Jeb Bush says it would cost too much to deport illegals

President Eisenhower, however, deported a million alone in the space of a year, and with only 750 deportation agents, in an operation with a name we would never use today: Operation Wetback.


Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught... Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

So I say let's switch from the war on drugs to combating illegal immigration. Let's be honest here...They are illegal, whether they are from Mexico, South America, the Orient...If you take the time to come to this country legally, then I am all for it. Welcome and God bless. For those sneaking across the border, go back or face deportation or jail time.

 

In fairness to Jeb, he's a very low energy person, so deportation probably sounds like too much work. Whew, he's exhausted just thinking about it!

 

Let us not forget that our unemployment rate doubled within five years after Operation Wetback.

 

Are you arguing those are related?

 

LilMike,

I researched this subject for the late Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr back in the 1980s. At that time, the government said we had an estimated 10 MILLION undocumented foreigners in the U.S. and 2 MILLION more entering annually. Even presuming that a third of all those people died during that period, the count ought to be 30 million undocumented foreigners. Only a fraction ever took advantage of the amnesty periods.

Today, after thirty years, the numbers haven't changed that much. It says that immigration is pretty well regulated by the free market without the assistance of government.

Undocumented workers add to the GDP; their presence creates jobs; the undocumented foreigner adds to a company's bottom line profit and increased productivity. So, yes, I'd say that the rise in unemployment was partially explained by a mass deportation of the lowest level of working class of people.

We won't lift up our personal standards by making someone else's lot in life more miserable. What we can do is to get the federal government out of the welfare business. We need to incentive employers with tax breaks that hire American workers and bring jobs to the U.S. All of us need to recognize that a person may be present in the U.S. without becoming a citizen. Furthermore, we need to start thinking in terms of individual Rights versus the privileges of citizenship.

Don't extend the privileges of citizenship to Guest Workers and get the feds out of the welfare industry. Give strong incentives to employers that hire Americans. The other "solutions" aren't.

 

For someone who praises the free market, you seem unaware of econ 101; all things being equal, an increase in a supply of labor will lower the wage rate of that labor.

 

The stats for the people coming from south of the border during the past thirty years will show that the market has been self regulating. Unemployment is rising due to an increase in regulation, unnecessary regulatory agencies, high taxes, and no incentives to hire American workers.

An employer, in a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic is under no obligation to provide jobs to Americans. While the government has the power to dictate who an employer can an cannot hire, under constitutional law, they have no authority to do so. What we can do, by law, is to provide incentives to get the employer to hire Americans (and even begin investigating why some career welfarites cannot get a job offer.)

It's not as simple as the false notion that the so - called "illegal" steals jobs. Jobs are owned by the creator / employer who has a Right to ownership of any created job.

 

Except that those who are in the country legally and don't have a legal right to work in those jobs are breaking the law by doing so, as they're employers are breaking the law. There is nothing self regulating about that. That's like saying petty theft is self regulating. It only happens as long as victims have something worth stealing.

 

You have obviously been sleeping while I've been telling you the realities of life.

Either unalienable Rights are bestowed upon man by their Creator OR your "rights" are a byproduct of being a good subject in the New World Order wherein government grants to you your "rights." If you believe in government granted "rights," then the word unalienable has no meaning and our forefathers fought and died in vain for a concept (Liberty) that eludes the modern man.

Again, you can quote statutes, cases, laws, etc. but those all depend upon whether or not they will pass constitutional muster. Even the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted."

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

If an employer creates a job, it should be theirs to give to whomever they want. If the legislators do not pass laws that allow a foreigner to take a job willingly offered, then it is doubtful the law can pass constitutional muster. Undocumented foreigners cannot "steal" American jobs since the job belongs to the person who created it in the first place - that is, IF you believe in private property Rights.

 

So you think the entire body of law regarding employment is unconstitutional? That's clearly absurd. I'm not interested in fringe ideas that are more suited to college freshmen at 2 AM after a bowl or two.

 

ANY law that attempts to take private property for public use is suspect at best. The American people have been conditioned, Pavlovian style, to accept certain propositions that are, in fact, incorrect.

America was founded by "fringe" thinkers. The principles will not be defended by persons of any less character. So, what you will walk away from this thread with is, maybe, majority sentiment. Jeb Bush says it is too costly to build a wall. He's right. What he doesn't bother telling you is that the cost is not only dollars and cents, but in costs to your Liberty.

It should make your blood boil whenever the government wants to take from one segment of society and give it to another. On an employer's behalf, I would quote Frederick Bastiat's work "The Law:"

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

Would you advocate stealing the employer's job and giving it to someone the employer did not want to give it to? Are you advocating that we benefit some employers (i.e. those who can hire professional white collar foreign workers) while denying to other employers the benefit of hiring non-agricultural Guest Workers predicated upon a socialist statute rammed through Congress by Democrats? And, bear in mind, we're talking about laws with arbitrary numbers on the number of foreigners that can accept jobs, not numbers based upon how many employers want to hire them?

So, do you advocate taking the Liberty of the foreigner and the employer if it benefits somebody on the basis of their citizenship? So, aren't you saying that you do not believe in God given Rights, but government granted rights? If so, how could you argue against things like gun control laws when unalienable Rights do not exist in your vocabulary?

 

This has nothing to do with the cost of a wall. Everything that you are describing as tyranny is the law now, not after a Trumpian wall in built along the Southwest border. So if you believe that having to present a social security card (a valid one), and legitimate ID to secure employment violates the laws of Man and God, then you are several decades too late for that, and in the totally wrong thread.

 

The cost would be a shattered economy.

Entire sections of major cities would become like Detroit. Millions of empty houses and tens of thousands of storefronts would obliterate property values - leading to millions of foreclosures - so also another government mega-gzillion dollar bank and mortage bailouts. Virtually every company large and small would take a huge hit, so the stock market also would crash. That does not count the cost of 10,000,000+ court hearings (due process), creating thousands of more federal courts, plus thousands of attorneys more on government payroll and their staff, plus thousands of SWAT and round up teams and other costs of actual deportations.

It is quite possible some would figure they better grab what they can - so expect increasing crime - and of course a billion calls to police reporting every Latino everyone sees. Granted, the government would be seizing all their property like Germany did to the Jews, since they can't take it with them. I suppose that would be profitable to people on the round up teams, taking anything they wanted for themselves.

Of course, the USA becomes a police state at the same time in a quasi-war zone sense.

 

PRIOR to the National ID / REAL ID Act, there was no requirement for any American to have an SSN. Having to "prove" this and "prove" that violates the very essence of privacy and a presumption of innocence. Besides having moral objections to those things, National ID and having to "prove" everything violates both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. See the Fourth Amendment for an example.

 

Too many people cannot understand the effects that a mass deportation would have on the housing market alone. Some think that the forty seven percent of Americans dependent upon government would suddenly occupy those homes and problem solved.

The welfarites are hooked on dependence. They have no intention of moving into that housing unless it's "free" and that cannot happen without jacking up our taxes even more. More likely scenario:

The United States Supreme Court steps in and stops mass deportations. The Secure the border lobby gets their tighty whiteys in a bunch and rebel. The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security steps in and wages war on the Secure the border guys, using the manpower and technology that the Secure the border guys lobbied in favor of.

 

There is no requirement to have a social security number now. The Real ID Act only applies if you're getting a state ID or driver's license. If you intend to live off the grid your entire life, you can skip getting one. But again, that has nothing to do with having a social security number to work. That's been true long before Real ID.

 

BEFORE National ID, one did not have to get a SSN AND could still get state issued ID for doing mundane things like getting checks cashed and so forth.

Laws are being passed every day to criminalize those who try to live off grid. For example, one person in Florida went to jail for not getting hooked up to the local utility providers... which "required" the SSN. So, how does this tie into the wall and its costs?

National ID was passed on the pretext of protecting us from so - called "illegal aliens." The real cost has been in terms of lost Liberties. If you want to keep nitpicking this point we can, or we can move to the costs in dollars and cents.

 

Enforcing our immigration laws and securing the border requires more than talk, it requires breaking a sweat and doing it.

I can't see Jeb breaking a sweat over any thing.

 

Squatters do not maintain property so in addition to a flood of commercial and residential property crashing the housing market, so would downgraded neighborhoods.

It isn't only Latino businesses that would suffer. People illegally in the country buy stuff from all companies. Pulling 12,000,000 consumers out of the market would pound businesses, particularly brick and mortar businesses as illegals tend to buy from physical stores and less on the internet. Additionally, people illegally in the country tend to be younger working age, meaning income earners (and therefore income spenders.)

In this all,declining tax income from both property taxes and sales states would pound state and local governments. Government is intensely resistant to reductions in size and budget, so property and sales taxes would definitely go up significantly. As real estate prices crashed, people would be walking away from their mortgages, meaning an mortgage and banking crisis as well. Economic crisis and 10,000,000 fugitives would bring a dramatic increase in crime.

The list of other residual effects beyond this is huge. The cost of mass deportation is not merely the cost of rounding them up, though that also would be astronomically expensive as there are due process rights, so 12,000,000 hearings/trials.

The overall concept of deporting them to then let most back in? Would it be possible to design a more wasteful and self destructive program?

It's not going to happen and everyone knows that it won't happen even if Trump won election. The curious thing is Republicans don't care. They just like how it sounds.

 

First of all, Real ID was about having common standards for driver's licenses so they could be trusted as ID when you board an airplane.

Secondly, if you are trying to cash a check, you are not living off the grid. Sounds like you want the ease and convenience of having a verifiable identity without...having a verifiable identity. Grow up.

 

Coaching Columba to give a speech in English probably causes a sheen of sweat.

 

Nothing personal, but it sounds like YOU are getting personal. Whenever I personally respond, my concerns don't necessarily have a personal connotation.

Just for your information, I am well versed as to living off the grid. At the same time, there are things that aren't.

A driver's license was not identification. Furthermore, my mother's original SSN bore the words "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" - bolded and in caps along the front of it. She was born in 1929 so you kinda get the gist of how far back into Socialist Security history we're going here.

I was involved in the lobbying efforts and the debates regarding the so - called National ID / REAL ID Act from its inception, sir. So, again, well versed into what was on the minds of the people pushing it. For example, the author of the REAL ID Act was James Sensenbrenner. He was the same guy that introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" into Congress.

Guess you missed that part of the bill that states "and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence." I just looked on the govtrack.us site and they listed the REAL ID Act under the general heading of "Immigration."

To further compound things, you don't appear to understand that dealing with the government and dealing with private entities is two different things. A driver's license only shows that the holder has proven they know the rules of the road. It should never be a citizenship document. I don't like the Hitler tattoo idea on steroids. If the grocer decides to accept a driver's license as some kind of "proof" of identity, that is their prerogative. It's not binding on government.

This side debate is getting away from the original OP. The fact that we are forfeiting our Liberties for the false promise of temporary Safety is what Benjamin Franklin was warning us against doing. The cost to our Liberties is much too high. So, I will say Jeb Bush was right. The current tools of deportation smell of National Socialism and a reliance on a POLICE STATE. The POLICE STATE takes trillions to feed. So, I think ol' Jeb has a point.

 

So to summarize, drivers licenses don't have anything to do with identification, so it's useless to be used as such with a government institution? Sorry, but that's just nonsense. And as far as getting away from the OP, that's all you've been doing. I think the real issue with you, and I admit it's a guess, is that you are an open borders person, so anything that interferes with illegals is a problem for you. Since we were talking about E-Verify, you don't want anything verified.

 

I think that there are rules against what you're doing here, but the reality is America is already an open border. The issue is, it would cost too much to militarize it - which is what you are advocating for. You're supposed to say "open borders" and the masses are supposed to gasp in horror.

Yes, I am a proponent of the Fourth Amendment and the Right NOT to have to prove everything to anyone at any time based upon some fear mongering by people that loathe and despise everything our forefathers fought, bled and died for.

Insofar as your religious view that the driver's license is ID, there are still government agencies that do not accept it as such. And, National ID is little more than Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... an argument we've already covered.

Unless someone can show a NEED for something, I am against verifying everything. Having to spout your SSN every time you go to the doctor's office or interact with a cop is actually pretty idiotic. It has led to identity theft and privacy violations galore. But, in sticking with the OP, all of that represents a COST. The cost is in lost Liberties. I am not in favor of a militarized border with armed drones watching over me and armed federal mercenaries that can be used against the citizenry of the United States. Yes sir, I am concerned about the costs of rebuilding the Berlin Wall along the southern border of the U.S.

Since you want to make it personal, I don't give two hoots in Hades about Hispanics. I have more reasons to despise them than anyone on this board. My concern is what the Secure the border is all about. When they lose the battle at the Supreme Court level, they don't have a back up plan for the take-over of the U.S. by a ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE. That, sir, is what YOU are advocating.

America became the mightiest nation in the annals of history with an open border and it was Ronald Reagan that uttered the words "tear down that wall." Now you want to reverse course with fear mongering and trying to play with mob rule (Democracy.) Those doing the same try to pass themselves off as "conservatives."

Jeb is still right. The wall idea is too costly... not only in terms of money, but in lost Liberties. And that is a subject the Secure the border guys don't want to discuss. They'd rather play the censorship game and shut this board down rather than to allow anyone the latitude to challenge the status quo.