Coping: That Horrid Immigration Problem

In a column (or several) over the past couple of weeks, I’ve pointed out that liberal, soft-headed thinking, seems to be running amuck on the immigration problem and the U.S.’ inability to security its own border while sending actual military forces to deal with Iraq’s border issues.

In the interest of open discussion, this reader email is very much worth reading:

“You made one good point in your rant about immigration issues today, but you directed your anger at the wrong parties, IMO.

Your good point was that the reason we have a problem is that there is a long-term successful business model rewarding those who control the situation, and a short-term successful business model that is taking advantage of a window of opportunity.

The passage of the ACA comes to mind as an example that is playing out for all to see.  The long-term business model is the insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies, etc. making sure every dollar flows through them for a cut.  As I found out when I paid over three times as much as the insurance company price for a colonoscopy, and over double for prescriptions, the model was already at work for those with means to pay (forcing us to go through the insurance company), it wasn’t working for those without insurance. 

Solution?  Force everyone to go through the middleman, and have the government pay shortfalls for those who can’t afford it.  That’s the long-term model.  The short-term opportunity arose when a three-year window was put in place before low-price/low benefit policies weren’t allowed.  More than 5 million Americans were suckered into plans like that first Fox-ballyhooed “victim” got her cancellation notice — she paid $672 per year for a policy that allowed exactly two doctor visits per year, and a maximum of $100 in coverage for ER or major medical.  In other words, there was no way in the world she would ever collect even half her premiums back in benefits.  That policy didn’t exist before the law, so that’s why it wasn’t grandfathered.  5 million suckers times $500 profit times 3 years is a windfall profit of $7.5 billion, by the way.

Moving on to immigration, the long-term model has to be the “fault” of those who maintain the conditions. 

Well, who has been hard at work to make sure that legal immigration takes a minimum of ten years (if you’re from “good” northern European countries) and more than 20 years if you come from one of those places with brown-skinned people?  Hint: it isn’t liberals or Democrats.  Every single time even pathetic attempts to make legal immigration viable (or god forbid, even attractive) come into the political arena, the fired up group who stop it cold and punish anyone who even says they’ll consider it is? 

Look no father than the Tea Party wing of the GOP, making sure they’ll punish anyone who even talks about solving the problem.  And what argument do they get you and others to parrot?  The argument that an impossible goal must be met before anything else can be discussed.

Well, right about here, I have to inject my unwelcome view:  The laws on immigration revolved not around Tea Party membership agendas, but set up the specific categories to become US citizens, based on needs.

I’m sure you’ve read the Center for Immigration Studies report that shows that all employment growth since 2000 has gone to immigrants while American born job seekers are competing with hoards of immigrants such as the H1b (corporate slavery at its finest) crowd.

There are mainly five reasons why people are allowed to move into this country (This NBC-Latino summary is pretty good) but I challenge the reason to present discriminatory  laws which supports this discrimination based on ethnicity which is implied.  THAT is typical of the liberalista clouding of issues and that doesn’t fly.

The Eastern Establishment’s mind-control program on immigration is in full-swing.  You can see it when Nancy Pelosi and the Political Correctness Police start tainting the word “alien.”   The ways you control people’s thinking is by controlling the language of thought.  As soon as alien is off the board, then people will lose that much more mental acuity, and that, my friend is what changes the agenda:  Control the words first, and then it comes naturally that soft-headed thinking (and open borders) will follow.

I can only hope that people remember that Obamanistas vowing to scrub the word alien flies in the face of concepts long embodied in American law.  See U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible alien, for example…

This is lingo-jacking:  Limit the language, limit the discussion.  If pro-immigration forces don’t like other words (like wetback and so forth), the answer might be to stop the incidents including the jet ski border-running just this week, from occurring.  And that example, as you can see in the video, is all about what?  Money!

But, you were saying?

That impossible goal?  Airtight border security.  If East Germany couldn’t secure ten miles of Berlin border or Israel secure 30 miles of Gaza Strip border, what makes you think thousands of miles of American border can be airtight?  You might as well say you won’t discuss any improvement to our mass transit system until you see every single person in NY walk to California first.

Again, hold on:  The number of people who defected across the Berlin Wall is estimated at 5,000.

I know it’s not popular to deal in facts when making a case, but the Berlin Wall was up from 1961 to 1989.  That’s 28 years.

Now do a little math here:  5,000 divided by 28 – which pencils out to 178 people per year.  I’d say Walls Work.  And if you ask any Israeli, they’ll tell you their wall works, too.  You can’t just go pushing emotional hot-buttons and expect the underlying assertion not to be questioned. 

The problem is still that a) there are multiple business models in play that profit on both sides of the border and b) Mexico has no effective southern border which is why everyone can walk north who wants to.  Which I think you’ll admit…

The short-term immigration business model is the one being executed by the criminal gangs in El Salvador, etc.  They give teenage boys the choice of being in the gang or dying, teenage girls the choice of being prostitutes or seeing their family killed.  Big incentive. 

The other choice is to get in touch with their relatives in America who aren’t allowed to be legal (see long-term model above) and tell them that for $5,000 they can come to America.  The law in America (in place well before Obama) says children have to have a hearing, and have to be safe and fed until their hearing is complete.

That’s only partially correct.  These “hearings” are administrative actions which sway in the politically correct breeze… And which political party, do you suppose, orchestrates those operations? 

For the short-term problem (the wave of children), one thing that will break the cartel model will be for those children who left two months ago to show up again in the village they left.  Either that or a solution to the long-term model.

Damn straight:  send the kids home.  Charter jets, do it yesterday.  At last a point of solid agreement!

This week Obama asked for more lawyers and judges, and for permission to fast-track deportation for these children.  How much do you want to bet that every Republican will vote against doing that, and most Democrats will vote for it?  That’s the fact.  So the House of Representatives needs to allocate the couple of billion dollars it will cost to let Obama facilitate fast processing of these children.  If they don’t they are accessories to the cartels’ crimes.  But you showed your contempt and failure to look at the real business models at work by calling that request for money some kind of coddling and for-profit scam by the liberals.”

Not so fast.  There is no change of law needed and maybe one party actual gets that – that this is just another power snatch to grant even more powers to the president.  How come one present’s deportation rate (returns plus removals)  was twice this one’s? D’uh.  Same laws.

Back in June, I wrote a Peoplenomics report that laid out the numbers – using government sourced data to look at the facts devoid of politics and agendizing.

There are  two kinds of people when comes to immigration:  Returns and Removals.  Combined they make up the total  “deported”

This scorecard is indeed damning of the administration:


When I look at this I see a pattern.  When I see “Border Patrol Agent: Federal Government “Aiding, Abetting And Facilitating” Illegal Aliens” that’s part of the pattern.

And that led to my cost analysis:


I can only conclude that if you want to argue that a president who is only 49.1% as effective as his predecessor using the same laws should be “supported” and (God forbid) given even more power to screw things up further (since more money will increase the number staying) then ya’ll have at it.

Take the sloganizing out of the debate and run the bloody numbers…and since this reader doesn’t like walls, let’s go ahead and compare what we have (11-20 MILLION illegals in the USA) with how the Berlin Wall did:


The good news?  (I mean other than showing the numbers based on government figures that are the basis of my belief and our reader’s excellent attempt at changing my mind):

There is a factual basis for discussion.  And we’ve seen over and over again what happens to companies and organizations that can’t manage by the numbers.

This being the Fourth of July, and all, how about some serious thinking about how we preserve and build community, opportunity, and preserve that Independence that we all so dearly love?

As I reported in Thursday’s column, not only is the border only HALF as effective as it was during the Bush presidency, but now the EEOC and the Courts are going after companies that require English-speaking.

To put this in raw strategic language, this is what you call a multi-spectral attack.  Now playing in a country near you.

Happy Fourth, is it?  Methinks there’s cause to pause.  We used to be an independent  country, but there’s a global agenda on, and anyone who doesn’t see the globalist plan to sink independence out from under us is dumber than a rock.  This is only one front, but on this one they’re winning.

As an old fart who won’t last too many more years, I thought I’d just point this out so young people can being to apply modern management techniques to our future instead of situational ethics and soft-headedness.

We start with the data.  Then we look at the numbers.  And the numbers in this case say “I told you so.”

Write when you break even