”Limits” are a funny thing…they can be cautionary, they can serve as a challenge to be met, or they can be both.
For example, posted speed limits serve as a safety warning but they can also serve as a challenge to those who like to see the extent to which they can be exceeded before suffering the consequences of receiving a speeding ticket.
Limits may also be viewed as thresholds…points that you may or may not want to exceed depending on whether the consequence of doing so is a reward or a punishment. For example, if I am a sales person I may have to achieve a certain threshold level of sales before I start to earn a commission or bonus. If I am young child my parents may set a limit on the amount of screen time I am allowed each day. Or maybe as a teenager they set a curfew time.
Regardless of the reason for or the nature of a limit, setting it provides implicit approval, encouragement and/or permission for actions or behaviors leading up to the limit.
Moreover, limits or thresholds only work if there are consequences for exceeding or not exceeding them…a speeding ticket, a bonus, or continued access to an IPad.
When the consequence of a exceeding a limit is punitive most people get as close to the limit as possible or try to circumvent it in a way so that they will not suffer any repercussions. We are all familiar with the expression “pushing the limit.”
Sometimes limits are viewed as suggestions…not something to abide by but more guide posts to be maneuvered around or between. Moreover limits only work when there is strict enforcement.
Which brings me to the proposed bipartisan senate package on immigration.
According to Newsday, the proposed package on immigration sets limits and thresholds on the number of permissible migrants that may enter the country before our borders will be shut.
Specifically, the measure would allow the president to close the border if:
– the number of migrants exceeds 4,000 per day for more than a week.
– the number of migrants exceeds 5,000 per day for a week, or
– if it reaches a number of 8,500 on a single day.
On the face of it a quick calculation would have us believe that “only” 1,460,000 migrants would be allowed to enter illegally each year. Right? No. It’s significantly more than that.
From my reading of this it means that in a one week period (presuming a week runs Sunday through Saturday), every other week it would allow some 5,000 to enter for five consecutive days or 25,000; 8,499 to enter one day; and 4,000 to enter one day for a total of 37,499. That comes to 1,012,473 annually ( 26 weeks times 37,499). For the other 26 weeks or 182 days, 4,000 would be allowed each day or 728,000 annually for a grand total of 1,740,473. That ends up averaging over the course of the year 4,768 per day yet the border would never be closed even though the number exceeds 4,000 per day for more than a week.
The question is whether this proposed solution does anything to stem the tide of illegal immigration or simply provides guide posts that can be exploited in order to circumvent the limits that have been established. I assert it does nothing to stem the tide. Also, these limits give tacit approval to illegal immigration. Why?
In fact, the only effective way to discourage illegal immigration is to establish a rule that says anyone entering illegally between regulated ports of entry will be immediately detained and deported and sent back to their own country and have to wait 10 years in order to apply for asylum or a visa. This is the only way to control our borders and re-establish our sovereignty as a nation. Anything less just continues us on the path to becoming a third world country.
Tough? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.