Thread: border securty, aye

MeadhallPiratea few things, me hearty;

a) if ye start throwin' every person who be in our land into prison, i feel certain that yer goin' to see a huge, huge, huge swell in the amount 'o folks the taxpayers are bein' asked to incarcerate.

when i think 'o the amount 'o police...public defenders...judges...prison guards...the whole apparatus, thats goin' to be put in place to deal with all these folk, yer suggestion an immense growth in government and government spendin'.

in place to deal with all these folk, yer suggestion an immense growth in government and government spendin'.

ye may disagree, but then perhaps we just don't see eye to eye on this, mate.

I HAVE already answered this, you just don't understand the concept of incentives/disincentives and their effect on human behavoir over time. Under my proposal, there will be far FEWER people here illegally to begin with, as anyone who is an otherwise law abiding citizen of their own country is free to come here for opportunity. Only those who are criminals to begin with are banned from coming here.

That dramatically diminishes the total population of illegals right off the bat. The next thing is the dramatically increased border protection and if you think that a couple of weeks of criminals violating our national sovereignty being shot dead at the border will not further diminish the number of those trying to do so, then you really don't have a clue my friend.

MeadhallPirate
b) as a joyous consumer 'o illegal narcotics, i hafta to say that i see zero correlation between draconian prison sentences and any behavioral changes in our society, rawr!

Well, it is not JUST the severity of punishment, but also the LIKELYHOOD of punishment that acts as a deterent on a sliding scale. No different from winning the lottery, where people weigh the cost with the potential reward (which is a composite of the value of the potential reward and the likelyhood of actually getting it). People will merrily pay $1 for a relatively miniscule chance of winning a large sum of money, and the number of people willing to do so, and the number of chances they will buy at that price goes up steadily as the potential reward does (that's why when Powerball is $300,000,000 you will stand in line to get a ticket three hours before the drawing, but not when it is $12,000,000). Now, very few people would spend a much larger sum of money than that $1 for the same odds of winning virtually any amount. However, how much would those same people be willing to in effect bet for a 50/50 chance at winning $1,000,000...a lot more than they would for a 1/1,000,000 chance of winning the same amount.

And as it is with rewards, so to is it with punishment. While you might be willing to risk illegal drug use and getting a modest prison sentence when the odds of you ever getting caught and actually punished are rather low, odds are your behavoir would change if the risk of getting caught and subjected to punishment increased dramatically. Now, where drugs are concerned there is the added factors of addiction and the general mind-altering function of the druges, which can adds an element of irrationality to these decisions, but by and large these points stand for crime more generally (drug DEALERS, for example, are far more rational in their weighing of the rewards vs. potential consequences of their actions than drug USERS)

MeadhallPirate
c) ye may yearn fer gulag conditions fer prison labor to build this wall, but ye won't see'm, mate. ye can thank President Ronald Reagan fer that, by the way.

Prison overcrowding: A win for dignity | The Economist

d) since this whole prison idear isn't goin' to happen, and since i assume them armed folk who will mount the ramparts 'o this wall aren't goin' to be prisoners, and since the materials fer this wall aren't goin' to constructed in any prison...well....i have no idear whar the money is goin' to come fer all yer proposals.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

ps - i really don't know why yer so fixated on this militarized wall, matey. wouldn't a 2000 mile long swath 'o land mines suffice?

First, I am not saying we rely soley on prison labor for building and maintenance our border defense infrastructure, merely to supplement it.

Second, refer back to my comment on impeaching judges who think that the Constitution entitles convicted criminals of any particular comfort.

Finally, land mines would be a start, and part of a comprehensive shift from focusing on border "security" (a law enforcement oriented notion) to border defense (a sovereignty, national security oriented approach).

p.s., with regard to the title of the Economist article, anyone who thinks that convicted felons are entitled to "dignity" would, in my benevolent dictatorship, be among them. I am concerned with the dignity of civilized, law abiding society, and given that criminals are guilty of assaulting that dignity, none is due them save for the basic rights of due process, guarantees against compulsory testimony against themselves, and no cruel and unusual punishment as that term was understood when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Originally Posted by Zedrow

Its funny that you mention incentives/disincentives because the incentives for the people crossing the borders are jobs. The disincentive is already in place, go after those individuals or companies who offer the jobs. Once they are penalized/prosecuted enough the incentive for the illegals coming for the jobs will stop.

Agreed. Moreover, there are obviously millions of jobs taken by not only illegals but also legal entrants under abusive conditions. It's another aspect of comprehensive immigration reform that once again isn't being addressed because it pays off not to fix it. And this is a legal--albeit corrupt and immoral and American worker sabotaging way to achieve the same ends.

For example, there's plenty of J-1 visa abuse. Take this recent case in my area as just one example.

Posted on Sat, Sep. 3, 2011

Inquirer Editorial: Students say Hershey treated them like serfs

This was not the America that foreign students expected to find when they signed up to work at a Hershey Co. candy warehouse in central Pennsylvania.

They believed that they would get a chance to experience American life and culture, practice their English, and earn money to take back home. But what sounded like a sweet deal has been anything but that - if troubling allegations made by the students are true.

They say they were misled by recruiters and have been mistreated as cheap, hired help to fill a labor shortage in candyland.

The 375 students came to the United States from Ghana, Moldova, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine under a State Department J-1 visa program that allows them to work for several months. Each was to be paid between $3,000 and $6,000, but that's money they are afraid they will never see.

The students say they were offered low wages to perform manual labor, lifting 50-pound boxes in the Hershey warehouse in Lebanon County. The students made $8.35 an hour. But after they paid grossly inflated housing costs and other fees, they netted $40 to $140 per week. How ironic that the students worked so close to the Milton Hershey School, the richest residential school for poor children in the country.

It appears that the cultural-exchange students were trapped in a tangled web of outsourcing and bureaucracy at its worst.

Hershey left it to two outside companies to staff and operate the warehouse. The candymakers apparently turned a blind eye to what the students sponsored by the nonprofit Council for Educational Travel were experiencing until the controversy erupted.

To get Hershey's attention, the students staged protests that embarrassed the candymaker and other organizations that hired them. They have since been promised a week's paid vacation and cultural outings.

But the students also are demanding a refund of fees that they paid, which seems to be a reasonable request. They also want their jobs given to any displaced local workers.

That should not be the end of this sorry story, however. Changes are needed to provide better oversight for other unsuspecting students.

That's why it's good to see that the U.S. Labor Department has launched two investigations into working conditions at the Palmyra facility. The State Department is also looking into what happened.

Thousands of international students come to the United States every year to work summer jobs and see the face of America. Most have have had rewarding experiences. The Hershey incident shouldn't be a sweeping indictment of all cultural exchange programs. But it raises concerns that can't be ignored.

Inquirer Editorial: Students say Hershey treated them like serfs | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/03/2011

To their credit, these students exposed the hustle they faced by protesting and taking their cases to the media and public, and have advocated that the real jobs they were designed to replace be given back to American workers. But it's rare that such people stand up given their situation or difficulty to get organised as they did, etc. The J-1 visa programme is a good one that--when used properly--offers an exchange programme for foreign students that in turn allows US students to do the same abroad in reciprocity and it fills temporary work needs in holiday resorts, etc, but as one can see, it's been an avenue for abuse by unscrupulous employers and needs regulating and policing.

Then again, if you're a rich thieving banking scumbag, they get visa and other relief too. What happened in the US insofar as unregulated greed by unscrupulous businessmen was worldwide and others actually got hit harder in negative effects, such as Ireland. Take the case of scumbag David Drumm from the massive Anglo-Irish Bank scandal in Ireland.

2008-2011 Irish banking crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Column: David Drumm and Anglo fiddled while Rome burned

HAVING PUMPED €29.3 billion of taxpayers’ money into the beleaguered Anglo Irish Bank, you would imagine that the money used was essential and not used for any frivolous purposes. New evidence suggests otherwise. Whilst we are all experiencing the pain and difficulty associated with the ensuing cuts, new revelations in a book by Irish Times journalist Simon Carswell suggest that we were the only ones who ever had any intention of tightening our belts.

. . .

This weekend, Dublin Labour TD Alex White, chairman of the Oireachtas Finance Committee said: “We already knew that Anglo broke the country. What we didn’t know was that its key people were laughing while they did it.”

It is clear that Drumm used Anglo as his personal ‘piggybank’
David Drumm is still rolling around in fits of giggles. On the eve of his resignation, we have heard of how the former chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank transferred multi-million dollar sums into the name of his wife Lorraine. At the same time, Anglo Irish now alleges that through a sham business in the US, David Drumm continued the party with lavish periods at New York hotels. The bank says that he had money in several business accounts and this money was used by him as a “personal piggybank”.

. . .

Column: David Drumm and Anglo fiddled while Rome burned TheJournal

This guy fled criminal inquiries and civil accountability to the US by reason of getting an E-2 visa. That visa is granted to individuals who are in the US to handle business affairs where they have invested a substantial amount of capital. Again, this is an area rife with abuse, Drumm being just an example. Not only is the guy rightly accused of having misappropriated funds and run the wrecked bank into the ground with shady dealings, he's filed for bankruptcy in the US seeking to discharge his debts. By way of manipulative manoeuvring, he claims to own and earn nothing whilst living lavishly in the US, e.g.,

David Drumm bought six U.S. homes in last decade | Irish News | IrishCentral

Not only do Irish citizens and taxpayer lose here, but so do American ones in being misused by him. The banking clique, though, take very good care of themselves and especially in the area of the law or lack thereof---all the justice you can buy. You can see right here what US law protects if you're rich and connected enough even though it is not supposed to do so:

Charlie Bird tracks down Anglo Irish bank executive in USA - YouTube

Despite numerous requests by Ireland to revoke his visa and deny bankruptcy relief, so far that hasn't happened and instead his bankruptcy case continues forward along with his E-2 visa.

Anglo Irish asks U.S. court to deny ex-CEO protection | Reuters
Call to revoke David Drumm’s US visa TheJournal

A sad difference between a poor guy who steals $50 at a store is that what he did is a crime and he'll likely get punished whilst guys like him steal $50 million and it's not a crime and/or they escape accountability and they'll likely get rewarded. No that the former doesn't deserve it, but the latter does make a farce of the subject of fair accountability.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Apologies if I have posted this previously in this thread...didn't feel like clicking through 21 pages to see if I had. I have long proposed the following approach to wholesale immigration reform which I describe with the Larry Kudlow-inspired phrase the Big Tall Fence with a Big Wide Gate approach:

1. Strict and aggressive control of the border, including fences, walls, armed defense.
2. Severe penalities (five years, no parole) for those caught here illegally, following their prison term they are deported from the country. Anyone caught a second time gets life, no parole in not very comfortable tent prisons, with hard labor.
3. Three month guest worker permits (up to 3 times a year per individual) that any non-criminal is eligible for
4. Any non-criminal who wants to establish legal residency here may do so under the following conditions: (1) They are ineligible for any public benefits--including free schooling for their children--they would have to pay a fee to enroll their children; (2) They must within three years pass an examination for fluency in English AND GEDs -- at which time their children would be eligible for free public schooling)
5. Any legal immigrant convicted of so much as a misdemeanor would be deported upon completion of their sentence and would be ineligible to return, ever.
6. Legal immigrants would become eligible for citizenship after 10 years, succesful completion of citizenship exams, renunciation of citizenship or allegiance to any othe nation.

As for those who are currently hear legally, they would face the following choice:
1. General amnesty, with steep fines to establish legal residency, with the same conditions as those entering legally anew (passing English fluency and GEDs within three years), however, they would never be eligible for U.S. citizenship

2. Leave the country for a period of no less than two years and re-enter legally.


2.

Visiting Canada has always been a bit like stepping back in time BUT a pleasant place to visit with friendly folk to meet. The WWII vets (Not too many left) MIght have opted to return to a different home if it were to resemble the one depicted by Marcus in his post.

Virtually all we behold in our country was wrested from others in one fashion or another. Many of the riches of the world were taken by conquest invasion and settlement by England , France and Spain. + Of course we need to control our borders but not in the manner described. Good God !

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

I HAVE already answered this, you just don't understand the concept of incentives/disincentives and their effect on human behavoir over time. Under my proposal, there will be far FEWER people here illegally to begin with, as anyone who is an otherwise law abiding citizen of their own country is free to come here for opportunity. Only those who are criminals to begin with are banned from coming here.

That dramatically diminishes the total population of illegals right off the bat. The next thing is the dramatically increased border protection and if you think that a couple of weeks of criminals violating our national sovereignty being shot dead at the border will not further diminish the number of those trying to do so, then you really don't have a clue my friend.



Well, it is not JUST the severity of punishment, but also the LIKELYHOOD of punishment that acts as a deterent on a sliding scale. No different from winning the lottery, where people weigh the cost with the potential reward (which is a composite of the value of the potential reward and the likelyhood of actually getting it). People will merrily pay $1 for a relatively miniscule chance of winning a large sum of money, and the number of people willing to do so, and the number of chances they will buy at that price goes up steadily as the potential reward does (that's why when Powerball is $300,000,000 you will stand in line to get a ticket three hours before the drawing, but not when it is $12,000,000). Now, very few people would spend a much larger sum of money than that $1 for the same odds of winning virtually any amount. However, how much would those same people be willing to in effect bet for a 50/50 chance at winning $1,000,000...a lot more than they would for a 1/1,000,000 chance of winning the same amount.

And as it is with rewards, so to is it with punishment. While you might be willing to risk illegal drug use and getting a modest prison sentence when the odds of you ever getting caught and actually punished are rather low, odds are your behavoir would change if the risk of getting caught and subjected to punishment increased dramatically. Now, where drugs are concerned there is the added factors of addiction and the general mind-altering function of the druges, which can adds an element of irrationality to these decisions, but by and large these points stand for crime more generally (drug DEALERS, for example, are far more rational in their weighing of the rewards vs. potential consequences of their actions than drug USERS)




First, I am not saying we rely soley on prison labor for building and maintenance our border defense infrastructure, merely to supplement it.

Second, refer back to my comment on impeaching judges who think that the Constitution entitles convicted criminals of any particular comfort.

Finally, land mines would be a start, and part of a comprehensive shift from focusing on border "security" (a law enforcement oriented notion) to border defense (a sovereignty, national security oriented approach).

p.s., with regard to the title of the Economist article, anyone who thinks that convicted felons are entitled to "dignity" would, in my benevolent dictatorship, be among them. I am concerned with the dignity of civilized, law abiding society, and given that criminals are guilty of assaulting that dignity, none is due them save for the basic rights of due process, guarantees against compulsory testimony against themselves, and no cruel and unusual punishment as that term was understood when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

ahoy thar Marcus1124,

*considers*

if everythin' ye stated had been in place back in the early 1900s, when mexicans first started streamin' across the border to aid our agricultural industry, then i have to agree that our current situation may well hath been quite different.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

On what remotely rational basis can people have a problem with strict defense of the border under a plan in which the ONLY people that would have any reason to come here illegally are criminals.

Are you people such extremists that you don't think that an immigration policy which excludes ONLY friggin' criminals from being able to readily come here for opportunity merits strict defense and enforcement for those criminal elements that we have the absolute moral, ethical, and legal right restrict from entering?

Why don't you all just admit that you have no problem with allowing the dregs of humanity come here with no sense of any allegience, appreciation, or gratitude for what this nation has to offer, let alone the basic respect for our laws. It is just pathetic.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

On what remotely rational basis can people have a problem with strict defense of the border under a plan in which the ONLY people that would have any reason to come here illegally are criminals.

Are you people such extremists that you don't think that an immigration policy which excludes ONLY friggin' criminals from being able to readily come here for opportunity merits strict defense and enforcement for those criminal elements that we have the absolute moral, ethical, and legal right restrict from entering?

Why don't you all just admit that you have no problem with allowing the dregs of humanity come here with no sense of any allegience, appreciation, or gratitude for what this nation has to offer, let alone the basic respect for our laws. It is just pathetic.

ahoy Marcus1124,

thats a pretty salty salvo yer firin', matey.

me only question was, if ye wanted to implement this plan now, was how ye would pay fer it.

why be that such an offensive question, 'specially in these times?

- MeadHallPirate

skeptic1

Re: Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
On what remotely rational basis can people have a problem with strict defense of the border under a plan in which the ONLY people that would have any reason to come here illegally are criminals.

"Are you people such extremists that you don't think that an immigration policy which excludes ONLY friggin' criminals from being able to readily come here for opportunity merits strict defense and enforcement for those criminal elements that we have the absolute moral, ethical, and legal right restrict from entering?
[/QUOTE]


skeptic1

Those are the lines that pull me up short in disgust !

Can't pay for policing the border ? Just learn to live with things the way they are !

Think of it this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWnSr...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_PdN...eature=related

Mexican Rallying songs

MeadHallPirate
ahoy Marcus1124,

thats a pretty salty salvo yer firin', matey.

me only question was, if ye wanted to implement this plan now, was how ye would pay fer it.

why be that such an offensive question, 'specially in these times?

- MeadHallPirate

And I have replied, repeatedly, that your basic premise is flawed.

Unlike ObamaCare, which promises lower costs despite increasing the very distortions to individual incentives that have long driven escalating costs; my proposal for reforming immigratoin policies and border defense actually fundamentally alter the current incentives, and therefor would dramatically reduce net illegal immigration for starters, and dramatically raise the cost side of the cost-benefit risk assessment of those who would still consider entering illegally.

If you really don't think that a few weeks of people facing lethal force in defense of our border would create a huge disincentive to trying to enter illegally, then why don't you explain why criminals overwhelmingly choose residences where nobody is home to break in and steal from rather than just any old house. And why to criminals choose to break into homes at all, why don't they all pick Banks, which have much greater potential return on their law-breaking? Because even criminals react to net cost-benefit based risk analysis to some degree.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Marcus1124,

thats a pretty salty salvo yer firin', matey.

me only question was, if ye wanted to implement this plan now, was how ye would pay fer it.

why be that such an offensive question, 'specially in these times?

- MeadHallPirate

If you want a fast and simple answer, take the now new 300 billion that Obama wants to build infrastructure with and put hard hats back to work. Finish the fence can be done now, with no red tape, construction can began the day the bill is signed. Instant employment of jobs, construction jobs.

There you go.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

And I have replied, repeatedly, that your basic premise is flawed.

Unlike ObamaCare, which promises lower costs despite increasing the very distortions to individual incentives that have long driven escalating costs; my proposal for reforming immigratoin policies and border defense actually fundamentally alter the current incentives, and therefor would dramatically reduce net illegal immigration for starters, and dramatically raise the cost side of the cost-benefit risk assessment of those who would still consider entering illegally.

If you really don't think that a few weeks of people facing lethal force in defense of our border would create a huge disincentive to trying to enter illegally, then why don't you explain why criminals overwhelmingly choose residences where nobody is home to break in and steal from rather than just any old house. And why to criminals choose to break into homes at all, why don't they all pick Banks, which have much greater potential return on their law-breaking? Because even criminals react to net cost-benefit based risk analysis to some degree.

ahoy Marcus1124,

i guess we just then agree to disagree, matey. thar hath been some pretty ferocious penalties fer use 'o illegal narcotics, such as marijuana...and the only thing its caused hath been terrifyin' costs to the taxpayer fer incarceration, whilst (imma just speakin' personally here) it hath had zero effect on me own behavior, and the legions 'o folks who use (me own particular industry be rich in swabbys who enjoy the fine herb).

as long as strawberries need pickin', as long as the hospitality industry needs folk to clean toilets and make beds, as long as fine restaurants need a huge assembly 'o brown colored folk in the kitchen, as long as our healthcare industry be heavily populated with brown persons here illegally....well, we're goin' to have this problem, because the horror them folks are leavin' behind outweighs the risks involved, and the penalties ye outline, plus, the legions 'o americans who hire these folks really just don't care. ask Lou Dobbs, he's one 'o them.

i do, however, agree that if we just shoot folks who cross the border illegally, then we may perhaps see a drop in illegal immigration. some might call such measures not in keepin' with the word 'o the Lord, some might call such terrifyin' yet effective measures overtly barbaric, and some might think thats just the tonic our free and just Christian country needs.

when we have pictures and video 'o brown children blown to bits, with no heads or thar limbs missin'...or entire families vaporized by high powered weapons, i'd be most fascinated to see the response 'o americans, and the world at large.

i'd be curious to see which candidate fer POTUS suggests such a thing, and i'd be very interested to see how our country receives such a suggestion.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Forplay

If you want a fast and simple answer, take the now new 300 billion that Obama wants to build infrastructure with and put hard hats back to work. Finish the fence can be done now, with no red tape, construction can began the day the bill is signed. Instant employment of jobs, construction jobs.

There you go.

ahoy Forplay,

well, what shall these folk work fer? i mean, whar does the monies come from to pay these folk?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

And I have replied, repeatedly, that your basic premise is flawed.

Unlike ObamaCare, which promises lower costs despite increasing the very distortions to individual incentives that have long driven escalating costs; my proposal for reforming immigratoin policies and border defense actually fundamentally alter the current incentives, and therefor would dramatically reduce net illegal immigration for starters, and dramatically raise the cost side of the cost-benefit risk assessment of those who would still consider entering illegally.

If you really don't think that a few weeks of people facing lethal force in defense of our border would create a huge disincentive to trying to enter illegally, then why don't you explain why criminals overwhelmingly choose residences where nobody is home to break in and steal from rather than just any old house. And why to criminals choose to break into homes at all, why don't they all pick Banks, which have much greater potential return on their law-breaking? Because even criminals react to net cost-benefit based risk analysis to some degree.

Reforming our immigration laws is something we need to do, on that I can agree with you on.

I don't really think you are thinking about the problems involved with putting the US Army on the border and just start shooting people. If the Army was to shoot across the border and kill someone, that would be an act of war, not a very smart thing to do. A fence would do no good unless you fence in the entire Country. Arizona is trying to raise money to put a fence on their border and can't do it. So how do you see us paying to fence in the country. Mexico is not the only country that illegals come from. If the Government really wanted to stop this we would have to raid all companies that hire illegals, issue huge fines and put people in jail. Companies like Tyson, the corp. farms and so on. I would imagine it wouldn't take too long before the illegals would be fired and go back to where they came from.
To just shoot people across the border would/could start yet another war we don't need.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Forplay,

well, what shall these folk work fer? i mean, whar does the monies come from to pay these folk?

- MeadHallPirate

Ask Obama he's the one that wants the 300 billion, as for what shall these folks work for, again ask Obama.

You asked how to pay for it I gave you the answer, Obama wants 300 billion for infrastructures and put hard hats to work. The completion of the fence is ready and waiting. There you go.