Deploy troops? Deploy Lands Mines along the Mexican border?

magick

Seeing as the Illegal border crossings are such a hot political topic in the United States, if the public was behind the idea do u think the United States would do it ?

Also if they were deployed do u think this would stop the flow of illegal crossings on the Mexican Border?

oscarBravo

What do you think?


(This is my ultra-subtle way of saying: please read the charter.)

The_Minister

There would have to be soldiers present to put down those who were not killed by landmines, but merely mutilated.

ballooba

The fact is that the U.S. relies on low-cost black economy labour to keep the country going. Whether it's in construction, hospitality, agriculture or any other crap jobs.

I worked in the kitchens of a restaurant in Chicago for a while. The restaurant could not have survived without these people. It would be a very foolish move for any U.S. government to make serious efforts to cut off the supply of cheap labour.

I'm not saying it's right. It's just the way things are.

Scigaithris

ballooba wrote:

The fact is that the U.S. relies on low-cost black economy labour to keep the country going. Whether it's in construction, hospitality, agriculture or any other crap jobs.

Intentionally by the USA (or otherwise by default through incompetent Washington politicians), there is merit to this observation by ballooba.

There are several articles published over the years in American Demographics magazine, as well as reports by The Population Reference Bureau, that suggests that because of the huge distortion in the USA population pyramid caused by the Baby Boom generation (born 1946-1964), followed by the Baby Dirth generation (where Boomer's put off having children until later), that the supply of workers to support their economy would face a period of scarcity, which did not happen because of millions of illegals coming across (mostly) their southern boarder. In one of these articles, they reported that their immigration service only caught one million illegals per year, while an estimated 3 million crossed into the USA each year. Most of these illegals were either unskilled or semi-skilled labourers, who would often work for below minimum wage, and without employee benefits.

Therefore, cutting off this cheap labour supply would not be in the best interests of American business by closing their southern boarder with troops (or by other means). It would also appear that such a move would be in violation of the spirit and proclaimations of NAFTA?

juliuspret

NAFTA is in no way similar to the EU...ie the free movement of people!

SteveS

magick wrote:

Seeing as the Illegal border crossings are such a hot political topic in the United States, if the public was behind the idea do u think the United States would do it ?

Also if they were deployed do u think this would stop the flow of illegal crossings on the Mexican Border?

As some have pointed out, there are huge portions of the economy that rely on immigrants for labor. I live several thousand miles from the Mexican Border and we have thousands of seasonal migrant workers here.

Illegal immigration has been a hot topic for as long as I can recall. I remember Reagan granting an amnesty for illegals back in 1984 or 85. I don't know what the solution is. I can say that there would little or no support for placing mines or troops on the border. I haven't even heard of mines being suggested, though I am sure there is some nutball out there that has. Troops have been considered, but it already seems like we are overextended.

This is probably a moot point, anyway. Neither Bush nor congress wants to put troops on the border, so it won't happen during this administration.

Manic Moran

There would be support for troops in some circles, but I don't think anyone would seriously consider land mines.

Pretty much everybody has accepts the Operation Jump Start (The use of a bunch of National Guardsmen on the border) is something of a paper tiger, done to make it appear that the Feds are doing something. There was a fairly high-profile incident a couple of weeks ago in Arizona wherein a couple of Guardsmen at an observation post were approached/surrounded by armed intruders from across the border, and retreated, as they had been told to do what they could to avoid shooting. What's the point in having a military to protect your border when armed foreigners can cross it at will, right in their face? The legislators are now considering a change in the ROEs to a more 'stand your ground' policy. There would likely have been more support for a hard-line "Seal the border, do whatever it takes" policy than the current, somewhat wishy-washy thing. For now, though, instead of permission to defend the border, the troops are being given training on 'How to act when you are taken hostage'

There are two slightly different issues at stake on the border: One is the issue of migrant workers, the other of security against other forms of border incursion, such as drugs, but many people can't distinguish between the two. They automatically assume that an attempt to seal the border is one which is targetted specifically against migrants. In practise, this can be easily dealt with by making a legal border crossing easier for migrants, so there should be no qualms against sealing the border.

The whole issue of migrant workers is another one entirely. Many legal immigrants are (I think) justifiably pissed that people are just crossing the border whereas they had gone through the hassle and expense of getting in legally. For those who haven't tried, legal immigration into the US is not easy. There are arguments in favour of migrant workers on the basis of the economy being dependant on cheap labour (which strike me somewhat as similar to arguments made by the South in favour of slave labour in the 1850s), and against on the basis of the economic costs which are caused by it: In California alone, the bill to taxpayers is estimated in the billions. At any rate, if the 'temporary worker' programme or something similar ever gets off the ground, the rest of the border becomes irrelevant for the migrant argument as they can just cross the border at the Tijuana crossing or wherever.

This leaves then only the issue of criminals such as drug-runners, smuggler, terrorists, or whoever else might be interested in crossing into the US outside of the gaze of the office of Customs and Border Patrol. There are occasional news reports about incidents between Border Patrol agents and unsavoury characters, though my understanding is that it's under-reported. One friend of mine tells me that parts of the Arizona border are more dangerous than Afghanistan (where he served a tour), and Border Patrol officers are being given a team of soldiers as firepower backup. The legal authority rests with the Border Patrol, they just frequently find themselves outgunned and need help. But at that, there was a bit of a political flap: Initially the Guardsmen were going to be unarmed, as a political concession. The Head of the Guard Bureau basically said 'sod that: It's dangerous out there. If they're going, they're going with their weapons.' And, of course, the BP can't be everywhere at once. BP is being increased in strength, but in the meantime, the military allows a larger presence footprint in theory, though in practise one of my colleagues who is a BP officer tells me that the current rotation scheme is such that a troop barely learns the lay of the land before being rotated out.

I don't think there is any justification for maintaining a porous border. Ideally nobody could cross it without interception by relying purely on the Border Patrol whose job it is. Until USBP is in a position where it can do it, however, it seems the military will still be required.

NTM

ballooba

Manic Moran wrote:

In practise, this can be easily dealt with by making a legal border crossing easier for migrants, so there should be no qualms against sealing the border.

Yes, but by legitimising these people you give them rights. The cost benefits to business are then gone.

Manic Moran

Yes, but by legitimising these people you give them rights. The cost benefits to business are then gone.

They have the exact same rights for health and safety, and minimum wage etc that a legal resident has. It's a somewhat bizarre state of affairs caused by the federal system. State bodies have with a few law enforcement exceptions, no authority to enforce imigration law. If an illegal immigrant on a farm in California feels his work conditions are below standard, or that he is being abused or whatever, he can file a complaint with the California Dept of Employment (or whoever). The legislation is such that the State doesn't care where you're from. Hence a large portion of the costs incurred: Illegals are quite legally entitled to go to the State and say 'I want an education' or 'I want healthcare' without fear of deportation.

The problem was in getting the migrants to actually come forward: They're (reasonably enough) not used to the bizarre American system, and are worried that if they go to one government body about something, then the next day an entirely different body (eg ICE) will show up and kick them out of the country. Thus there has been a very large campaign to make migrant workers aware of their rights which are completely independent of if they're in the country legally, and the word is now getting around. Even with the applicable statutory minima, however, cost of employment of a migrant is still generally lower than that of employment of an American, because Americans don't want to do the labour for that particular level of compensation.

There is another way, of course, to dry up the issue of migrant workers: Come down hard on anyone who employs them. Make them so scared, then it dries up the opportunity. Without opportunity, nobody will cross. Of course, this doesn't address the issue of border security for non-migrant issues, so as far as the original poster's question is concerned, it's totally irrelevant.

NTM

Scigaithris

Manic Moran wrote:

There is another way, of course, to dry up the issue of migrant workers: Come down hard on anyone who employs them. Make them so scared, then it dries up the opportunity. Without opportunity, nobody will cross.

The current fine is $1,000 USD for each undocumented worker? Rarely enforced? Washington is more concerned about relatives of the illegals or sympathisers that are citizens and have the vote? The Hispanic vote has been reported by American Demographics magazine as the fastest growing minority force in politics and commerce.

oscarBravo

Closed, as the OP apparently has no interest in discussing the topic.