Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Argues for Finishing Border Wall
8/6/2023
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Makes Case for Finishing Border Wall (theepochtimes.com)
The documentary, “Midnight at the Border,” shows Kennedy’s visit to the border in Arizona and interviews with migrants, officials, and residents. Kennedy said his initial skepticism towards Trump’s wall proposal shifted after seeing the situation firsthand.
“I went down to the border feeling that Trump has made a mistake on the wall, but I feel like people need to be able to recalibrate their worldview when they’re confronted with evidence,” he said.
Kennedy said most of the hundreds of migrants crossing illegally that night were from Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia, not Latin America as he expected. Only two families claimed political persecution as a reason to enter.
“And those immigrants shouldn’t be allowed into the country. We should stop that at the border,” he said.
Kennedy suggested compromise is needed. While a full 2,200-mile wall may be excessive, “we need something” in high-traffic areas like near Yuma, he said. More surveillance technologies could also help.
The documentary highlights the human costs of the border crisis, from exploited migrant labor to drug overdoses fueled by fentanyl crossings. Kennedy argued the current policy fails the interests of Americans, migrants, and Mexico.
However, Kennedy ruled out reports of a potential presidential ticket with Trump in 2024. He also criticized businesses that exploit illegal labor and unions for failing to prevent it.
“I am a traditional Kennedy Democrat. I think human dignity and particularly dignity of the workers and the American middle class are the foundation stones not only of our economy, but of American democracy,” he said.
Kennedy made a few key arguments regarding the current U.S. border policy:
1. The policy fails to serve the interests of Americans, migrants, or Mexico. It puts people’s lives at risk, fails to stem the flow of illegal immigration, and is destabilizing for Mexico.
2. Businesses that exploit illegal immigrant labor for cheap wages contribute to the problem. Prosecuting these businesses would help reduce illegal immigration.
3. Weak unions have been unable to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, which has driven down wages for all workers.
4. Illegal immigration fuels drug overdoses from fentanyl crossings and human trafficking of migrants, especially women and children.
5. By allowing most migrants to stay after crossing illegally, the U.S. is “creating this understory of exploitable poor” who have no leverage to improve their wages or conditions.
6. A more secure border through barriers, technology, and personnel would help collapse the business model of human smugglers and drug cartels operating at the border.
Here are some potential solutions to address the hiring of illegal immigrants:
1. Strengthen labor unions and increase union membership. Unions can help negotiate for higher wages, benefits, and protections for both union and non-union workers. This makes jobs more attractive to legal workers and reduces the incentive for businesses to hire illegal immigrants.
2. Increase penalties and enforcement against businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Higher fines, audits, and potential jail time for employers may deter the practice.
3. Require E-Verify or other systems for businesses to electronically verify the legal status of new hires. This makes it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs using fraudulent documents.
4. Provide a path to legal status for long-term illegal immigrants already in the country. This could pull many illegal workers into the formal economy, reducing competition for jobs with legal workers. However, critics argue it rewards lawbreaking and could encourage more illegal immigration.
5. Invest in technologies and personnel to better secure the border. Reducing illegal border crossings would alleviate downward pressure on legal workers’ wages by reducing the supply of cheap, illegal labor.
6. Reform immigration policies to meet labor market demands. The U.S. could adopt a more targeted immigration system that allows in more workers for industries with labor shortages, but limits immigration in areas with excess labor supply.
Here are some of the main arguments against providing a path to legal status for long-term illegal immigrants:
• It rewards lawbreaking and encourages more illegal immigration. Critics argue that a legalization program would send the message that illegal immigrants who can evade detection long enough will eventually be granted amnesty. This could incentivize more people to enter the country illegally.
• It’s unfair to legal immigrants who waited their turn and followed the proper immigration procedures. Those who entered illegally and avoided paying taxes for years would be put on an equal footing with legal residents and citizens.
• It’s unfeasible and difficult to implement. Critics question how officials would verify an applicant’s length of residency, work and education history, criminal record, and ties to the community. Fraud and errors would likely be an issue.
• It could increase competition for jobs and public services. Critics argue that granting legal status to a large population could drive up unemployment, put more strain on social services, and reduce wages for legal workers – especially lower-skilled, immigrant, and minority workers.
• It adds to the federal deficit. Newly legalized immigrants would gain access to social programs like Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and Social Security, adding to government expenses. Critics argue illegal immigrants have not paid enough in taxes to cover these costs.
• It does not address the root causes of illegal immigration. Critics argue legalization programs are only a temporary “band-aid” that fail to fix the factors pushing migrants to enter illegally in the first place.
Here are some counterarguments in favor of providing a path to legal status for long-term illegal immigrants:
• It recognizes reality. Proponents argue that many illegal immigrants have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, paying taxes and contributing to their communities. Not deporting them recognizes this reality and the impracticality of mass deportation.
• It brings people out of the shadows. Legal status would allow long-term illegal immigrants to work legally, pay taxes, and fully participate in society. Proponents argue this is better for the economy and public safety.
• It benefits the economy. Research has found that legalization programs increase illegal immigrants’ wages and labor force participation while boosting their spending power and tax contributions. This provides an economic stimulus.
• It expands the available workforce. Legalizing a substantial unauthorized population would expand the total labor supply. Proponents argue this could help businesses meet labor demands and boost economic growth.
• It’s fair to those who have built lives in the U.S. Proponents argue that illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for many years, have jobs, and contribute to their communities deserve a chance to legally remain with their families.
• It can reduce wage competition. Some research suggests legalizing unauthorized immigrants has little to no impact on wages for native-born and legal immigrant workers. By bringing more workers into the tax system, it may reduce illegal labor that drives down wages.
• It’s more consistent with American values. Some argue that granting legal status to long- term, law-abiding residents reflects American values of fairness, compassion and family unity.
There are a few studies and research that support some of the arguments against providing a path to legal status for long-term illegal immigrants:
• A 2010 study by the Heritage Foundation found that amnesty programs tend to encourage more illegal immigration. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted legal status to 2.7 million illegal immigrants, failed to curb illegal immigration as intended and may have incentivized more illegal entries.
• A 2007 study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that legalizing unauthorized immigrants would cost federal, state and local governments at least $80 billion over 10 years due to increased usage of public services and benefits. The study argues this increase in expenditures would not be offset by the tax revenues gained from newly legalized immigrants.
• A 2017 study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that legalizing unauthorized workers likely has little impact on average native wages but can reduce wages for some native workers who compete for similar jobs. The study found impacts are most likely for prior immigrants and native-born high school dropouts.
• Research has indicated that legalizing unauthorized immigrants has little effect on reducing the inflow of new unauthorized immigrants entering the country illegally. Broader changes to visa programs, border enforcement and employer verification systems would also be needed to curb unlawful entries.
• Studies have found that following legalization programs, newly legalized immigrants tend to utilize public services and benefits – like Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI – at higher rates. This increases costs for governments and taxpayers.
Dr. Thomas Commentary:
The definition of country, as per Michael Savage, is “Borders, language, and culture.” The first thing we must ask is “Are we committed to maintaining our nation as a separate nation from the globalist NWO government?”
Who is promoting the invasion from the Southern border? Is it Democrats who want more people on government dependence so they will vote Democrat? Is it globalists who want to bring down America by diluting our language and culture to be a non-distinct entity that will blend easily into the melting pot of One World Government? Is it Communists who are attempting to bring down America as the final opponent to the establishment of International Communism? Is it capitalists who want cheap labor? Why isn’t the Federal government defending the borders?
1) Language: English should be declared officially as the national language. There should be no dual language signs required by federal law on products or anything else.
2) Borders: If the borders are being invaded/crossed then enforce the non-crossing of the borders. The methods employed either work or they don’t. Use methods that work. Any solution that fails should be replaced or modified. Walls, electronic surveillance, guards… are all tactics to produce a result. It is possible to create an effective result.
3) Culture: I believe we should be a Christian nation. The moral standards of the Bible should regulate our national, state, and local laws. The 10th Amendment should limit the incursion of the Federal government into the policies of the States. Eliminate the Federal government’s evasion of the 10th Amendment limits by withholding state funding for infrastructure, or education.