The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Paul ArchiveBlogview
A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall

Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.

(Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration, Immigration 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. The article overall: likeable.

    Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990.

    1. You’ve dropped enormous amounts of bombs on Cambodia and Serbia; why are there no Cambodian or Serbian terrorists?
    2. You’ve had US citizens who committed terrorism: The Weathermen, and they “weren’t oppressed, or poor, or anything like that. ” (https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/). What does that mean? Why is that?
    3. In addition to bombing, you’ve jailed, tortured and mind-controlled countless innocent Muslims (http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/anthony-wile-lost-in-a-yemen-jail-a-db-staffer-speaks-about-his-long-strange-trip-and-the-secret-gulag-america-has-built-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), and you have armed Radical Islamists from Afghanistan to Libya & Syria. The creation of Islamic terrorists has been far more forceful, elaborate and direct than just bombing.

    Generally, the lines of thinking in the article are spot on.

    P.S. “Islam is peace/good” vs. “Islam is evil” looks like a classic “divide and rule.”

    • Replies: @jtgw
    I suppose with Cambodia and Serbia, it's generally in the past now, whereas our interventions in the Middle East are ongoing. However, I do sometimes think that, if Kosovo were a Christian region under our protection and Serbia were Muslim, we would probably have Serbian terror groups attacking us until we ended recognition of Kosovar independence and withdrew our participation in their defense. So I agree that there is something especially incendiary about Islam, such that attacks on Muslim honor or dignity are more likely to result in violent blowback than attacks on other groups. On the other hand, maybe if we tried not attacking them at all we would see less violent blowback. There seems to have been a lot less Islamic terror in the mid 20th century, when our main ideological foe was communism and we allied with devout Muslims against their left-wing enemies (e.g. in Indonesia).

    One also has to factor in the Saudi and Wahhabi role. Since we protect the Saudis, they have lots of money left over to proselytize their extremist form of Islam to the Muslim world; they covertly and overtly promote radicalism, including terrorism, outside their borders in order to direct fundamentalist energy away from their own corrupt regime. One wonders just how different the Muslim world would look without their malign influence.
    , @jacques sheete

    Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990.

    1. You’ve dropped enormous amounts of bombs on Cambodia and Serbia; why are there no Cambodian or Serbian terrorists?
     

    1. He clearly stated that the threat must be taken seriously. Yours is a straw man argument. Actual Mexican terrorists, by any rational definition, are probably as rare as the Cambodian and Serbian ones you're asking about.

    2. This is an excellent article but even at that, the terrorist meme is largely BS I think. The real terrorists are the money bags that fan the flames of terrorism for their own benefit. RP is spot on about the bombs Obomba's dropped. That clown is/was world terrorist #1.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/rpaul/a-better-solution-than-trumps-border-wall/#comment-1746850
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. You make some excellent points Dr. Paul. Of course Trump has already promised his supporters a wall. But maybe it’s not too late. Have you contacted President Trump?

  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The welfare magnet.

    Great definition. However, I wish he’d have elaborated a bit the removal itself.

  4. @Ivan K.
    The article overall: likeable.

    Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990.
     
    1. You've dropped enormous amounts of bombs on Cambodia and Serbia; why are there no Cambodian or Serbian terrorists?
    2. You've had US citizens who committed terrorism: The Weathermen, and they "weren’t oppressed, or poor, or anything like that. " (https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/). What does that mean? Why is that?
    3. In addition to bombing, you've jailed, tortured and mind-controlled countless innocent Muslims (http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/anthony-wile-lost-in-a-yemen-jail-a-db-staffer-speaks-about-his-long-strange-trip-and-the-secret-gulag-america-has-built-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), and you have armed Radical Islamists from Afghanistan to Libya & Syria. The creation of Islamic terrorists has been far more forceful, elaborate and direct than just bombing.

    Generally, the lines of thinking in the article are spot on.


    P.S. "Islam is peace/good" vs. "Islam is evil" looks like a classic "divide and rule."

    I suppose with Cambodia and Serbia, it’s generally in the past now, whereas our interventions in the Middle East are ongoing. However, I do sometimes think that, if Kosovo were a Christian region under our protection and Serbia were Muslim, we would probably have Serbian terror groups attacking us until we ended recognition of Kosovar independence and withdrew our participation in their defense. So I agree that there is something especially incendiary about Islam, such that attacks on Muslim honor or dignity are more likely to result in violent blowback than attacks on other groups. On the other hand, maybe if we tried not attacking them at all we would see less violent blowback. There seems to have been a lot less Islamic terror in the mid 20th century, when our main ideological foe was communism and we allied with devout Muslims against their left-wing enemies (e.g. in Indonesia).

    One also has to factor in the Saudi and Wahhabi role. Since we protect the Saudis, they have lots of money left over to proselytize their extremist form of Islam to the Muslim world; they covertly and overtly promote radicalism, including terrorism, outside their borders in order to direct fundamentalist energy away from their own corrupt regime. One wonders just how different the Muslim world would look without their malign influence.

  5. Like everything Ron Paul writes it goes off into libertarian la-la land. Most illegals don’t come here for welfare – although they do game the system if they can. The real solution is decidedly non-libertarian – take their jobs away. Fine and jail the employers. I would also sentence the illegals to a period of hard labor (purely for punishment) as a reasonable deterrent to coming back after deportation.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    So you basically want to give illegals jobs that are not even in demand in the labor market, so add no value, and which furthermore impose costs on natives to guard and feed them while they carry out their meaningless tasks? The 1930s are calling, my friend.
    , @Fidelios Automata
    Ron's solution wouldn't eliminate illegal immigration entirely, but it would eliminate most of the societal cost without the high cost of the wall. (I'm not entirely against the wall, BTW but he makes some good arguments against it.) Another suggestion Ron has often made is to repeal birthright citizenship. If the children of illegals are not citizens, there'd be no incentive for pregnant women to sneak across to have their anchor babies.
  6. @MarkinLA
    Like everything Ron Paul writes it goes off into libertarian la-la land. Most illegals don't come here for welfare - although they do game the system if they can. The real solution is decidedly non-libertarian - take their jobs away. Fine and jail the employers. I would also sentence the illegals to a period of hard labor (purely for punishment) as a reasonable deterrent to coming back after deportation.

    So you basically want to give illegals jobs that are not even in demand in the labor market, so add no value, and which furthermore impose costs on natives to guard and feed them while they carry out their meaningless tasks? The 1930s are calling, my friend.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    No, I want to punish them so that the next time they think about sneaking in they can remember the pain they endured and the years it took them in Mexico to finally regain their health. Then they will think better of coming back.

    The alternative is to feed them to the sharks while divers in shark cages pay to watch the great whites devour them.
  7. First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land….

    Dear God. Anything that might cause a slight impact or inconvenience to commerce is cause for a libertarian jihad. The people who are allegedly being deprived of their land can ask Trump to install one of his “big beautiful doors” so they won’t be deprived of their property.

    As it is, the current fencing is little more than glorified chicken wire in some places that drug cartels and “coyotes” easily cut. The fencing in other areas is not difficult to breach for anyone really determined to make it over. A high concrete barrier wall is in order. Somehow the wall the Israelis built is working just fine, so the “walls never work” crowd should take note.

    Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax?

    You can tax remittances at 25% which would yield around 5 billion dollars and this would not get passed on to the American consumer. Growing the income tax base through a revival of manufacturing and energy sectors will take care of the rest.

    And we do need to end our pointless Middle East wars, but Muslim hatred for us will not dissipate within 24hrs of doing so, so some type of impenetrable border barrier is required. I’ve never seen so much spilled ink and drama queenery over a border wall in my life, not necessarily from Ron Paul, but in general.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Libertarians care about commerce because commerce is what generates wealth. Even if you believe in the welfare state and wealth redistribution, you have to generate the wealth first, so anti-commerce policies are going to undermine your goals in the long run.
    , @Tomster
    The 600+ mile hi-tech border wall that german companies have built for the saudi caliphate is a himdinger - it's so effective that not a single migrant (zero tolerance of migrants in the capliphate and its emirates, except for slave labor) has gotten through/over it.

    Perhaps Mutti could put her companies to work for US!
  8. I would sterilize every illegal alien caught, including their children and grandchildren.

    That would give them a big incentive to stay away.

  9. @MarkinLA
    Like everything Ron Paul writes it goes off into libertarian la-la land. Most illegals don't come here for welfare - although they do game the system if they can. The real solution is decidedly non-libertarian - take their jobs away. Fine and jail the employers. I would also sentence the illegals to a period of hard labor (purely for punishment) as a reasonable deterrent to coming back after deportation.

    Ron’s solution wouldn’t eliminate illegal immigration entirely, but it would eliminate most of the societal cost without the high cost of the wall. (I’m not entirely against the wall, BTW but he makes some good arguments against it.) Another suggestion Ron has often made is to repeal birthright citizenship. If the children of illegals are not citizens, there’d be no incentive for pregnant women to sneak across to have their anchor babies.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The cost of the wall is infinitesimally small compared to the costs of the illegals themselves. The biggest costs are not welfare but the cost of schooling, unpaid medical costs, incarceration, the cost to victims of crime, and the loss of tax revenue due to the lowering of wages for citizens working in heavily immigrant areas.

    The people who cry about the wages the illegals lose to Social Security when they use a stolen SS number don't count the loss of FICA taxes when employers pay their people far less because they use illegal labor. That chicken processing factory that was raided had to raise their employee's pay by 2 dollars and hour to keep the place staffed. It was in the deep south so the average wage in the place probably went from 8 to 10 dollars an hour a 25% increase. Multiply that by 4000 employees and the 6.15% that both the employee and the employer pay and start to consider how much those wonderful illegals are costing the system.
  10. @Fidelios Automata
    Ron's solution wouldn't eliminate illegal immigration entirely, but it would eliminate most of the societal cost without the high cost of the wall. (I'm not entirely against the wall, BTW but he makes some good arguments against it.) Another suggestion Ron has often made is to repeal birthright citizenship. If the children of illegals are not citizens, there'd be no incentive for pregnant women to sneak across to have their anchor babies.

    The cost of the wall is infinitesimally small compared to the costs of the illegals themselves. The biggest costs are not welfare but the cost of schooling, unpaid medical costs, incarceration, the cost to victims of crime, and the loss of tax revenue due to the lowering of wages for citizens working in heavily immigrant areas.

    The people who cry about the wages the illegals lose to Social Security when they use a stolen SS number don’t count the loss of FICA taxes when employers pay their people far less because they use illegal labor. That chicken processing factory that was raided had to raise their employee’s pay by 2 dollars and hour to keep the place staffed. It was in the deep south so the average wage in the place probably went from 8 to 10 dollars an hour a 25% increase. Multiply that by 4000 employees and the 6.15% that both the employee and the employer pay and start to consider how much those wonderful illegals are costing the system.

    • Replies: @turtle
    >Multiply that by 4000 employees and the 6.15% that both the employee and the employer pay and start to consider how much those wonderful illegals are costing the system.

    Peanuts compared to the employers who pay in cash.
    In that case the U.S. government gets zilch. Nada.
    We, the legal U.S. taxpayers get to pick up the tab.
    The illegals get pure, "uncut" wages, however small.
    Walk into any grocery store in a predominantly Spanish speaking neighborhood in SoCal and watch the $100 bills come out at the cash register. *May* have come from a check cashing place, but certainly did not come from an ATM.
    Dishonest employers who hire them get: a) ultra-cheap labor, and b) no payroll taxes to pay.
    Same thing can and does happen to U.S. citizens who run afoul of these dirtbag "businessmen," who are really just criminals. Good Republicans, most likely. Bush the Younger's "base."

    Time to go after the dirtbag employers who violate U.S. tax law, and leave their employee victims alone, whether legal or not, in my opinion.

    Of course, the employees are violating the law also, by not reporting cash wages, but they are small fish who generally get coerced into accepting less than the market rate for legit pay w/ deductions, because "hey, I'm paying you cash." Been there, seen that. Have been forced to accept it, on occasion, and I am native born of European heritage.

    Gov't should go after the big fish, the employers.

    Tax evasion was how they nailed Al Capone, among others.
    , @jtgw
    I'm pretty sure Ron would include taxpayer-funded schools, hospitals, jails etc in the "welfare" provided to illegal immigrants. Welfare is more than just direct cash transfers.
  11. @jtgw
    So you basically want to give illegals jobs that are not even in demand in the labor market, so add no value, and which furthermore impose costs on natives to guard and feed them while they carry out their meaningless tasks? The 1930s are calling, my friend.

    No, I want to punish them so that the next time they think about sneaking in they can remember the pain they endured and the years it took them in Mexico to finally regain their health. Then they will think better of coming back.

    The alternative is to feed them to the sharks while divers in shark cages pay to watch the great whites devour them.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Yeah, yeah, I know, you want to punish people for earning an honest buck. It's the American Way!
  12. @MarkinLA
    The cost of the wall is infinitesimally small compared to the costs of the illegals themselves. The biggest costs are not welfare but the cost of schooling, unpaid medical costs, incarceration, the cost to victims of crime, and the loss of tax revenue due to the lowering of wages for citizens working in heavily immigrant areas.

    The people who cry about the wages the illegals lose to Social Security when they use a stolen SS number don't count the loss of FICA taxes when employers pay their people far less because they use illegal labor. That chicken processing factory that was raided had to raise their employee's pay by 2 dollars and hour to keep the place staffed. It was in the deep south so the average wage in the place probably went from 8 to 10 dollars an hour a 25% increase. Multiply that by 4000 employees and the 6.15% that both the employee and the employer pay and start to consider how much those wonderful illegals are costing the system.

    >Multiply that by 4000 employees and the 6.15% that both the employee and the employer pay and start to consider how much those wonderful illegals are costing the system.

    Peanuts compared to the employers who pay in cash.
    In that case the U.S. government gets zilch. Nada.
    We, the legal U.S. taxpayers get to pick up the tab.
    The illegals get pure, “uncut” wages, however small.
    Walk into any grocery store in a predominantly Spanish speaking neighborhood in SoCal and watch the $100 bills come out at the cash register. *May* have come from a check cashing place, but certainly did not come from an ATM.
    Dishonest employers who hire them get: a) ultra-cheap labor, and b) no payroll taxes to pay.
    Same thing can and does happen to U.S. citizens who run afoul of these dirtbag “businessmen,” who are really just criminals. Good Republicans, most likely. Bush the Younger’s “base.”

    Time to go after the dirtbag employers who violate U.S. tax law, and leave their employee victims alone, whether legal or not, in my opinion.

    Of course, the employees are violating the law also, by not reporting cash wages, but they are small fish who generally get coerced into accepting less than the market rate for legit pay w/ deductions, because “hey, I’m paying you cash.” Been there, seen that. Have been forced to accept it, on occasion, and I am native born of European heritage.

    Gov’t should go after the big fish, the employers.

    Tax evasion was how they nailed Al Capone, among others.

  13. Sorry, Dr. Paul, there is no “welfare magnet.”
    What a load of bunk.
    Mexicans come here looking for work because they cannot make a decent living in their own country. I would, too, if I were in their shoes.
    They can’t make a living in their own country because the Mexican economy is AFU

    See here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis

  14. @Anonymous
    The welfare magnet.

    Great definition. However, I wish he'd have elaborated a bit the removal itself.

    See Atlas Shrugged for elaboration.

  15. @MarkinLA
    The cost of the wall is infinitesimally small compared to the costs of the illegals themselves. The biggest costs are not welfare but the cost of schooling, unpaid medical costs, incarceration, the cost to victims of crime, and the loss of tax revenue due to the lowering of wages for citizens working in heavily immigrant areas.

    The people who cry about the wages the illegals lose to Social Security when they use a stolen SS number don't count the loss of FICA taxes when employers pay their people far less because they use illegal labor. That chicken processing factory that was raided had to raise their employee's pay by 2 dollars and hour to keep the place staffed. It was in the deep south so the average wage in the place probably went from 8 to 10 dollars an hour a 25% increase. Multiply that by 4000 employees and the 6.15% that both the employee and the employer pay and start to consider how much those wonderful illegals are costing the system.

    I’m pretty sure Ron would include taxpayer-funded schools, hospitals, jails etc in the “welfare” provided to illegal immigrants. Welfare is more than just direct cash transfers.

  16. @KenH

    First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land....
     
    Dear God. Anything that might cause a slight impact or inconvenience to commerce is cause for a libertarian jihad. The people who are allegedly being deprived of their land can ask Trump to install one of his "big beautiful doors" so they won't be deprived of their property.

    As it is, the current fencing is little more than glorified chicken wire in some places that drug cartels and "coyotes" easily cut. The fencing in other areas is not difficult to breach for anyone really determined to make it over. A high concrete barrier wall is in order. Somehow the wall the Israelis built is working just fine, so the "walls never work" crowd should take note.


    Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax?
     
    You can tax remittances at 25% which would yield around 5 billion dollars and this would not get passed on to the American consumer. Growing the income tax base through a revival of manufacturing and energy sectors will take care of the rest.

    And we do need to end our pointless Middle East wars, but Muslim hatred for us will not dissipate within 24hrs of doing so, so some type of impenetrable border barrier is required. I've never seen so much spilled ink and drama queenery over a border wall in my life, not necessarily from Ron Paul, but in general.

    Libertarians care about commerce because commerce is what generates wealth. Even if you believe in the welfare state and wealth redistribution, you have to generate the wealth first, so anti-commerce policies are going to undermine your goals in the long run.

  17. Why would Ron Paul purport the use of eminent domain “will not work”? It’s in the Constitution. Really, it is! And you’re not “deprived,” because you get “just compensation.”

    Sometimes I wonder if this self-styled Constitutionalist has actually read the document.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    The federal income tax is also in the Constitution (16th amendment) but RP has always fiercely denounced both it and the amendment. I think his position is that at the very least the federal government should limit its activities to those the Constitution prescribes, but even within Constitutional limits the government can work much mischief.

    The problem with eminent domain is that "just compensation" is meaningless unless the transaction is voluntary. Value is subjective, at least according to the Austrian theory of economics that RP espouses, so there is no way to determine the value of some property unless the owner is free to sell to the government at a price he can agree to without coercion.
  18. @Ivan K.
    The article overall: likeable.

    Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990.
     
    1. You've dropped enormous amounts of bombs on Cambodia and Serbia; why are there no Cambodian or Serbian terrorists?
    2. You've had US citizens who committed terrorism: The Weathermen, and they "weren’t oppressed, or poor, or anything like that. " (https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/). What does that mean? Why is that?
    3. In addition to bombing, you've jailed, tortured and mind-controlled countless innocent Muslims (http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/anthony-wile-lost-in-a-yemen-jail-a-db-staffer-speaks-about-his-long-strange-trip-and-the-secret-gulag-america-has-built-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), and you have armed Radical Islamists from Afghanistan to Libya & Syria. The creation of Islamic terrorists has been far more forceful, elaborate and direct than just bombing.

    Generally, the lines of thinking in the article are spot on.


    P.S. "Islam is peace/good" vs. "Islam is evil" looks like a classic "divide and rule."

    Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990.

    1. You’ve dropped enormous amounts of bombs on Cambodia and Serbia; why are there no Cambodian or Serbian terrorists?

    1. He clearly stated that the threat must be taken seriously. Yours is a straw man argument. Actual Mexican terrorists, by any rational definition, are probably as rare as the Cambodian and Serbian ones you’re asking about.

    2. This is an excellent article but even at that, the terrorist meme is largely BS I think. The real terrorists are the money bags that fan the flames of terrorism for their own benefit. RP is spot on about the bombs Obomba’s dropped. That clown is/was world terrorist #1.

  19. Ron,

    We need the Wall and much more. Otherwise, we never know who is in the country since we cannot control who or how many walk across the Rio Grande River, crawl through a hole in the fence in San Diego, or overstay their tourist visas. At present, once across the border and they are home free.

    Nice try by trying to target incentives, but it is simply not true that the mestizos and campesinos from places as wide-ranging as Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, MENA, and subSaharan Africa are pouring in for welfare. They come primarily for personal and familial safety, jobs, schooling, and in general a better life than living in the shitholes back home … and, yes, most non-European countries in the world are shitholes. Indeed, we know illegals who have been in the country for more than ten years who have never taken a dime of welfare. They don’t want the risk. There is security in the anonymity of hiding in the “black” immigrant economy where the government doesn’t know who you are, where you live, or what you do for a living.

    We need the Wall followed by internal identity cards/passports on the model of those already in place in European countries for internal security and immigration control. Otherwise, we’ll be overwhelmed with people from a wide-range of countries continuing to “flash mob” the border … with the risk that the mobs of immigrants will transplant into the United States the same social orders and problems of Mexico, El Salvador, MENA, subSaharan Africa, etc., that they were fleeing from.

    What! That’s already happened?

  20. Those who call for a reduction of welfare payments are correct. However most seem to miss the fact that big business loves welfare payments to individuals, as well as to themselves, for a couple of basic reasons.

    1. Those individuals who receive the payments probably spend the bulk of it immediately.

    2. Also, some big businesses probably benefit from welfare subsidized workers. For them, what’s not to like? Here’s one example.

    Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#40acb8197cd8

    As long as there are big businesses that obtain a net benefit from welfare payments to the proles, there will continue to be welfare payments to the proles, and no wall (or anything else) will stop that. Ever.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the construction companies doing the wall building hired illegals to build the damned thing!

  21. @MarkinLA
    No, I want to punish them so that the next time they think about sneaking in they can remember the pain they endured and the years it took them in Mexico to finally regain their health. Then they will think better of coming back.

    The alternative is to feed them to the sharks while divers in shark cages pay to watch the great whites devour them.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, you want to punish people for earning an honest buck. It’s the American Way!

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    non-citizens working in the US without authorization is not honest.
  22. Walls have been shown to be a joke for a few millennia now at least.

    Trump’s wall may be built but the welfare payments and immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue. Here’s one reason why.:

    While the U.S. government doesn’t break out food-stamp spending at individual retailers, it does report spending by retail segment. And last year, the category Walmart is in — Super Stores — accounted for 47 percent of the dollars spent with food stamps, even though such companies represent only about 7 percent of the number of stores that accept SNAP payments.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-05-25/walmart-food-stamp-business-an-edge-on-amazon

    The ruling classes probably don’t give a damn about welfare recipients OR small businesses, so I don’t expect anything to change in any substantial way any time soon.

    Wall Street is named after a wall built by slaves. There must be a message in there somewhere.

    • Replies: @Steel T Post
    Walls are a "joke?" The Israeli Security Fence wall ended the intifada. And I'll bet your computer is inside four walls that are secured with locks.
  23. @jtgw
    Yeah, yeah, I know, you want to punish people for earning an honest buck. It's the American Way!

    non-citizens working in the US without authorization is not honest.

  24. You’re right! The wall needs to be manned and anything attempting to cross it should be shot, even if it’s just a jackrabbit. Counter incentives!

  25. Walls worked for Israel and Hungary. They would work here too.

    Turning off the welfare magnet would help, but food stamps aren’t the main reason illegal immigrants come here. They come for the high quality public schools, medical care, law and order, quality infrastructure, etc. Should we end public education etc, and simultaneously legalize heroin? Only a libertarian, drunk on theory and impervious to real world experience, would be foolish enough to say yes.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Doesn't public education kind of suck? Statists keep turning out public education as an example of successful government intervention and I don't know what they're talking about. Heroin used to be legal, too, and it wasn't a big deal.
  26. @KenH

    First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land....
     
    Dear God. Anything that might cause a slight impact or inconvenience to commerce is cause for a libertarian jihad. The people who are allegedly being deprived of their land can ask Trump to install one of his "big beautiful doors" so they won't be deprived of their property.

    As it is, the current fencing is little more than glorified chicken wire in some places that drug cartels and "coyotes" easily cut. The fencing in other areas is not difficult to breach for anyone really determined to make it over. A high concrete barrier wall is in order. Somehow the wall the Israelis built is working just fine, so the "walls never work" crowd should take note.


    Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax?
     
    You can tax remittances at 25% which would yield around 5 billion dollars and this would not get passed on to the American consumer. Growing the income tax base through a revival of manufacturing and energy sectors will take care of the rest.

    And we do need to end our pointless Middle East wars, but Muslim hatred for us will not dissipate within 24hrs of doing so, so some type of impenetrable border barrier is required. I've never seen so much spilled ink and drama queenery over a border wall in my life, not necessarily from Ron Paul, but in general.

    The 600+ mile hi-tech border wall that german companies have built for the saudi caliphate is a himdinger – it’s so effective that not a single migrant (zero tolerance of migrants in the capliphate and its emirates, except for slave labor) has gotten through/over it.

    Perhaps Mutti could put her companies to work for US!

  27. @jacques sheete
    Walls have been shown to be a joke for a few millennia now at least.

    Trump's wall may be built but the welfare payments and immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue. Here's one reason why.:


    While the U.S. government doesn't break out food-stamp spending at individual retailers, it does report spending by retail segment. And last year, the category Walmart is in -- Super Stores -- accounted for 47 percent of the dollars spent with food stamps, even though such companies represent only about 7 percent of the number of stores that accept SNAP payments.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-05-25/walmart-food-stamp-business-an-edge-on-amazon

     

    The ruling classes probably don't give a damn about welfare recipients OR small businesses, so I don't expect anything to change in any substantial way any time soon.

    Wall Street is named after a wall built by slaves. There must be a message in there somewhere.

    Walls are a “joke?” The Israeli Security Fence wall ended the intifada. And I’ll bet your computer is inside four walls that are secured with locks.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Walls are a “joke?” The Israeli Security Fence wall ended the intifada. And I’ll bet your computer is inside four walls that are secured with locks.
     
    The walls that we're talking about here are a joke and that includes the Israeli monstrosity. How sick does one have to be to build, maintain and staff something like that?

    It'd be interesting to read how you came to the conclusion that it ended the intifada.

    As far as my house is concerned, it doesn't have any type of wall that we're addressing here. I've never had a yard so much as a fence either, and the few my neighbors have are essentially decorative.

    The house came with locks but we almost never use them and if someone wanted to get in, the locks (and doors) are truly a joke security wise. The walls wouldn't be much of a barrier to someone eager to enter either, even in the absence of windows.

    As for your comment about Jefferson and anarchy, he musta flip flopped.

    Here are a couple of his comments on the subject.


    "Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: 1) without government, as among our Indians... It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best.

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787
     


    “…crimes are very rare among [the Indians]: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the [Indian] Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last: and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. [the Indians] therefore break them into small ones."

    Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," Query XI, 1787


     

    Ya ya, I know what happened to the Indians, so save it. And consider how much yer walls'd stop some SWAT team. Ever heard of the Waco massacre?
  28. First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

    Of course a border wall across a single state won’t work. It is better than a border wall across no states, though. I don’t care about dividing property owners from their property across the border, whatever the Hell that means. I don’t care about the people paid fair and square for their land through eminent domain, either; libertarians should have won that battle elsewhere, it’s too late to fight it now (and libertarians are too treacherous to be trusted to have genuine motives for doing so).

    Did the drug and human smuggling carry on over (or under) the Texas border wall? If so, it wasn’t much of a wall.

    Israel’s walls seem to be working well.

    Second, the wall will be expensive.

    Whatever the cost, it will be a drop in the bucket; libertarians should have won that battle elsewhere, it’s too late to fight it now (and libertarians are too treacherous to be trusted to have genuine motives for doing so).

    Taxpayers will have the option of avoiding products from Mexico for the duration of any tax.

    The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

    That’s great Ron. Great soapbox speech. Let me know how that turns out for you guys.

    I see where you forgot to mention E-Verify, and cracking down hard on employers of criminal aliens. Because libertarians are squishes (at best) on immigration. In your hearts, you love the idea of open borders.

    Rest was TL;DR, libertarians are boring.

  29. @Steel T Post
    Why would Ron Paul purport the use of eminent domain "will not work"? It's in the Constitution. Really, it is! And you're not "deprived," because you get "just compensation."

    Sometimes I wonder if this self-styled Constitutionalist has actually read the document.

    The federal income tax is also in the Constitution (16th amendment) but RP has always fiercely denounced both it and the amendment. I think his position is that at the very least the federal government should limit its activities to those the Constitution prescribes, but even within Constitutional limits the government can work much mischief.

    The problem with eminent domain is that “just compensation” is meaningless unless the transaction is voluntary. Value is subjective, at least according to the Austrian theory of economics that RP espouses, so there is no way to determine the value of some property unless the owner is free to sell to the government at a price he can agree to without coercion.

    • Replies: @Steel T Post
    Protecting the borders certainly falls within "activities to those the Constitution prescribes." Eminent domain was written into the original Bill of Rights because the State is the sovereign over the land, not the individual. If you're unsure of that, look up why the State prohibited direct transfer of land from Indians to Whites and ensured land transfers processed first through a State land office.

    As to the anarchist schtick, let's just look at what one of the most influential Founders thought of anarchism:

    "The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." -Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809
     
    Another on property theory and eminent domain, which isn't much Misean:

    "Private property is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt." -Benjamin Franklin
     
    If in a fit of Austrian fanaticism someone calls me a "Statist," I agree and amplify; I'm a "most precious" example of one.

    "The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1785
     
    Regarding land value, there are plenty of voluntary real property transactions between owners, of which the county real estate official is well aware, to establish a "just compensation" as prescribed in the Bill of Rights.
  30. @John Gruskos
    Walls worked for Israel and Hungary. They would work here too.

    Turning off the welfare magnet would help, but food stamps aren't the main reason illegal immigrants come here. They come for the high quality public schools, medical care, law and order, quality infrastructure, etc. Should we end public education etc, and simultaneously legalize heroin? Only a libertarian, drunk on theory and impervious to real world experience, would be foolish enough to say yes.

    Doesn’t public education kind of suck? Statists keep turning out public education as an example of successful government intervention and I don’t know what they’re talking about. Heroin used to be legal, too, and it wasn’t a big deal.

  31. @jtgw
    The federal income tax is also in the Constitution (16th amendment) but RP has always fiercely denounced both it and the amendment. I think his position is that at the very least the federal government should limit its activities to those the Constitution prescribes, but even within Constitutional limits the government can work much mischief.

    The problem with eminent domain is that "just compensation" is meaningless unless the transaction is voluntary. Value is subjective, at least according to the Austrian theory of economics that RP espouses, so there is no way to determine the value of some property unless the owner is free to sell to the government at a price he can agree to without coercion.

    Protecting the borders certainly falls within “activities to those the Constitution prescribes.” Eminent domain was written into the original Bill of Rights because the State is the sovereign over the land, not the individual. If you’re unsure of that, look up why the State prohibited direct transfer of land from Indians to Whites and ensured land transfers processed first through a State land office.

    As to the anarchist schtick, let’s just look at what one of the most influential Founders thought of anarchism:

    “The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism.” -Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809

    Another on property theory and eminent domain, which isn’t much Misean:

    “Private property is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt.” -Benjamin Franklin

    If in a fit of Austrian fanaticism someone calls me a “Statist,” I agree and amplify; I’m a “most precious” example of one.

    “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1785

    Regarding land value, there are plenty of voluntary real property transactions between owners, of which the county real estate official is well aware, to establish a “just compensation” as prescribed in the Bill of Rights.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    You have to understand that "anarchy" has a wide range of meanings. Most self-described anarchists are still of the left-wing variety and typically deny private property rights, seeing private property as a creature of a coercive state. The realization that private property rights are in fact incompatible with a coercive state and existed before the state is relatively new in political thought.

    In any case, RP is not an anarchist; I'm just explaining to you why he might have a problem with eminent domain, the income tax and other things that are strictly speaking constitutional but which violate property rights. One thing to note about the original formulation of eminent domain is that it treated only the compulsory purchase of land by the government for government purposes; it was not intended to allow the government to forcibly purchase private land to give to another private owner, but that is how it is being used nowadays.

    Your argument that the State is sovereign over the land because historically it has prohibited direct land transfers is descriptively accurate, but I'm interested in sovereignty as a normative concept. I know that the State prohibits a lot of things; the issue is whether it has a right to do so. The quotes from the founders clearly presuppose some sort of social contract theory. That's fine if you accept the theory, but I don't. I'm not sure if Ron Paul does and I'm not sure how much he's thought deeply about these foundational issues; in general I think he's been content to allow that the government has a right to exist but only within limits prescribed by the constitution.

    States, not Congress, originally had powers to regulate immigration, which is why the US constitution only specifies the power to regulate naturalization. The federalization of immigration control is a late 19th century development.

  32. @Steel T Post
    Protecting the borders certainly falls within "activities to those the Constitution prescribes." Eminent domain was written into the original Bill of Rights because the State is the sovereign over the land, not the individual. If you're unsure of that, look up why the State prohibited direct transfer of land from Indians to Whites and ensured land transfers processed first through a State land office.

    As to the anarchist schtick, let's just look at what one of the most influential Founders thought of anarchism:

    "The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." -Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809
     
    Another on property theory and eminent domain, which isn't much Misean:

    "Private property is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt." -Benjamin Franklin
     
    If in a fit of Austrian fanaticism someone calls me a "Statist," I agree and amplify; I'm a "most precious" example of one.

    "The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1785
     
    Regarding land value, there are plenty of voluntary real property transactions between owners, of which the county real estate official is well aware, to establish a "just compensation" as prescribed in the Bill of Rights.

    You have to understand that “anarchy” has a wide range of meanings. Most self-described anarchists are still of the left-wing variety and typically deny private property rights, seeing private property as a creature of a coercive state. The realization that private property rights are in fact incompatible with a coercive state and existed before the state is relatively new in political thought.

    In any case, RP is not an anarchist; I’m just explaining to you why he might have a problem with eminent domain, the income tax and other things that are strictly speaking constitutional but which violate property rights. One thing to note about the original formulation of eminent domain is that it treated only the compulsory purchase of land by the government for government purposes; it was not intended to allow the government to forcibly purchase private land to give to another private owner, but that is how it is being used nowadays.

    Your argument that the State is sovereign over the land because historically it has prohibited direct land transfers is descriptively accurate, but I’m interested in sovereignty as a normative concept. I know that the State prohibits a lot of things; the issue is whether it has a right to do so. The quotes from the founders clearly presuppose some sort of social contract theory. That’s fine if you accept the theory, but I don’t. I’m not sure if Ron Paul does and I’m not sure how much he’s thought deeply about these foundational issues; in general I think he’s been content to allow that the government has a right to exist but only within limits prescribed by the constitution.

    States, not Congress, originally had powers to regulate immigration, which is why the US constitution only specifies the power to regulate naturalization. The federalization of immigration control is a late 19th century development.

  33. @Steel T Post
    Walls are a "joke?" The Israeli Security Fence wall ended the intifada. And I'll bet your computer is inside four walls that are secured with locks.

    Walls are a “joke?” The Israeli Security Fence wall ended the intifada. And I’ll bet your computer is inside four walls that are secured with locks.

    The walls that we’re talking about here are a joke and that includes the Israeli monstrosity. How sick does one have to be to build, maintain and staff something like that?

    It’d be interesting to read how you came to the conclusion that it ended the intifada.

    As far as my house is concerned, it doesn’t have any type of wall that we’re addressing here. I’ve never had a yard so much as a fence either, and the few my neighbors have are essentially decorative.

    The house came with locks but we almost never use them and if someone wanted to get in, the locks (and doors) are truly a joke security wise. The walls wouldn’t be much of a barrier to someone eager to enter either, even in the absence of windows.

    As for your comment about Jefferson and anarchy, he musta flip flopped.

    Here are a couple of his comments on the subject.

    “Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: 1) without government, as among our Indians… It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best.

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787

    “…crimes are very rare among [the Indians]: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the [Indian] Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last: and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. [the Indians] therefore break them into small ones.”

    Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Query XI, 1787

    Ya ya, I know what happened to the Indians, so save it. And consider how much yer walls’d stop some SWAT team. Ever heard of the Waco massacre?

  34. There are only two feasible crossing points between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, because illegal immigrants need access to roads and transportation. Buses leave Djabon in the Dominican Republic frequently bound for Santiago, but there are numerous spot checks of the passengers in buses and other vehicles by immigration officials along the way, so it is very difficult to travel anywhere in the Dominican Republic even if you can cross the border illegally.

    In fact it is quite easy to cross over the border from Haiti illegally and I have done it myself on a day when the border was closed due to a trade spat involving chickens and eggs, as I recall. There are people running an organized business who provide motorcycle transportation on both side of the border and assistance to safely for the river. So you are OK if you cross the border illegally, so long as you have a visa or US passport, but you will not be able to travel far if you are undocumented.

    I wonder if large relatively unpopulated segments of the US border might not be better protected by security on the roads within 50 miles approaching the border on the US side, particularly stopping passenger vans with blacked out windows. Planes or helicopters like those used for monitoring speeding vehicles would also surely be useful for monitoring movements on dirt roads or private lands close to the border.

    This could be a hell of a lot cheaper than building and maintaining a wall. Of course where the border divides cities, then there must be a need for a Berlin Wall type of setup to keep the two populations apart.

    Another more Trumpian solution would be to build walls or barbed wire fences around the large orange plantations and produce farms here in Florida and have immigration officials conduct passport and visa checks at the gates.

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS