The last amnesty rewarded those who were in the country illegally, making it obvious to all that America was a great picnic basket waiting to be fed upon.

Thomas Jefferson believed that it would take a thousand years for America to settle the Louisiana Territory; turns out it was done in less than a century. In less than one hundred years the empty spaces in the West — the "Great American Desert," Nebraska and Kansas and Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, the towering Rocky Mountains, all the way to Oregon and the Pacific were filled up, built up, and subdued for the benefit of the peoples of the United States.  Terrible weather, fierce natives, and starvation and disease were tamed while farmers and schoolteachers settled in places nobody would have dreamed of living just a few short years before.  An entire continent was filled in mere decades.

Which is why I find the argument that illegal aliens cannot be removed so specious; if we could fill a continent, a very hostile place, if we could settle in lands where fierce natives sought to drive us out, if we could push settlements to the sea, drive railroad lines across the Continental Divide to connect the filling frontier with the settled East, surely the removal of some trespassers from our land can be accomplished.  We have technology undreamed of by our forefathers to aid us, we have wealth to pay for this — wealth beyond anything that a Thomas Jefferson could even conceive.  Yet our elites tell us that we cannot even begin to deport the supposedly 12 million illegals, nor enforce border security now. 

First off, it should be pointed out that the elites may well know something that the rest of us do not; we possibly have ,more than 12 million illegals.  Some estimates run as high as 20 million, and the numbers bandied about by the media are from the PEW Hispanic center, which is only outdone by the U.S. Census Bureau in meagreness.  Deporting 12 million is tough, but kicking 20 million out would be a lot tougher.

And it would be far more dangerous politically, which could explain the fear in both parties over this issue; 12 million people are not chump-change politically in a nation of 300 million, but 20 million is 1/15 of the population — a respectable grouping.  One would really have to worry about political fallout from such a large and growing underclass.  If the illegals are "regularized" and their children all become voters, what will happen to the party that didn't support their ambitions? 

Of course, since these immigrants are largely uneducated, largely poor migrants coming here to make a better living, they will give their loyalty to whomever offers them the most — which means their children will be loyal Democrats because the Republicans cannot compete with Democrats when it comes to booty doled from the public treasury.  Who can blame them?  Conservatism is for those with a greater stake in society.  These people came here for economic reasons, and the Democrats will give them more.

The Republicans seem incapable of learning; they freed the slaves, and pushed through civil rights for blacks in the 20th century, yet the black vote goes overwhelmingly to the Democrats.  Why?  Because gratitude does not count for much in matters of money and politics, and the Democrats bought the leadership of the African-American community years ago. They will do it again if given this opportunity. The Republicans are slicing their own throats.

But, it is argued, we can`t make all these people leave, we must "regularize them," bring them from the shadows. I beg to differ. I understand the argument; it's the old Marching Chinese dilemma.  The idea was that, if you lined up every person from China and had them march past a certain point, you would never have an end to the parade because the Chinese at the end of the line would be reproducing as fast as the marchers walked past.  It is also the reason why the establishment of Liberia in Africa after the Civil War was only half-hearted; it was determined that there was no way freed blacks could be expatriated fast enough to make any difference — at least not with the slow means of travel at their disposal.

Now, in 1864 a proposal was suggested whereby the armies of Lee and Grant would unite under joint command, invade Mexico, and resettle American blacks there, thus solving a major dilemma for both sections of the country.  This proposal, too, was rejected as unworkable — although I suspect it was becoming apparent that the days of the Confederacy were numbered, and the North didn`t want this solution because it would be pleasing to the South.  In both situations with the former slaves transportation was the bottleneck, and it would be next to impossible to accomplish.  Ditto with the Marching Chinese; if they were all given race cars and didn't have to parade in a line you would not have that dilemma.

What we need is a different analogy.  Suppose you were to go on a picnic, and had the misfortune of placing your blanket near an ant hill.  Immediately you notice ants climbing over your blanket in an effort to reach the basket full of potato salad, fried chicken, and biscuits.  What is to be done?  You really bear the ants no ill-will, so you take some of the food out and place it to the side, hoping to satisfy the ants by giving them some of what they want so they leave your picnic basket alone.  What happens next?  Instead of a dozen ants you have hundreds swarming over your entire blanket.  They are not satisfied with the morsels set out for them, but come to take it all. 

This is exactly what happened when we tried amnesty before; by letting these lawbreakers off the hook, by actually rewarding their efforts, it became obvious that America was a great picnic basket waiting to be fed upon.  Their numbers increased exponentially when we fed them.

President Bush and Congress are preparing an all-you-can-eat buffet, and the President, at least, believes this will somehow stem the tide. They don`t seem to grasp that the guest-worker program is the equivalent of a giant dinner bell calling the hungry to feast.

This analogy can be likewise applied to the removal of illegals.  Image your house overrun by ants. They are in your pantry, your cupboard, behind your refrigerator and stove, under your couch and dresser and in your bathtub.  Oh dear, what to do?  Do you run through the house swatting at individual ants?  Do you round them up in a glass jar and set them outside your kitchen door? 

Of course not! Any rational person knows to buy bug spray and treat the house in judicious spots.  Find the place where the ants enter and plug it in some fashion.  Keep the house clean to avoid attracting any more, and look for ant hills outside where they congregate before coming in. Eventually the armies of ants will eventually disappear; you have defeat them by attrition.  The house becomes unwelcome to them, they have nothing to eat, and they can't travel freely to their ant-hill so they leave.  You do not have to catch every ant and toss them outside (where they will come right back in), you simply have to ENFORCE YOUR POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. 

These principles apply whether we are talking ants, mice, roaches, or any other unwanted guests. We have to make our house (the United States) an unwelcome place by checking immigration status, by punishing employers for hiring illegals, by demanding payment of taxes, by confiscating money and possessions of any illegals we catch, by arresting them and punishing them accordingly.  I have always believed we should put arrested illegals to work for a few months building the border fence, right where other aspiring invaders can see them.  Let everyone see how they are losing a season's pay and being forced to work for nothing.  It needn't be hard or degrading work, but it should be very visible to dissuade others.  Meanwhile, heavy border enforcement with an emphasis on keeping people out while letting those who want to leave travel unmolested would be a big help.  Finally, we need to deal with Mexico itself, force the Mexicans to stop supporting this invasion and take steps to arrest the coyotes and those who aid in human trafficking. Link financial aid for Mexico to market economic reform.  

But, you say, illegal immigrants are not ants but human beings with free will and dignity. Exactly!  Unlike ants, they can be reasoned with. They will grasp what is happening much more quickly, and will be quick to hightail it out of the country. They will self-deport because there will be no incentive to stay.  The last thing we need to do is encourage them with promises of citizenship and "guest" status.

The fact is, if we regularize one fellow we create a demand for others. What is going to happen when we regularize a worker?  He'll be subject to labor laws, to wage laws, to unionization.  These things will mean an improvement in his life in some ways, but will make him less attractive to the bottom-rung employers who currently seek such laborers out.  This fellow will move up, vacating the spot he once occupied, and his cousin will take the risk of coming to fill his position as an illegal, confident that nobody will stop him and that, eventually, he'll get the same kind of deal.  It creates a human labor chain, an endless incentive to keep coming. 

Mr. Bush argues that it is the moral thing to do, that "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande."  I ask; is it moral to force poor Hispanics to wander the Earth in search of a living?  Is indentured servitude a fair price to make Americans feel morally righteous?  Just as welfare was so destructive to poor Americans by creating a cycle of dependency, so, too, illegal immigration creates a cycle of dependency in which Mexican families and the Mexican government have become addicted to the wealth their expatriated poor generate in the United States.  Mexico's socialists need take no steps to reform their economy, to make a better life for their people, because they can just export the problem.  This is, like welfare, a self-sustaining cycle; the more people Mexico can send to the States the more money comes in.  The more money comes in, the less pressure the Mexican government is under.  The less pressure they are under the worse the economy becomes, which means more people seek to flee to the United States . . .

Real compassion sometimes means hard actions.  There is nothing compassionate about making Mexico's poor wander the Earth as vagabonds. Compassion would require us to force Mexico to face her problems.

The peoples of Mexico had three times as much time to fill their northern territories as it took the United States to fill the west.  They never did manage to do that, and the Anglo peoples of North America came to dominate the continent.  The United States succeeded because of a healthy immigration policy which emphasized assimilation. Scots, Irish, Germans, Italians, came here by droves, yet they all threw themselves into the melting pot and conquered the empty spaces as Americans.  Now, having allowed the United States to pacify the wilderness and subdue it, many Mexicans want "their" land back, and they are going to take it by chasing out their poor.  If these poor would assimilate it could be a wonderful thing, but there appears to be little incentive for them to do so.  We are witnessing a reversal of Manifest Destiny, where the Mexican illegals see the Reconquista as their Divinely ordained destiny. 

Thomas Jefferson thought it would take a thousand years to settle the Louisiana Territory.  He was wrong.  How long do you suppose it will take our friendly trespassing neighbors to do it?