The Hidden Costs of Illegals

The distinction between legal immigration and illegal migration makes all the difference in the world. At issue is the American impulse to extend freedom, counterbalanced by the undocumented aliens' desire to usurp it. Thus, to consider what liberty means to us, we must directly reference an inspirational source:

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome ...

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

– From “The New Colossus” (1883) by 19^th century American poet Emma Lazarus

Based upon the above description, is it any wonder a more famous part of this sonnet—referring to “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free”—has been inscribed on a bronze plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty?

Inscribed since 1903 upon that monument, this message conveys a uniquely American spirit. It's defined by humanitarianism and economic generosity. In cultural terms, it has translated into our “melting pot” philosophy: a warm embrace of foreign-born citizens. Speaking of the statuesque and the great is our own current first lady, Melania Trump, born in Slovenia (formerly Yugoslavia). For any newcomer, who's a better symbol of the American Dream than she?

To that end, the U.S. permits more legal immigration than any other country in the world. That accounts for about 20% of the world’s migrants. For context, based upon available 2015 figures from Pew Research Center, some 43.2 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country. Add to that 277.7 born on native soil, and we arrive at 320.9 million: America's populace for that year. Given that the world's population then was approximately 7.2 billion, that means there's a 1 in 26 chance of being born stateside. Hence, not really good odds for the inhabitants of economically challenged Third World countries!

Yet, Liberty's “golden door” was never intended to be an open border policy. As a metaphor, that would be like throwing one's home open, at any time, to perfect strangers—allowing said “guests” to permanently reside—and expecting positive results. Compounding that disturbing dynamic is the general caliber of these criminal interlopers. For starters, they have already violated U.S. immigration law. Also working against them are cultural barriers, usually a lack education and specifically, English language proficiency. Even worse is an inability to find gainful employment legitimately. Under these obviously adverse conditions, is it any surprise that so many turn to crime to survive?

A recent government count of incarcerated aliens bears this out. As of June 24, 22% of the U.S. prison population, or 42,000, are in federal prisons. Per the Prisons Bureau, the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates (exemplified by Fiscal Year 2015) was $31,977.65. (Per inmate, per day, that's $87.61—or roughly 1.3 billion dollars per year!) Recall, per Social Security, the typical employee made $48,098.63 that year. So, astonishingly, housing a criminal cost 66% of what that average U.S. employee earned! And that is just the tip of the fiscal morass perpetrated by this shadowy underclass of 11 million squatters.

Globally, per the Washington Times, a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds they will drain nearly $750 billion from U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes. That's six times the cost of mass deportations. However, the cost is more than strictly economic. As these aliens predominantly congregate in failed Democratic-controlled urban centers, like Chicago, San Francisco and Portland, is it any surprise that these sanctuary cities are hotbeds for criminality inflicted against the law-abiding? Tragically, that's seen most graphically in a one-man crime wave that is Mexican Sergio Jose Martinez, 31. Reportedly deported 20 times for progressively more serious offenses ranging from drug possession and burglary to auto theft and hit and run, he's currently accused of raping a 65-year-old Oregon woman as well as the same-day attempted kidnapping of a 24-year-old female while wielding a knife. If released again, will he cause the death of some innocent like Kate Steinle?

Meanwhile, House Bill 3464—a bill to expand Oregon's sanctuary status with no Republican support—sits on beleaguered Governor Kate Brown's desk. Specifically, the measure prohibits state and local agencies from sharing information with federal authorities, or inquiring about a person's immigration status except as required by state and federal law. The high profile brutalization of one, and the threat of bodily harm to another, has galvanized state Republicans. Senate Minority Whip Dennis Linthicum said:

“[Sanctuary states] excuse lawless behavior and perpetuate criminal, rape and gang cultures. Every Oregonian should be outraged to see criminals let loose into the streets. Career Democrats shouldn’t sacrifice Oregonians’ safety on the altar of their extreme political agenda.”

Unfortunately, as state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Governor Brown spearheaded this harebrained effort, it seems highly unlikely that mounting political pressure will suddenly compel a veto. Therefore, how are these Democratic leaders not indirectly complicit in Martinez's crimes? In any case, shouldn't public safety always trump their politically correct social engineering? Indeed, to be effective, our democracy requires acclimation to agreed upon laws, a common language, and basic standards of civilized conduct.

At every level of community—from the local to the state to the national—the United States is individually and collectively owned, and financed, by her citizens. Would progressive politicians host and subsidize the uninvited and the violent in their personal dwellings? Therefore, how is it not insanity for them to advocate free rein for the unvetted and the lawbreaking within America's homeland? In any case, the waste of U.S. resources to mitigate the fallout from Democrats' dytopian schemes is appalling. Still, at least that exorbitant expense is measurable. What isn't is the domino effect of illegals' criminality: the invisible human cost exacted by victims' anguish and suffering. That price—which liberals completely ignore—is incalculable.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

For the future: a 2017 anti-amnesty Conservative; A whimsical essay on politics—and time-travel

There's a funny line in the original “Back to the Future” (1985) movie where teenager Marty McFly uses an altered DeLorean to time-travel back to 1955 to the creator of the time machine, Emmett Brown. The inventor inquires who is president in Marty's future. When told, Brown's incredulous reaction: “Ronald Reagan? The actor? Then who's the vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”

That was always the unfair knock of Democrats on Reagan: he was really just an actor “playing at” being commander-in-chief. But the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, then, proved Reagan very much the genuine article. Reagan symbolized the unbreakable American spirit of positive expectation, self-determination and self-reliance. He knew: America can accomplish anything—even the inconceivable—which he achieved in large measure.

What is required is simply the will to do a thing, steered by Christian morality and informed ultimately by kindness and charity. Indeed, his very American political philosophy of “peace through strength” put the Soviets, among others, rightfully on their backsides. Unlike today, his word was backed up by the big stick of unparalleled American military might as well as the carrot of authentic friendship. History bears out the truth: when Reagan spoke, enemies and naysayers alike listened—and in most cases—capitulated. To him, America was a “shining city on a hill;” a light that has dimmed considerably in recent years due to less clear thinking—and less capable leadership.

Contrast that to the anti-Reagan we have in office now: a chronically responsibility-phobic, “lead from behind,” weak-kneed, politically tone-deaf apologist of Western values; a rabble-rousing wholesale disregarder of law, precedent and the Constitution itself; a golf-obsessed Jerry Lewis fop on the world stage emboldening America's enemies and geopolitical foes while simultaneously alienating traditional allies like Israel. Indeed, 7 years of Mr. Obama's tirelessly schoolmarmish “teachable moment” finger-pointing—and equally feckless “red line” pronouncements—are completely ignored by bad actors like Vladimir Putin and ISIS who have flourished in the vacuum where American dominance used to be.

What we have, unfortunately, is an inflexible ideologue of scant ability whose every decision hobbles American strength at home and abroad. To draw a parallel to Chicago—the community Mr. Obama “organized” whose homicide rate (like Baltimore's) is skyrocketing—other “Chicagos” are popping up all over the globe: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. The specter of ISIS has metastasized, destabilizing the Middle East causing the record-breaking torrent of 60 million migrants disrupting Europe to a greater degree than the terrorism that killed 129 innocents in Paris.

Paris proves that it only takes a handful of radicalized, armed militants. Yet, Mr. Obama can't wait to throw open the doors to a potential small army of 10,000 migrants from Syria; interestingly 96% Islamic versus only 3% Christian. However, given the logic that the terrorist acts are directly tied to religious fervor—and since there is no government to vouch for this group or other practical way to vet them—a litmus test (at minimum) makes sense to someone like Ted Cruz who actually cares about the future safety of the American people.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama has the implicit responsibility to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. As with porous borders, Mr. Obama has the welcome mat already laid out. To him, any other policy is “... not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I, for one, would very much like to know when Mr. Obama's compassion for home-grown Americans is going to start.

This same brand of “compassion” has contributed mightily to the accumulation of 11 million non-Americans within our country or is it 12? Nobody knows the exact number of faceless de facto squatters, hence the logistical problem. Yet, each and every one of them shares a universal label: flagrant flouter of our laws (á la Mr. Obama). Like the president, the current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is wrong about the practicality and success of forced relocations. The powers-that-be in government don't like it—frankly neither do I—but mass deportations are called for.

There is precedent: the 1950s “Operation Wetback” expelled 1.5 million Mexicans. No doubt, the process will be ugly. Yet, none of the displaced is a victim as illegal aliens (not squishy, nonsensical politically correct terms like “undocumented immigrants”) chose to come here by their own means rather than honoring our in-place immigration system. In any case, a society is only “fair” when all abide equally to democratically-created laws. Under Democrats—for all the reasons articulated above—is it any wonder why our society is so polarized, fragmented and dysfunctional?

Since we can't time travel to 1980 or 1860, it will take a leader both with Reagan's fortitude and Lincoln's vision (in ending slavery for future, unborn generations) to do that which is difficult and necessary—rather than the 'go-along-get-along' political expediency that has gotten us into these colossal messes in the first place. That's not the Democrats who manipulate America into “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” so long as they can use the influx of new voters to hold political power in perpetuity. Similarly, of the contenders across the aisle, that's also not establishment Republicans (Bush), those soft on immigration (Rubio) or inclined to further compromise (Carson; Trump).

That's my litmus test for president in 2017 and the list is maddeningly short: Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina (withdrawn). Like Marty McFly, I dearly wish I had that time-traveling DeLorean idling in the driveway, ready to bring the perfect candidate “Back to the Future” for Inauguration Day in 2017.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976