Sign the Petition

Sign the Petition here

Externalities

All employers, not just corporations, seek to externalize costs. They are just trying to improve their bottom line.An externality is when the benefit or cost of a transaction is not reflected in the price arrived at by the buyer and seller when they enter into the deal. The benefit or cost is shifted onto society.

It’s very simple: Employers gain from illegal immigration because illegal immigration increases the supply of labor in the U.S. economy (by 8 million workers), which in turn reduces the cost of labor in the United States. The lower cost of labor allows employers to hire workers at lower wages and therefore make more money. If it is a small landscaping business, the owner can make more money by hiring workers at lower wages. If it is a large, public corporation, the managers can make more money by hiring at lower wages. Some of the money will go to executives in the form of higher salaries, and some of it may go to the shareholders as higher dividends. Sometimes the employer knows they are hiring illegal immigrants; many times the employer does not because the illegal workers have fake papers (which is a federal crime). Congress has had a tendency to excuse the employers if they did not "knowingly" hire illegal aliens. This loophole has yet to be closed.

But since 80% of illegal immigrants are low-skilled, they usually earn such low wages that they turn to welfare to make ends meet. So we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing illegal aliens as they break our nation’s reasonable and duly enacted laws. And we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing employers’ increased profits due to lower labor costs. Show me an illegal alien and I’ll show you a subsidy. And, if you are purposely hiring illegal workers, you are shifting your labor costs to the public and enriching yourself while the rest of us pay taxes to provide welfare to your workers.

The market is distorted. The availability of welfare benefits to illegal immigrants acts as an inducement for them to come here and accept jobs that Americans would rather not accept because the pay is so low that you cannot take the job without going on welfare. The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is a negative externality of the cheap labor employer-employee relationship. It is a negative externality just like pollution is. The concept of the negative externality is at the heart of environmentalism. The Pro-america, pro-environment people understand that illegal immigration imposes negative externalities on society. But I think that if you put the plain evidence in front of the Anti-America/Pro-illegal crowd that illegal immigration imposes a negative externality on society, they would deny it. It wouldn’t be politically correct for them to allow logic to lead them to an honest conclusion.

(Adapted from an essay by Charles Breiterman)

Detention: A Necessity of Border and National Security

The detention of hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year in the United States represents a violation of human rights, Amnesty International USA said in a report on Wednesday. But is it?

On an average day, the rights group said, more than 30,000 immigrants are in detention facilities. That's triple the number that was in custody a decade ago. Americans should be outraged by the failure of their government to expedite the removal of illegal aliens. Enough Justices of the Peace or Immigration Judges must be assigned to the detention facilities to enable a decision to be made within 24 hours of the intake of the detainee, with only a week for any appeal. Contractors who operate detention facilities should be compensated partially on the basis of throughput rather than solely on the basis of the number of detainee-days. An financial incentive must be created to move the detainees out of the facilities as quickly as possible.

But that is not enough. The able-bodied males directed to be removed must first be put to work on border infrastructure for six months as an object lesson to those who choose to violate our borders.

Our immigrant past is just that. "Past" is the operative word. Whether citizens or legal immigrants have been here five years or five generations, their human rights and legal rights are and must be respected. But those who are here illegally enjoy a lesser degree of protection. They are only entitled to be treated humanely and to have their cases judged promptly without bias.

More than 300,000 people are detained by U.S. immigration officials each year but that is only a fraction of the number who are apprehended in the immediate environs of the border or internally. This number may include asylum seekers, torture survivors, victims of human trafficking, illegal aliens, and occasionally, longtime legal permanent residents detained in error. Asylum seekers, including torture survivors and victims of human trafficking, are the most difficult cases because proof is often lacking or difficult to obtain.

The use of detention as a tool to combat illegal aliens and border violators is a natural function of sovereign nations and is fully consistent with human rights provided the detention is humane and brief. However, people should not be allowed to languish in American immigration detention facilities without a hearing. They are entitled to an immediate opportunity to show why their detention is unwarranted. The burden of proof is theirs. The cases of those who claim to be citizens or permanent residents should be given priority for adjudication so, if justified,they can be released with the apologies of the government and reimbursement for any costs or losses they may have incurred. E-verification of immigration or work status is an easy way to expedite the adjudication of all cases. Justices of the Peace or Immigration Judges should be provided with a narrow and rigid set of criteria for their decisions and any subsequent appeals so that there are no unnecessary delays and no extended detention. Justices of the Peace must be able to pass a written test on procedure and criteria before they begin work. They needn't have a law degree.

Those who wish to self-deport rather than await adjudication should be allowed to do so after fingerprints, photographs, and DNA samples are taken and checked against criminal data bases. These self-deportees should be admonished that if they return, they will be treated as repeat offenders and subject to a minimum of two years in prison.

The U.S. government must ensure that all who are apprehended and detained receive an immediate hearing to determine whether they meet the criteria for release. Fraudulent documents or duplicate or mismatched social security numbers should be considered prima facie evidence of illegal presence and a basis for a summary judgment subject only to the one week for appeal.

As permitted by law,U.S. officials, quite properly, stepped up detentions after the September 11 attacks. There remains every reason to expect another and perhaps even more disastrous attack by terrorists in the near future. This year more than 400,000people may be detained. Their cases must be expedited for many reasons. Although no country one comes close to detaining the number of people that the United States does, this country is in a particularly vulnerable position with long borders and many ports of entry. Its proximity to countries that are unable or unwilling to restrain their own populations propensity to ignore borders adds to that vulnerability and fully explains the number of detainees. Moreover, other countries may not have nearly the attraction of the U.S. for terrorists or illegal aliens. After all how many wish to immigrate to China, Russia, Bangladesh or India?

According to the report, there were about 12 million illegal aliens living in the United States as of January 2007. The top five countries of origin were Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines and China. Mexico produces as many as the next ten countries combined. Hence the focus of immigration authorities often falls most heavily on Mexicans because of their sheer numbers.

The Department of Homeland Security can detain people at the border or during raids if it suspects them of an immigration violation. People detained at the border are not entitled to a review of their detention by an immigration judge, but neither should they be returned across the border without some penalty, such as six months work on border infrastructure alluded to above. Those apprehended inside the United States have the right to appear before a judge, but the wait can be long and that problem needs to be fixed with more judges assigned to the detention facilities and a set of strict criteria for their decisions. Asylum seekers must resign themselves to longer delays as efforts are made to obtain corroborating evidence of their status.

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents should never be incorrectly subjected to mandatory detention. Proof of their status should be readily available so that their release or removal can be expedited without the usual interference by lawyers and others. There should be no reason why a long period of detention should be needed to prove they are not deportable from the United States. If the law is so complex in this area, it must be simplified.

Detention of those who appear to be here illegally is an essential part of border security and an exercise of national sovereignty. Prompt adjudication and humane treatment should be the sole concerns of Amnesty International. Any other approach is suspect and should be rejected as interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

Those who are arrested should never be freed on bond because history shows that those who are simply disappear and are never seen again. The risk of flight is too high for these miscreants who have nothing to lose except the cost of the bond. Many Chinese arrive with enough money to pay the current bond requirement because they know the system. They simply forfeit the bond and disappear having achieved their basic objective of illegal entry and relative safety, absent vigorous and continuous internal enforcement.

Occasionally U .S. citizens and lawful permanent residents have been incorrectly subject to mandatory detention. That situation needs to be fixed as soon as possible but we must remember that no system is perfect and there will be infrequent errors. All detainees should be permitted to present any evidence they have that they are not deportable but that evidence should be forthcoming and available easily within a week.

A single case of a man who was born in Minnesota and placed in immigration detention in Arizona was cited. He was unable to access his birth certificate because he was in detention and ended up working for $1 a day in the prison kitchen to earn the $30 necessary to order a copy of his birth certificate. Detainees should keep their vital papers in a readily accessible location and each detainee should be allowed at least one phone call to obtain their quick delivery. E-verification in detention facilities should easily resolve most of the problems of citizens who have legitimate social security numbers.

Detention facilities for those apprehended without proof of status must provide adequate medical care, be free of excessive restraints, and should not be used for people accused of or imprisoned for criminal offenses.

Sweden Rocked by Radical Muslims

A few years ago, the left-wing London Guardian newspaper called Swedenthe most successful society the world has ever known. But Sweden todayis being rocked by a large influx of Muslim immigrants and the growth ofradical Islam. Malmo is Sweden 's 3rd largest city and a major epicenter of theIslamization of Europe. Wide-open immigration policies have changedSweden and have made Malmo, which is now one-quarter Muslim, one of themost racially divided cities in Europe. Most Muslim immigrants are concentrated in one district, where the maleunemployment rate is 82 percent. Crime affects one of three families inthe city and rape has tripled in 20 years, according to the ChristianBroadcasting Network. In one housing project in the district, fire and emergency workers willno longer enter without police protection. Malmo has been so accommodating toward immigrant Muslims that a localMuslim politician and imam has even declared, "The best Islamic state isSweden !" But Malmo's Jews won’t give the city the same glowing assessment. Jewswho dare to walk the streets wearing yarmulkes on their heads risk being beaten up. When Israel recently played Sweden in a Davis Cup tennis match in Malmo,protesters demonstrated against the Israeli presence in the city, andhundreds attacked police. Journalist Lars Hedegaard, who is based across a bridge-tunnel fromMalmo in Copenhagen, Denmark, told CBN News that pro-Israelidemonstrators in Malmo were met with rocks, bottles and pipe bombs fromPalestinians and other Arabs. Right-wing Swedish Democrats, who support limits on immigration, havebeen stigmatized by the left-wing Swedish media as fascist and bigoted. But there is a growing acceptance that "the Swedish model" - generous welfare benefits combined with liberal immigration policies — is nowunsustainable, according to CBN News. Hedegaard said: “I think the best prediction is that Sweden will have aMuslim majority by 2049, so we know where that country’s going.” cnn

Sounds familiar doesn't it? There are many parallels with the influx of illegal aliens and the idea of increasing the number of legal immigrants admitted: generous, unsustainable welfare benefits, liberal immigration policies, etc. Those who like our way of life should rethink their views about amnesty and open borders.

The DREAM Act re-visited

Here is proposal from Benita Veliz who would benefit from a DREAM-like Act.

“I would propose a policy that would do the following:

1. Allow people who were brought to the US illegally before they turned 16 to become conditional permanent residents for 5 years with the following conditions:

a. They must graduate from High School in good standing.

b. They must complete a college degree (minimum of a Bachelors degree) OR enlist in the military for a minimum of 5 years.

c. They must pay a VERY LARGE Fine (at least $5,000, probably more like $10,000, payable in installments).

d. After becoming conditional permanent residents, they would be INELIGIBLE forever to petition for anyone else to become residents -- parents, spouses, siblings, etc.

2. I would specify that this law applies ONLY to those who entered the country before the year 2000 and who have lived continuously in the country for at least 8 years.

3. Anyone who immigrated through this provision would be ineligible for ANY government benefits, including financial aid, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, unemployment, etc., until their 5 years of conditional residency have been completed satisfactorily.
4. Any conditional resident would be immediately deported, no questions asked, if convicted of committing a felony of any sort. (Obviously, those who have already been convicted of a felony would be ineligible for this program.)

5. During the 5 year conditional residency, these illegal aliens must be audited on their taxes every year, proving that all taxes have been paid faithfully.

To avoid creating an incentive for illegal aliens to bring in more children in the future, I would make sure to let people know this is only for people brought in before 2000. This does not shelter future immigrants in any way, shape or form.

The fact is Ultima...I love AMERICA. I will do ANYTHING to be allowed to stay here. All I'm asking for is a chance.”
Benita Veliz

“Hate”-- A Term Designed to Appeal to Emotion rather than Reason

A recent Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) study identified 926 hate groups in the United States—defined as groups with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people. By this definition, the SPLC is itself a hate group because it attacks entire classes of people such as the KKK, the Skinheads, and the Neo-Nazis.
The term “hate” is entirely too simplistic to be applicable to the entire spectrum of opposing beliefs and approaches to achieving power or influence over others. It is a term designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. The beliefs of the so-called hate groups range from a political philosophy that merely differs from that of the SPLC’s to actual advocacy of violence against entire classes of people. This broad brush treatment of those who dissent from political orthodoxy or correctness is unwarranted. It undermines whatever good they could otherwise accomplish through regular and consistent criticism of those who would do harm to others whom they perceive to be a threat to their way of life or simply “different” or “inferior.” The feelings of these groups are, of course, very human qualities that have been demonstrated time and again throughout history. Nevertheless, as we strive to recognize the pervasiveness of political, social and cultural differences that have frequently resulted in violence and wars, we cannot accept this as the norm or the behavior we should be striving for. Therefore, we must condemn violence of all kinds whether directed against individuals or whole groups of people or minorities.
This does not mean in any case that anyone must approve of or accept without comment behavior which he or she finds abhorrent, distasteful, contrary to law, or a perceived threat to his or her way of life. Currently the opprobrium of some is focused on the nation's first African-American president and an economy that is hemorrhaging jobs. For the past decade, illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico and Latin America, have also divided our society. The purveyors of the “hate group” mantra inevitably overlook the legitimate reasons for opposing illegal aliens and a new president whose political philosophy is foreign to the capitalism that drove America to the heights of power, prestige, and a standard of living of living that is the envy of many.
During the election, many candidates pussy-footed around their disagreements with Obama because they were worried that they would be considered racist. Similarly, today the SPLC would mute the criticism of the president by attributing it to racism or “hate.” The SPLC conveniently overlooks all of the legitimate bases for disagreeing with and disliking the policies of Obama. People quite properly worry about what will happen to our beloved country as its Latino population increases to such a degree that America becomes Mexico Norte with all the ills of disease, crime, poverty, joblessness, and corruption evident in the original. In fact, there is little about Latin American culture, government, and economic and scientific achievements that recommends them over the America we all cherish.
The current economic conditions have exacerbated the opposition to the politics of the left and the politics and organizational methods promoted by Saul Alinsky that formed the basis for the successful Obama campaigns. People who had been complacent in the past are now upset and more motivated to do something. They didn’t fully appreciate the size of the illegal alien population until the economic crisis hit and it became clear illegals, by accepting substandard wages and benefits, were taking jobs Americans needed and wanted. The movement to provide amnesty to millions of illegals simply added fuel to the fire. But the ire resulting from these events is not “hate”, it is simply the current economic reality and the longer standing interest in secure borders and a preservation of the rule of law and our national sovereignty.

Mexican Drug Wars to Spill Over into the U.S.

Drug violence spins Mexico toward 'civil war'
(CNN) -- A shootout in a border city that leaves five alleged drug traffickers sprawled dead on the street and seven police wounded. A police chief and his bodyguards gunned down outside his house in another border city. Four bridges into the United States shut down by protesters who want the military out of their towns and who officials say are backed by narcotraffickers.

Mexican police carry a body after a clash with gangs that left 21 dead in the state of Chihuahua on February 10.

That was Mexico on Tuesday. What is most remarkable is that it was not much different from Monday or Sunday or any day in the past few years.
Mexico, a country with a nearly 2,000-mile border with the United States, is undergoing a horrifying wave of violence that some are likening to a civil war. Drug traffickers battle fiercely with each other and Mexican authorities. The homicide rate reached a record level in 2008 and indications are that the carnage could be exceeded this year. Every day, newspapers and the airwaves are filled with stories and images of beheadings and other gruesome killings. Wednesday's front page on Mexico City's La Prensa carried a large banner headline that simply said "Hysteria!" The entire page was devoted to photos of bloody bodies and grim-faced soldiers. One photo shows a man with two young children walking across a street with an army vehicle in the background, with a soldier standing at a turret machine gun.
Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, calls it "a sickening vertigo into chaos and plunder." By most accounts, that's not hyperbole. "The grisly portrait of the violence is unprecedented and horrific," said Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. "I don't think there's any question that Mexico is going through a very rough time. Not only is there violence with the gangs, but the entire population is very scared," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy center.
Speaking on a news show a few weeks ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it a civil war. Birns agrees. "Of course it's a civil war, but that only touches the violence of it," he said Wednesday. "It's also a civic conflict, as an increasing number of people look upon the law and democratic values as something that can be violated." Hakim is not prepared to go that far. "One has to be careful and not overdo it," he said. "Mexico is a long way from being a failed state. Mexico has real institutions. It paves roads and collects the garbage. It holds regular elections."
Enrique Bravo, an analyst with the Eurasia consulting group, points out that the violence so far is mostly affecting just drug gangs and is primarily localized along the U.S. border and Mexico's western coast. The violence along the border is particularly worrisome, analysts say. "The spillover into the United States is bound to expand and bound to affect U.S. institutions," Birns said.
(One might add that the volume of cross-border traffic is so huge that it defies any meaningful security measures or efforts to curtail human and drug smuggling or trafficking. We could begin by prohibiting cross-border work commutes. If you work in the U.S. daily and are a U.S. citizen, you must live in the U.S.. If you are a Mexican citizen you must go to school in Mexico. Cross-border busing must end. Mexican trailers must be unhooked at the border and hooked to American tractors. Border infrastructure, staffing and rules of engagement must be improved and buttressed with vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification. Stopping illegal entry is essential to the solution to the drug problem. If they can’t get their product across the border, the drug problem will be solved. If we stop all illegals, we will surely stop the violent drug traffickers.)
Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs. Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States. And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas. "The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.
Pervasive corruption among public officials is central to the drug cartels' success. "There is so much money involved in the drug trade, there is so much fear involved in the drug trade, that no institution can survive unaffected," Birns said. "This has really revealed just how corrupt Mexican officeholders are," Hakim said.
In one recent instance, Noe Ramirez Mandujano, who was the nation's top anti-drug official from 2006 until August 2008, was arrested on charges that he accepted $450,000 a month in bribes from drug traffickers while in office. Such dire problems call for a new way of looking at the situation, some say."The unthinkable is happening," Birns said. "People are beginning to discuss decriminalization and legalization. ... There's only one thing that can be done: Take the profit out of it." Pastor calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era" and said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now."What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition." That viewpoint has picked up some high-level support in Latin America.
Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. "The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said at a news conference, in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken the war on drugs to the cartels and some say it's not working. "It's as if the burden of being the main arena of the anti-drug war has overwhelmed Mexican institutions," Birns said. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost. And there's no prospect the war is going to be won."
In the meantime, the killings will continue at a record pace. On Wednesday, the Mexican cities of Torreon and Gomez Palacio reported at least eight shootouts involving heavily armed men. The toll: seven dead, seven wounded.