Government “shutdown” necessary for national security
The federal government desperately needs to diet. Much of our spending is constitutionally dubious, and it is immoral to pass our national debt, now exceeding $21 trillion, to our yet unborn children. We need to return to constitutional limits to govern the distribution of our taxes.
The one exception to the diet argument is national security. Without a physical barrier that works, we cannot remain a country. History has demonstrated our southern border to be too porous and that only a physical barrier will work. “Kicking the can down the road” on border national security, as both major political parties have done for decades, only exacerbates the problem. Our national security now demands a wall.
We’ve had 20 government “shutdowns” since 1977, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most Americans never knew when we were in one. In fact, “shutdowns” may be a good thing if they reduce the national debt, make expenditures more constitutionally based, or strengthen national security.
Democratic opposition to a southern border wall (they advocate for open borders) has been the principal reason for the last two “shutdowns.” A demand for open borders is the real reason for their opposition, but they know this will not sell with most Americans. The other two reasons are that a wall won’t work and it costs too much.
But walls do work. Look at any penitentiary. Many of those pushing the argument that walls are ineffective hypocritically live in gated communities. If walls (gates) did not work, they would not live there. China’s Great Wall successfully kept “barbarians” out for centuries, and they built it with human labor — no earthmoving equipment involved — and over impossible terrain.
Today’s 143-mile steel border fence in southern Israel has stemmed the flow of illegal immigration by 99 percent, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It “stopped the flood of African migrants into the country,” ending “Sinai terror.” At one time, 2,300 people crossed each month. But after the fence was erected, it dropped to 18, a 99 percent cut. Israel will build other walls. The wall that was begun in November 2010 and finished in December 2012 changed everything.
Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”
Democrats argue that the wall costs too much. But in the requested 2018 budget of $4.094 trillion, certainly five billion is but a drop in the bucket.
Spending beyond our means has never been a deterrent for Democrats. In the 10-year Farm Bill of 2014, they gave $3.3 billion alone for a cotton income protection plan. Other gift giving in that nearly trillion dollar bill, considered pork by critics, included $2 million for sheep production and marketing, $10 million for Christmas tree promotion, $170 for catfish oversight, $119 million for peanut crop insurance, $100 million for organic food research, $150 million to promote farmers markets, $12 million for a “wool research and promotion” program, and $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. Ironically, the 949-page bill spends about $1 billion dollars per page.
We could easily fund the wall by ending the funding (ice cream cones) we presently give to the illegal immigrants after they illegally cross our borders, but the Democrats would never agree to this because they are presently purchasing future party affiliates.
The non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies recently found that “63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households,” costing taxpayers an average of $73,000 per immigrant over his lifetime.
In addition, they found, “compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).”
Plus, illegal immigrants get cash. “Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native household.” If these funds were instead used to finance a wall, it would be easily funded.
As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform revealed, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell our approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall — five and a half times more, and every year.” Consequently, “each illegal alien cost nearly $70,000 during their lifetime.”
Both studies show that funds presently given those who cross our border illegally could easily pay the $25 billion total cost of building the wall, or $5 billion per year for five years for the same.
This without raising a single penny from any new tax monies from our citizens.
It looks like we need the wall for both national and domestic security. To get this, we apparently have to have the Democratically imposed partial government shutdown. Let us keep the partial government shutdown in place until we get a commitment from both parties for the whole $25 billion needed or legislation to redirect the funding of illegal immigrants’ welfare-funded lifestyles to the wall.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
