Pages

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Cheaper To Secure The Border Than House The Cloward-Piven Human Flood

Derb queries "is a secure border too much to ask?":
What’s the reaction of the administration to these swelling flows? As the Fox headline tells us, the reaction is to ask Congress for more money. No, not more money to stop the flows—that would be wrong—but money to make the new arrivals comfortable when they get here. It will cost, quote:
…more than $2.28 billion to house, feed and transport the children to shelters or reunite them with relatives already living in the United States. The new estimate is about $1.4 billion more than the government asked for in Obama’s budget request sent to Congress earlier this year.
End quote. Our southern border is roughly two thousand miles long. Divide $2.28 billion by two thousand, you get a million dollars and change per mile. This is for one year, remember.
Could we not fully secure the southern border and keep it secure for a million dollars a mile per year? Of course we could. The Israelis secure their border for far less than that, including their border across the Negev desert, which is at least as inhospitable as our Southwest.
Suppose for example we had permanently-manned border posts every ten miles along the entire length: five-man occupancy, rotating on six-hour shifts. That’s two hundred posts, twenty border patrolmen each post, total four thousand guys. Figure current cost per patrolman of $150,000 per annum with benefits, training, and so on, you’re talking annual cost 600 million dollars—what in Congressional budget negotiations is known as “dinner and a movie.” You could throw in full-time drone surveillance and rapid-response teams for attempted crossings, and still have a lot of change from $2.28 billion.
For those who may not know, "Cloward-Piven" is a reference to this pair of authors who, in a 1966 article for The Nation, suggested that, by overloading the half-capitalist/half socialist welfare state with hordes of new clients it couldn't possibly take on and insisting the moral argument for the system nontheless remained intact, the Left would force the country to abandon Constitutionalism and embrace the socialist utopia Marx dreamed about.

It's important to note that the human tidal wave flowing across the Mexican border this spring and early summer is not accident. They were invited here with (relative to the hellholes they fled) lavish benefits, medical care, special perks (i.e., in-state college tuition), legislation like the Dream Act, the President's "I got a pen and I'm not afraid to use it" executive orders directing deportation for only violent illegal aliens (the rest get to stay as part of a "triage" application of limited resources to problem that exceeds capacity to deal with it), the lowest deportation rate since 1973, and even attorneys to advocate for them in US courts. Little wonder then that word gets around in Central and South America to the effect of "come to America with your children, you won't be turned away".

Even the numbers are favorable to securing the border, relative to the crushing entitlement bill.  What our country lacks is the political will to stop importing future Democrats.

5 comments:

Cecil Henry said...

The 'Cloward Pixen' strategy is not primarily a socialist strategy.

Rather it is aimed at White Genocide and ethnic assimilation by misegenation. This was the stated goal of its planners.

The real problem is that admitting the legitimate differences and right to self-determination of these distinct ethnic and religious groups threatens the West's new religion of multiculturalism.

Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everyone!!!

ITs Genocide, and its planned. Our elites need to go to prison for this.

Elusive Wapiti said...

I dunno about the explicit racial angle (I will stipulate it is undeniable that a great many mass migration cheerleaders are racist against Whites and take great schadenfreude at the ethnic and cultural cleaning presently underway), but for certain, the effect of mass Third World migration is to (a) import a new electorate, and (b) import a more Big Government-friendly populace.

The US of A first saw this with mass migration of 1/2 of my forefathers (i.e., Germans) in the late 18th to early 19th century. So much so that German was almost the second official language of the country. With that migration (and later from Scandanavia and Italy) came non-English cultures and much more comfort with the heavy hand of the State.

We see what resulted...the suffocating state came back with a vengeance.

Now, we are importing El Salvadorean, Honduran, Guatemalan, Mexican, Indian, and a whole host of other cultures into the country without first scrubbing those imports of their defective attitudes toward liberty and/or inoculating ourselves against their attitudes. It's insane. For the first thing these hellhole refugees do is replicate the conditions that made their countries hellholes in the first place.

Elusive Wapiti said...

It is also interesting to consider the cultural impact of importing Third Worlders into the USA through the lens of Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance", for it appears that he posits that there is a genetic component to culture as well.

Eric said...

Wapiti:
I wonder if there's a connection between both this and the clear US Liberalist Imperialism that's been going on abroad? At the same time the Elites won't control the US borders, they send the military all over the world to impose their will on the people who don't even come here!

Elusive Wapiti said...

Eric,

Absolutely there is a connection. They aim to recreate the same equalitarian utopias overseas as they do closer to home.

Working pretty well in both places, huh?

/sarc