<htm>
<head/>
<body>
Gentleman and maybe one lady or two somewhere, I would like to see the Immigration Reform Bill passed I honestly do believe that is in the best interest of the nation. I will outline my position below.
First, I would reiterate that I think it’s unconstitutional for members of Congress to restrict email access to only their constituents as the laws that Congress passes affect everyone.
-Paper mail access is not the same as email access. It is Separate but unequal access a concept struck down in education by the Supreme Court
-A proposition is put forward that it is impossible to handle volume of emails, 2 people in both house and Senate who receive the majority of my emails are not my representatives and handle it just fine, perhaps they could demonstrate to the rest of you how to do it if you are incapable.
-A citizen of the US should not have to rely on his or her representative to convey his or her opinions to other House or Senate members in power when the representative may not agree with the constituent or may be just plain lazy. A citizen is entitled to be heard in his government and many members (particularly House Members) restrict this even though their actions do impact those citizens. It is legislation without representation.
-At this point because abuse is becoming more widespread in the House and I cannot argue this in the supreme court currently – I am giving the argument to a citizen’s group to argue hopefully against your egregious practices of not giving free speech to all citizens and THAT IS WHAT IT IS LADIES AND GENTLEMAN OF THE CONGRESS A RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH YOU PARTICIPATE IN! If you are a co-equal branch with the president – the president does not restrict email to US citizens who vote for him., Nor should you. If the citizen’s group fails to pursue the matter, in time I may argue against you if necessary! Open up your bloody inboxes!
Now the part where after chastising I ask for a favor. Hey according to tickle.com my IQ went down about 50- points in the last 2 years to 110 or 108. I guess I’m not too bright. But here’s the catch. I’m not going to argue for or against the proposition per se although I will be choosing the words I write down on this email. I am going to outline the potential ramifications of not passing an immigration reform bill and then give my opinion base on this proof – all my assumptions and processes will be put down as well and where possible will be kept in a logical format.
Statement to be proven:
If a solution to allow Mexican workers to enter this country legally is not found, it will destabilize the US food supply, allow for greater terrorist and black market trade into country, and serve to destabilize internal US politics creating strife between Mexicans and other immigrant groups in addition to increased domestic crime and violence and gang activity within the US. A fence will not solve any of these problems.
First, examinations of two statements made about immigration
*Give a fair wage and other people will do the work we don’t need immigrants
-two possibilities occur now – either fair wage given or minimum wage given
--if fair wage of $10 given as exists in some cases results have shown that US citizens do not do the work – several stories of contractors on NPR and PBS attest to this. Each story has employer either in farming or contracting attest that they cannot find American workers willing to do the labor.
--if $5 wage given which also happens, an American can get a much less physical job and make same amount of money and it is a logical assumption that if they don’t work for $10 an hour then they won’t work for half of that.
Solutions
A fence will keep immigrants out
- In East Germany was the fence completely successful?
-------------------------------------
On
August 13, 1961 the East German government decided to close the 'last
gap' in the border to West Berlin and the Berlin Wall was build
up.
East German citizen were not allowed to leave the country
without permission.
However, during the first days many people
could escape through the border but day by day it became more
dangerous.
At the beginning people tried to climb over the Wall or
the fences, they jumped out of the houses which were in the border
area or tunnels were build to escape. During the first days several
people lost their live or were killed by the Eastern border guard
.
Günter Litwin was the first victim who was shot down by
East German border guard in Berlin on August 24, 1961.
171
people were killed or died attempting to escape at the Berlin Wall
between August 13, 1961 and November 9, 1989.
http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/history/escape.htm
Total border lenght around West Berlin: 96 mi / 155 km
Persons
killed on the Berlin Wall: 192
Persons
injured by shooting: ca. 200
The Wall was successful at decreasing emigration (escapes - "Republikflucht" in German) from 2.5 million between 1949 and 1962 to 5,000 between 1962 and 1989.[2] However, it was a propaganda disaster for East Germany and the Communist bloc. It became a key symbol of what Western powers regarded as Communist tyranny, particularly after the high-profile shootings of would-be defectors. – wikipedia
-----------------------------------------------
So the wall was fairly effective
But . . .
--------------------------------
The "fourth generation wall", known officially as "Stützwandelement UL 12.11"(Retaining wall element UL 12.11), was the final and most sophisticated version of the Wall. Begun in 1975[4] and completed about 1980,[5] it was constructed from 45,000 separate sections of reinforced concrete, each 3.6 m (12 ft) high and 1.2 m (4 ft) wide, and cost 16,155,000 East German Marks.[6] The top of the wall was lined with a smooth pipe, intended to make it more difficult for escapers to scale it. It was reinforced by mesh fencing, signal fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, barbed wire, over 116 watchtowers,[7] and twenty bunkers. This version of the Wall is the one most commonly seen in photographs, and surviving fragments of Wall in Berlin and elsewhere around the world are generally pieces of the fourth-generation Wall. - wikipedia
---------------------------------------
What is the maintenance cost and initial cost to have a wall equivalent to the Berlin wall and achieve its effectivess?
You also need to shoot Mexicans on site (for wanting to work in this country I might add) to achieve equivalent deterrent power of Berlin wall- If you don’t shoot them on site which is cheapest financial alternative – you have to add in holding costs and court costs for housing Mexicans in the US while they are deported.
I would estimate that the wall will cost more than the US wants to spend as in the end an expense with little return on the investment.
The return could be assumed to be safety – if there is an alternative way to achieve safety without building the wall – then the wall cost represents an opportunity cost in economic terms as well as a physical cost. It’s not just spending several billion building the wall, but those dollars could also be spent on defense, healthcare, education, homeland security - on something else that has a better return to society\ which is also given up.
The Berlin wall was 96 miles – how long is the border between the US and Mexico? How long must the wall be to be effective? (I didn’t bother to look up the distance, the country is about 3000 miles across is it not?)
Case example of a fence being successful in San Diego has been given recently.
- immigrants would realize that if San Diego has a wall but nowhere else does then it makes sense to try to go somewhere else to cross the border. Thus San Diego’s loss in illegal immigration is only because other places can gain easily. What happens when all parts of the border are restricted? There will be no offset effect of this nature and Mexicans will be forced to try wherever they can.
Democrats would get cheap votes from Republicans in the House for immigrant reform - Indeed the Republican votes to not authorize immigrant reform and advocate instead for something like the above solution may start a project more expensive than Boston’s Big Dig and the Republican name will be on it. Conservative spending in government?
Now to prove the proof Not allowing Mexicans to work implies No US native food supply more terrorist threat to US.
It has been shown above the you can’t hire Americans to do the work. An option exists to import some other populace from Africa or Asia, but I see advantage of doing that over having Mexicans do the work.
-Therefore if you don’t allow Mexicans throughb the border you cannot rely on Americans and have to important immigrants from Asia or Europe or Africa or somewhere to do labor. En masse this is highly expensive and will not be considered as a serious option.
-Therefore it is argued that if you don’t allow Mexicans to do the work, no one else will and therefore if Mexicans don’t do the work we will have no or little domestic US food supply.
-The US could possibly do this and import all its food or nearly all its food. However the US would be completely dependent upon the safety inspection procedures of foreign countries and its food supply would be vulnerable to disruption from abroad. In addition other countries could starve us to death and that would affect trade negotiations.
It is hard to quantify undocumented farm labor by nature because it is undocumented. It is hard to prove the statement made, but farmer testimony from above proved point that you can’t get US help for farm labor stands and implies that many farms would shut down without migrant labor.
****Therefore the building of the Mexican Berlin Wall will destabilize the American food supply and expose it to terrorism.
A wall will block terrorists.
- The ground will be secured against many intrusions by terrorists.
- Mexicans will be hostile to US because of wall and will not help US to know what goes on on other side of wall. Mexicans will want passage around wall and terrorists can do that and will charge Mexicans high fees for passage or will be able to. Terrorists will use air and sea and any holes in the wall to get across and the Mexicans shut out form US will help fund them as they will need their help to cross. Black market trade would rise like what prohibition did for alcohol and we could have mob bosses in charge of illegal human smuggling and the drug trade.
*** Therefore – wall may stop some terrorist activity, but will increase its profitability of blackmarket activity and allow other venues to be exploited. (this statement does not prove that black market activities will increase, but does show the profitability of the market will go up which does generally lead to an increase in activity and organization.
A wall will lead to increased Domestic problems and violence in the US.
- There are already significant ties in the US between immigrant Mexicans and Mexican American families.
- What happens when a barrier comes into place between mother and children of father and family or child and rest of family as will inevitably happen as the restrictions in the US tighten and a somewhat costly but effective wall is erected.
-The children on the US side as well as any mothers and fathers separated from their families will feel stress.
-Assuming some of the children are educated in US they will begin to be greater discipline problems because of the family problems at home. (pure inference which can be challenged but makes intuitive sense as an outcome of family separation – is a group of people who argue for strong families going to argue that family separation is a good thing?)
This may lead to increased health problems with stressed out workers and children due to separation, Increased black market activity to get messages and people across border, and increased need for cash for the immigrants which will steer them into high-paying activities which in many cases may be illicit activity. Domestic violence and abuse I predict will go up in homes where children are missing or not on same side of border as parents.
Therefore: If a solution to allow Mexican workers to enter this country legally is not found, it will destabilize the US food supply, allow for greater terrorist and black market trade into country (net effect between border and internal effects of Mexicans already here), and serve to create strife between Mexicans and other immigrant groups in addition to increased domestic crime and violence and gang activity within the US. A fence will not solve any of these problems. (It will increase them.)
For these reasons, I find that having a domestic worker program over a fence would be less costly and beneficial to the national interest and if necessary I can build a stronger case. –fah
. A fence will not solve any of these problems. (a fence may provide more security so it solves possibly one of the problems, but is expensive with no ROI, will increase black market activity directly as well as have other indirect impacts. Overall the wall does not seem to be a good solution.)
</body>
</html>