[Kat]
Now I'm going to say something completely out of line with a number of readers and posters. Remember, if you've got a complaint, don't email the owner of this blog, leave it in comments. He does not pre-approve my posts. Much to the pain of some folks here. Just take a lesson from Heath You-Know-Who and don't mix your oxycotin with your anti-depressants.
I do not support building a wall across our borders.
I do not support rounding up whatever illegals we can find and spending billions of dollars to send them all home (or as many as we can find).
I do support increased workers visas, increased legal immigration and increasing the INS and other necessary programs to allow people to come to the United States.
I do support an increased border patrol capability complete with additional, up manned out posts, QRF capabilities (including helicopters, UAVs, and tactically capable forces - when I say "tactically" I don't mean "shoot'em up", but as in capable of maneuvering, flanking and interdicting with enough force to render movement of illegal crossers of all stripes moot).
Here's how I see the wall...
(continued in flash traffic)
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
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".