, city hall, police station or any community hospitals."

So, no, denying anyone medical care in an emergency situation is no solution.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 5:17 PM

---

You are all over the place here.

Yes preventative care costs less. Yes, paying for immunizations and prenatal care would cost less than paying for treating diseases and neonatal care. That's not the point.

Yes, providing solid medical care for illegal immigrants *may* lead to a next generation of solid American citizens (although that's not a definite as assimilation becomes less the norm).

The point is that they should not be here in the first place. I should not have to choose between paying less for their preventative healthcare now as opposed to their expensive healthcare later. I should not be paying, period.

Not paying either is not an option.

Therefore, the only option is to stop the flow, cause a reverse flow through employer sanctions and strict law enforcement and assimilate those who are left.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 5:32 PM

---

Again, the article says "immigration" is good, and it is. LEGAL immigration. The article explains that the cumulative effect of *illegal immigration* since 1985 became more noticable after 2001. It became more noticable because of economic factors, not 9/11 and nativism.

Let me quote this again, while the title is talking about the effect of "illegal" immigration on the healthcare system it ends with this little line:

The overall trend, once again, seems to lean towards preventing disease at a young age since the children of illegal immigrants will become the taxpayers who eventually help the future American economy.

Throughout the article it talks about when "illegal" immigrants become "legal" residents, paying taxes, and their children who are born here are automatically "legal" residents pay taxes and adding to our over all economy and, yes, even those taxes that pay for health care.

It became more noticable because of economic factors, not 9/11 and nativism.

Nativism - code for racism. Once again let me state that if lily-white Canadians come pouring into Vermont and hospitals are overwhelmed & shut down, I want a fence there.

Nativism is not racism per se and I don't attribute it simply as that. Some of the first nativists were in fact white protestant Irish who resented the hell out of white, catholic Irish who were flooding the nation. And they still are, apparently.

It hasn't changed much. Racism? maybe, maybe not, but definitely tribalism, protectionism and bigotry. You don't want me to consider that to be a part of the issue? Don't use the word "parasite" when you're referring to human beings of a particular class, race or creed. My ancestors were part of the first great wave of "dirty Irish" "parasites" in this country. They built this country. This country stands tall on the mountain of their flesh, blood, sweat and tears.

My maternal grandfather was an "illegal alien". He stowed away on a boat and snuck into this country in 1921. Seven years later he became a naturalized citizen and became part of our great socio-economic progress.

And, you can use your "Canadian" example all you want because you know that no Canadian with a free national healthcare system is going to come to Vermont to use theirs or Massachusetts. Besides, they pay the same kind of taxes as those states and have all sorts of similar economic and social benefits. Thus, its safe to use them as an example.

But the people we don't like do come here because the places they come from have been poor, politically unstable and have limited economic opportunities when they arrive.

That is the history of the United States and immigration, legal or otherwise. Somewhere in there, I bet "Boston Maggie" has a "dirty Irish parasite" ancestor in their somewhere, too ;)

By the way, you can blame your fellow "blue" massachusetts folks for the abuse of your health system. People are only coming to use what you all have decided to give away. Its the natural inclination of humans. The problem, of course, is that the people thought they were voting it in for themselves and not for some ugly, intrusive "outsider".

Doesn't work that way.

What? Are you serious? First off, that is against the law. Second it's morally wrong. Third, you're arguing against yourself above "Otherwise, no I do not support any law that would keep any "illegal" from using "tax payer" public facilities. Like the library, city hall, police station or any community hospitals."

What? You took the argument so seriously that you did not see me making the argument "reductio ad absurdem"? I mean, because all of these arguments roll around to one of two conclusions: we will pay more for illegal immigrant healthcare in the short run, while making over all economic long run gains or we will stop paying totally. Your arguments have no other outcome.

Do you really think after all these years that someone is going to hit on the perfect law or system that will end illegal immigration, reduce the cost of health care to the tax payer? At most, you might slow it down by a drop and, at worst as has been the case in the past, someone is going to add a bunch of loop holes or stupid language that will allow much worse to go on.

posted by kat-missouri on February 9, 2008 6:15 PM

---

The point is that they should not be here in the first place. I should not have to choose between paying less for their preventative healthcare now as opposed to their expensive healthcare later. I should not be paying, period.

Not paying either is not an option.

Therefore, the only option is to stop the flow, cause a reverse flow through employer sanctions and strict law enforcement and assimilate those who are left.

Hahahahahahahahaahahahah!!!!!!!

Put up the wall.

posted by kat-missouri on February 9, 2008 6:25 PM

---

First - I think you need to re-read the Rulez.

This would qualify as a personal attack to my mind.

Somewhere in there, I bet "Boston Maggie" has a "dirty Irish parasite" ancestor in their somewhere, too ;)

However, I am able to laugh it off as it is simply absurb. Yes, my ancestors all came from Ireland starting in 1860, but no, they were not parasites. The last of my people to arrive on these shores did so, legally, in 1916. She had a sponsor. She had documentation. She had a job waiting. She went through checks and balances at Ellis Island and was turned over to her sister (sponsor) who had come up by train from Boston. She never recieved a dime of public assistance. She paid her debts. She raised her children (including her youngest son, my father) to speak English and not her native Gaelic.
However, bringing up my ancestors is irrelevant to this discussion.

Don't use the word "parasite" when you're referring to human beings of a particular class, race or creed.

I do not consider the word parasite to be racist and will not apologize for it. I did not use in referring to a "particular class, race or creed." As a matter of fact I was quick to point out it applies to the illegal Irish in Boston. I will use where is fits. If you enter this country illegally and suck off the system you are a parasite on the host. There are also plenty of native American parasite who can trace their ancestors back to the Mayflower or back to a native American tribe. But they are not part of the discussion. They would be a red herring. Not unlike the question of my own ancestors. How and when our ancestors came to this country is irrelevent to the current discussion.

Some of the first nativists were in fact white protestant Irish who resented the hell out of white, catholic Irish who were flooding the nation. And they still are, apparently.

I am well aware of the definition of nativist. I am white Irish Catholic.
However, how white Protestants treated white Catholics is irrelevant to this discussion.

And, you can use your "Canadian" example all you want because you know that no Canadian with a free national healthcare system is going to come to Vermont to use theirs or Massachusetts.

I use Canadians as an example simply because they are on the other border.

By the way, you can blame your fellow "blue" massachusetts folks for the abuse of your health system. People are only coming to use what you all have decided to give away. Its the natural inclination of humans. The problem, of course, is that the people thought they were voting it in for themselves and not for some ugly, intrusive "outsider".

I don't even know where to begin..........
People are *stealing* from me and it's my fault for having stuff worth stealing? OK

Do you really think after all these years that someone is going to hit on the perfect law or system that will end illegal immigration, reduce the cost of health care to the tax payer?

Probably not. However, knowing I can't achieve perfection is a poor excuse for not trying to remedy the situation.

Put up the wall.

Thanks. We will.

posted by Maggie on February 9, 2008 7:14 PM

---

Do you really think after all these years that someone is going to hit on the perfect law or system that will end illegal immigration, reduce the cost of health care to the tax payer?

Yes.

In fact, the required law is already on the books. It just isn't being enforced, because people like you insist that it can't be enforced. The last "immigration reform" law, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, established a requirement that every worker hired by any company within the United States must be either a citizen or a legal immigrant. If you've started a new job since 1986, then you should have been required to fill out an I-9 form and provide proof of identity and citizenship/legal status. Falsifying an I-9 form is perjury.

Where the I-9 requirement is enforced, illegal immigrants LEAVE. Immediately and en masse. You don't have to arrest them. You don't have to arrest anyone they know. All you need is to raid one or two companies, and the illegals for miles around take off for home.

posted by wolfwalker on February 9, 2008 7:27 PM

---

I would just suggest if the argument is getting circular, and no real movement is being made... the discussion should be tabled, and resumed at a later time.

Before people get... pissy.

Just a thought.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2008 8:18 PM

---

Note: I haven't looked at the posts since yesterday when I started answering Wolf and Maggie. There may be some stuff above that I repeat, I don't know. I think this and the next will stand on their own

My pal Maggie in Boston wrote: "Assuming ignorance or racism in those who oppose your viewpoint reflects poor debating skills." There are a number of things wrong with this comment.

1. Even if I were guilty of making assumptions about something, and then basing my arguments in a debate upon those assumptions, it is not a given that this would be indicative of less than adequate debating skill. Debates are not arguments about facts (which by their very nature are non-debatable), but arguments about interpretations of facts or about the factuality, or truth, of a statement or proposition. Assumption, therefore, is an important aspect of debate, and is especially useful in the formulation of propositions.

2. The statement is predicated upon the assumption that I am engaged in a debate of the sort that pits one viewpoint against another (I'm not--that's why I didn't read anyone else's comments before I wrote and posted mine), and also on the assumption that I am not referring to things I know to be true (I am, which, being facts are not assumptions and are non-debatable).

3. Racism is defined as "1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race." I knew both senses of the word before I wrote my comment, and to be clear, I assumed nothing, at least in regards to this topic. The statement, on the other hand, implies that I used the words racist and ignorant to describe all people who 'oppose my viewpoint.' In fact, I described what I see, hear, and read EVERY DAY, not only here in Texas, but everywhere I travel or websurf, a good deal of which is nothing more that ignorance or racism, or a combination of both. Calling a cat a cat is not assumption, it is observation, and more important, it doesn't matter a lick if anyone else agrees that it's a cat or if the cat likes being called a cat. It is what it is, and cannot be otherwise, even if Schrödinger never looks in the box.

4. And finally, I wrote "I find the people who are most forcefully for such a barrier to be mostly ill-informed, fearful, or ignorant, and to some extent even racist." Note the lack of superlatives. I meant what I wrote because the people _I've_ encounter who are most forcefully for a barrier of some kind tend to be "mostly ill-informed, fearful, or ignorant, and to some extent even racist." Does this mean all people or all people I've encountered? No & No Does it mean everyone is all of those things? No. It means just what it says. As to the racist issue, I am often amazed and offended (and depressed) by what people will say to me because I'm white and assumed to be a 'likewise believer,' whether those people are related to me, are people I work with, or are just people I meet on the street (and not just here in Texas, but in places like South Bend, Boston, Denver, Philly, D.C., north Florida, etc.). And it's not just one race doing the talking! I routinely hear all sorts of comments about how our nation, our towns, our culture, and our economy is being ruined because of all the 'messicans,' 'wet*acks,' 'sneaky little brown bast**ds,' 'brown ni**rs,' and so on, and I hear it from whites, blacks, asians, and even from Latinos who are 2nd or 3rd generation Americans! What I find really humorous about it all is that this is the same kind of thing I've read was said about the uneducated Irish who immigrated to the U.S. between 1880 and 1910 to escape the English genocide [The Potato Famine and harsh winters were the problem, but it was English policies and laws and refusals to send food that killed or sent to the U.S. so many poor Irish].

Just cycles and the same old things all over again....

'Nuff said.

posted by SangerM on February 10, 2008 2:54 AM

---

Now for the stuff that matters:

1. Wolfwalker, I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone of anything, I was stating my beliefs, and relating facts. More to the point, I really don't care if you change your mind about anything or what you think I sound like (anti-American moonbat?!? that's funny, really. you just can't imagine...). Even more to the point, a lot of what you wrote in response to my comment is exactly the kind of stuff I was referring to. For example:

** "the widespread shutdowns of hospitals in border states..."

Kat covered this pretty well, but let me add a comment. In 1999, I worked in a small hospital in Indiana for a very short while. Most of the people in charge were operating in near panic mode trying to avoid being bought by a large consortium or being plowed under by nearby hospitals that could offer more services more cheaply. Hospital closure has nothing to do with illegals, as far as I know, but hey, if you've got some facts (as in numbers, citations, etc) to prove your point, lay 'em out there. I'll concede if you do.

** "the high percentages of illegals that are involved in organized crime"

This is a meaningless point. I grew up in Philly. I know what organized crime looks like, and I can tell you, it wasn't illegal immigrants who were running things, at any level you wanted to discuss (and it wasn't Mexicans, either). It still isn't, I'd bet, though I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that people who are highly susceptible to blackmail are forced by local criminals to do things they wouldn't if they had alternatives.

** "the way that the current crop of illegals not only don't assimilate into our culture, as previous waves of immigrants usually have, but have the gall to demand that we assimilate to their culture."

?!?!? "Current crop of illegals!?!" We're talking about people here, not wheat. And by the way, it is estimated that as many as 20-40% (depends on source) of illegal immigrants are here on expired visas, and came here legally in the first place and stayed past their go-home time (as did two of the 9/11 highjackers). More important, how is it that we are encouraging illegal entrants to assimilate? By threatening to arrest and deport them as soon as t