House approves U.S.-Mexican border fence

[Evo]

:rofl: A fence? This is going to stop illegal immigrants? Right now the problem is that fences are no deterrant as they simply put up makeshift ladders to go over them.

I LOVE this - "Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the separate fence bill was needed to show Americans "we can take meaningful action to secure the border." :rofl:

""We have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border ... where we're now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," said Rep. Ed Royce (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif." The fence is now for stopping Hezbollah from crossing the border. OK.

"It also calls for a study of the need for a fence on the U.S.-Canadian border." Ok, now THAT I can understand.

2-7 billion dollars

I'm still in disbelief, maybe I'm just too tired to grasp why this makes sense.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/border_security

 

[franznietzsche]

:rofl: A fence? This is going to stop illegal immigrants? Right now the problem is that fences are no deterrant as they simply put up makeshift ladders to go over them.

I LOVE this - "Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the separate fence bill was needed to show Americans "we can take meaningful action to secure the border." :rofl:

""We have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border ... where we're now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," said Rep. Ed Royce (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif." The fence is now for stopping Hezbollah from crossing the border. OK.

2-7 billion dollars

I'm still in disbelief, maybe I'm just too tired to grasp why this makes sense.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/border_security

700 miles? Thats less than half the border (it might be the part of the border not made by rivers actually...)

Though the senate bill said 370 miles, which is about 1/4 of the border. And they like amnesty. I think we should give as many criminals amnesty as possible, don't you? A few million should.

 

[Evo]

One question, is the Canadian/American fence intended to keep Canadians out or Americans in? :uhh:

 

[Cyrus]

Well, I mean, they do have to employ all those illegals to build that fence.

 

[Gokul43201]

One question, is the Canadian/American fence intended to keep Canadians out or Americans in? :uhh:

It's actually intended to prevent migratory birds from disrespecting international borders! :tongue:

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, I mean, they do have to employ all those illegals to build that fence.

Makes me think of a motivational poster I say, espousing teamwork and showing an image of the great wall in china. The lesson I took away from it is that teamwork involves using the bodies of your workers in the most efficient way possible, and remembering that if they die, you don't have to pay them. Teamwork.

 

[Rach3]

""We have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border ... where we're now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," said Rep. Ed Royce (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif."

The poor, confused representative is mistaking Lebanon with Mexico.

 

[Cyrus]

The poor, confused representative is mistaking Lebanon with Mexico.

HAAAAAAH! :rofl:

 

[Rach3]

While we're at it, let's build a giant mesh net around the Earth to keep out giant asteroids.

 

[Evo]

While we're at it, let's build a giant mesh net around the Earth to keep out giant asteroids.

Why not, there's just as much chance of that working as the fence.

And how much is the projected annual maintenance cost for this fence? Surely we have to patrol the fence for breeches, how much is that going to cost? It's 700 miles long, how are they going to patrol it?

Or are we supposed to just pretend that it's an unpassable barrier, therefor no need to check for illegals going over it. If we don't look it's not happening, right? According to this, we only need to station border patrols at the ends of the fence, the only place we'll need to watch.

"Supporters of the new House bill said the new fencing would let Border Patrol agents focus more on apprehending illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico rather than having to man the entire border."

 

[Astronuc]

I LOVE this - "Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the separate fence bill was needed to show Americans "we can take meaningful action to secure the border." :rofl:

Well, we're still waiting for meaningful action. Hey - is that actually possible in Washington, DC? What does someone from NY know about the southern border?

""We have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border ... where we're now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," said Rep. Ed Royce (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif." The fence is now for stopping Hezbollah from crossing the border. OK.

OK, this guy got hold of some bad dope, and maybe it was dusted.

"It also calls for a study of the need for a fence on the U.S.-Canadian border." Ok, now THAT I can understand.

You can? I worried now.

I'm still in disbelief, maybe I'm just too tired to grasp why this makes sense.

Oh, OK, you're in disbelief and doubt this makes sense. This is a normal response. I would really worry if you had concluded that this makes sense.

The last time I check Hezbollah was still in Lebanon, but maybe they and every terroist group are amassing on the southern border in Mexico - disguised as toursitas.

Uh huh.

 

[Skyhunter]

""We have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border ... where we're now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," said Rep. Ed Royce (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif."

This is anecdotal, but alludes to the biggest problem Bush has created with his rhetoric. The names are interchangable, it is all about hate and fear. Hate the immigrant, fear the terrorist.

The poor, confused representative is mistaking Lebanon with Mexico.

It is from minds like Ed Royces, that ideas like this fence come from.

I certainly hope that the Senate stops this. It is a bad idea on so many levels. I doubt they will, since immigration is the gay-marriage issue of 2006.

Sometimes watching politics in action depresses me..

 

[devil-fire]

i recall someone saying they were going to use unmaned airal vehicles to monitor the mexican boarder... i think the UAVs used by the us gov cost something like tens of millions of dollars. they are trying to make it look like they are doing a whole lot to monitor this boarder but I am not sure if they are actualy trying to spend as little money to the most effect here, but i digress from the wall i think.

a tall wall including razor wire and some kind of localized disturbance alarm would slow people down a good deal and would give authoritys somewhere to focus their survailance. the cost of puting up a wall like this for as many hundreds of miles would be a lot i expect.

btw, does anyone know where this wall will actualy be built? will it be right on the boarder or will it be in mecixo a few miles or what?

 

[Yonoz]

Every modern defense doctrine recognises that barriers are useless unless they and the tactical depth they give can be observed. An indicative fence will show when and where it is disturbed. A stationary or mobile observation device is immediately directed to the location, and a mobile force is directed to the last known location of the trespassers. We use Bedouin trackers that can do wonders with a few disturbed pebbles. A soft sand strip, usually adjacent to the fence makes it easy even for untrained personnel to identify the nature of the intrusion. Patrols can then be limited to a twice-daily routine and the forces on alert can be located further away. UAVs can be a cheaper and even necessary complement when there is a large tactical depth, making it possible for a very small ground force to hold a large area.
I can't think of a reason to put up a fence on the Canadian border...

 

[Evo]

I can't think of a reason to put up a fence on the Canadian border...

I'm sure it's to stop terrorists. And what's to stop people from blowing up part of an unmanned fence? Just doing it to cause a nuisance to the point that constant replacement is needed, this would soon become a nightmare to maintain.

What about tunneling under the fence?

 

[Yonoz]

I'm sure it's to stop terrorists. And what's to stop people from blowing up part of an unmanned fence? Just doing it to cause a nuisance to the point that constant replacement is needed, this would soon become a nightmare to maintain.

That is why the barrier needs to be observed. Anyway I think it's preferable to the US that its enemies blow up fences - replacing a fence doesn't normally cost lives. If it becomes a nuisance it will be easier to capture the perpetrators.

What about tunneling under the fence?

That is a problem. Again, it's better to have your enemies building tunnnels (which are easier to locate the more extensively they're used). If there is enough of a clear area before and after the fence, it would take quite an effort to construct a long enough tunnel. There are various ways to register suspicious movements in a large area empty from people and large animals.

 

[devil-fire]

UAVs can be a cheaper and even necessary complement when there is a large tactical depth, making it possible for a very small ground force to hold a large area.

since the area isn't moving, i think the cheaper option would be to put a series of cameras along the wall's length.

I'm sure it's to stop terrorists. And what's to stop people from blowing up part of an unmanned fence? Just doing it to cause a nuisance to the point that constant replacement is needed, this would soon become a nightmare to maintain.

i thought about this too actually. the destruction of federal property is a serious offense and enough to persecute the people who did it. right now there are a lot of mexicans who are caught trying to cross the boarder and get nothing more then a free ride back to where they started, no fines, no over night prison time, no nothing. if they got caught trying to blow a whole in the wall, i bet they could get years in prison. aside from that, i don't think the typical illegal immigrant knows how to or is willing to make a large explosive

 

[Rach3]

Evo, I really cannot make heads or tails of this:

I'm sure it's to stop terrorists. And what's to stop people from blowing up part of an unmanned fence? Just doing it to cause a nuisance to the point that constant replacement is needed, this would soon become a nightmare to maintain.

What about tunneling under the fence?

Indeed! What could possibly stop a dirt-poor family seeking to cross a desert border from building a large bomb and vaporizing a thirty-meter section of chickenmesh,so as to raise the Americans' maintenance costs? Nothing! We scarce breathe, paralyzed with newfound terror.

 

[Rach3]

i thought about this too actually. the destruction of federal property is a serious offense and enough to persecute the people who did it.

Prosecute, Persecute, Presecute, Acute, Execute, Insecute, Subsecute, Supersecute, Too Cute?

 

[Rach3]

since the area isn't moving, i think the cheaper option would be to put a series of cameras along the wall's length.

And monitor two million metres of desert. With highly skilled personnel. And rapid-response units every 10km. All in order to drive down cheap labor supply and raise wages (in an economical manner).

 

[Evo]

Evo, I really cannot make heads or tails of this:

Indeed! What could possibly stop a dirt-poor family seeking to cross a desert border from building a large bomb and vaporizing a thirty-meter section of chickenmesh,so as to raise the Americans' maintenance costs? Nothing! We scarce breathe, paralyzed with newfound terror.

You missed the part about how the fence is to stop Hezbollah?

 

[Rach3]

Perhaps I can be convinced. Here's an open challenge to explain to me various points I have yet to understand:

-Why there's an economically compelling reason to stop immigration of cheap labor
-Why there's a socially compelling justification for the same
-Why terrorists prefer to enter the country by way of desert borders, and why they face greater hardship by other means like temporary visas
-Whether we're addressing destitute Mexicans or radical terrorists, and if the same strategy fits both
-How chickenmesh would solve everything
-How, technically, unmanned aerial vehicles would solve everything (in combination with chickenmesh)
-How the agencies could effectively monitor ten thousand cameras and back them up with paramilitary support
-Where is there historical precedent where similar methodologies were effective and beneficial (Berlin Wall doesn't count!)
-Why tunnels won't defeat everything
-Why ladders won't defeat everything
-Why desperate smugglers in 130mph speeding vehicles won't defeat everything
-How all of the above can be solved in a federal legistlative session
-In particular, the one we have now
-And how it's all cost effective (reflecting of course, some sort of tangible economic benefits to all this)
-And how the issue, being so recently pieced together from disjointed corspes like some hideous election-year Frankenstein, will remain politically sharp long enough to ensure it won't get under-funded, half-funded, partially funded, partially cancelled, ignored, contracted to Halliburton, contracted to FEMA, not contracted, contracted to Mexican drug smugglers, boondoggled, Katrina'ed, mired in inflated budget estimates, tax-slashed, ineffectively deployed, incompetently employed, drowned in corruption, burned in interagency poltics, forgotten in politics, exhiled into a perpetual state of multibillion-dollar zombiehood like GWB/Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (born: March 1983; died - never), privatized, nationalized, unscrutinized, corruptisized, or afflicted with the plague

 

[Rach3]

You missed the part about how the fence is to stop Hezbollah?

What, Lebanese guerrilas are targeting our chickenmesh?

 

[scorpa]

:
"It also calls for a study of the need for a fence on the U.S.-Canadian border." Ok, now THAT I can understand.

Hmmm yes watch out for us :tongue:

 

[Yonoz]

since the area isn't moving, i think the cheaper option would be to put a series of cameras along the wall's length.

Stationary cameras are problematic in some circumstances, such as mountaineous areas and thick vegetation because they offer a fixed point of view. It's very easy for anyone to figure out these cameras' dead zones - if you see the camera, the camera can see you. Furthermore, each camera is usually located on a very tall tower, making them quite expensive to put up and maintain, especially in remote regions. It's no good just sticking cameras 2m off the ground, they will not be effective, and it will necessitate many cameras - cameras that not only need to be paid for, but also be watched by someone.
UAVs have become quite cheap and versatile, don't require towers and kilometres of cable, and are easier to upgrade when better surveilance technology is available.

 

[siddharth]

Perhaps I can be convinced. Here's an open challenge to explain to me various points I have yet to understand:

-Why there's an economically compelling reason to stop immigration of cheap labor
-Why there's a socially compelling justification for the same
-Why terrorists prefer to enter the country by way of desert borders, and why they face greater hardship by other means like temporary visas
-Whether we're addressing destitute Mexicans or radical terrorists, and if the same strategy fits both
-How chickenmesh would solve everything
-How, technically, unmanned aerial vehicles would solve everything (in combination with chickenmesh)
-How the agencies could effectively monitor ten thousand cameras and back them up with paramilitary support
-Where is there historical precedent where similar methodologies were effective and beneficial (Berlin Wall doesn't count!)
-Why tunnels won't defeat everything
-Why ladders won't defeat everything
-Why desperate smugglers in 130mph speeding vehicles won't defeat everything
-How all of the above can be solved in a federal legistlative session
-In particular, the one we have now
-And how it's all cost effective (reflecting of course, some sort of tangible economic benefits to all this)
-And how the issue, being so recently pieced together from disjointed corspes like some hideous election-year Frankenstein, will remain politically sharp long enough to ensure it won't get under-funded, half-funded, partially funded, partially cancelled, ignored, contracted to Halliburton, contracted to FEMA, not contracted, contracted to Mexican drug smugglers, boondoggled, Katrina'ed, mired in inflated budget estimates, tax-slashed, ineffectively deployed, incompetently employed, drowned in corruption, burned in interagency poltics, forgotten in politics, exhiled into a perpetual state of multibillion-dollar zombiehood like GWB/Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (born: March 1983; died - never), privatized, nationalized, unscrutinized, corruptisized, or afflicted with the plague

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Yonoz]

Why terrorists prefer to enter the country by way of desert borders, and why they face greater hardship by other means like temporary visas

It is indeed a very rare scenario, but if there's an individual that cannot risk capture by the authorities it would be a reasonable route. Why such an individual would want to enter the states is beyond me.

-How chickenmesh would solve everything
-Why desperate smugglers in 130mph speeding vehicles won't defeat everything

Modern barriers are far from chickenmesh. They involve quite a wide and deep tunnel all across the planned barriers to house cabling, filled with concrete that serves as a steady base to the poles. There are several options for what's on top, that include placing modular pre-cast concrete wedges that can be piled into any given size; placing pre-cast reinforced concrete defense posts with an optional living area; erecting an indicative fence with an optional vehicle barrier, not unlike highway barriers. The latter option is the most economical. The fence is composed of dozens of trigger wires with rather sensitive sensors (in windy conditions there are sometimes false alerts, but those are usually discernible as the operator is indicated the geometry and characteristics of the disturbance), positioned in several layers, each with its unique characteristic relevant to its height. At the top is an ultra-sensitive trigger wire. The aforementioned soft sand strip allows a patrol to arrive at the spot and examine for penetration, when staffed with a good tracker it is the most accurate tool.
This can be complemented by other observation devices such as tactical radars and vehicle-mounted intelligence units. When placed correctly, they are highly effective though they require more personnel and maintainance.

-How, technically, unmanned aerial vehicles would solve everything (in combination with chickenmesh)

That depends on what you call everything. These barriers are of quite limited effectiveness in certain conditions that I would rather not discuss. However, if I was to decide how to close the Mexican border to illegal immigrants (and terrorists?) in the most cost-effective way I would choose an array of an indicative fence with a vehicle barrier, stationary cameras where they would be efficient, and UAVs for the largest and least active sections.

-How the agencies could effectively monitor ten thousand cameras and back them up with paramilitary support

The cameras relay their feeds by cabling and radio signals to a command center. From my very limited experience with Americans, it would probably be constructed NORAD-style with lots of cubicles manned by operators organised into a single large unit. Each operator can operate any given number of cameras, thanks to modern variable sensitivity motion detection systems that alert the operator when certain disturbances are picked up by one of its cameras. Individual posts will probably interface with a central system to which the operator can input data, and have it put on a really big screen (generals love big screens). The command center will be linked to the ground forces by simple radio relays. These forces can be spread out in small bases at the rear of the tactical depth, where the off-duty force will serve as a reserve that can intercept anyone outrunning the patrol on-duty.

-Where is there historical precedent where similar methodologies were effective and beneficial (Berlin Wall doesn't count!)

Both the barrier around the Gaza Strip and the controversial separation barrier have proved very effective in stopping infiltrations. I do not intend to enter a discussion about their moral value, but they are certainly extremely valuable in an operational perspective. There have been ways of circumventing certain elements of the barriers but it takes so much work to avoid being identified as you're crossing the physical barrier, it's statistically impossible that you won't be picked up by an observation device. Again, additional elements can be used to concentrate an effort on a particular section that is problematic, effectively sealing it (of course, someone can always f*ck their job up).

-Why tunnels won't defeat everything

Again, that depends on how big a buffer zone you have and where you place complementing resources. Tunnels are a possibility, but one that severely limits the infiltrators. Use the tunnel too much, and someone will find out - so the smugglers/infiltrators have to work really hard to dig it, and then be patient and overcome their greed and self-confidence and use the tunnel conservatively - which they normally don't. So it's a possibility, but a rare one.

-Why ladders won't defeat everything

A ladder enables to cross the barrier quite quickly. However, if it is a brute method the fence will indicate it. If it is a custom-constructed ladder to enable crossing the fence without triggering it, it will be impossible to carry it across the fence, increasing the chance of discovery by other means.

 

[Rach3]

Tunnels are a possibility, but one that severely limits the infiltrators. Use the tunnel too much, and someone will find out - so the smugglers/infiltrators have to work really hard to dig it, and then be patient and overcome their greed and self-confidence and use the tunnel conservatively - which they normally don't. So it's a possibility, but a rare one.

They're relatively common and effective here. Some of the big ones went months or years without discovery.

A ladder enables to cross the barrier quite quickly. However, if it is a brute method the fence will indicate it. If it is a custom-constructed ladder to enable crossing the fence without triggering it, it will be impossible to carry it across the fence, increasing the chance of discovery by other means.

Easy: Two smugglers coordinate by radio. One drives refugees up to the fence, sets up the ladder, they jump over, the other picks them up and goes 100mph/160kph to evade authorities. The patrol does not chase for fear of causualties. Repeat many times, at random locations. There was an article just last week, about ~10 fatalities when a human smuggler tried to evade arrest.

Or perhaps wirecutters. Or going around the fence (it's only 1/3 of the border). Or explosives, or tunnels, or boats on the Rio Grande. Or through water pipes near Los Angeles (well documented on CNN).

Keep in mind, the Gaza barrier is some 50 times shorter than this border (100 times shorter than Canadian), and has virtually no comparable threat to that in Israel. A few drug smugglers, zero terrorists, and a whole lot of unarmed refugees. Not much of an incentive.

 

[Yonoz]

They're relatively common and effective here. Some of the big ones went months or years without discovery.

I am unfamiliar with the border, is it by any chance in a location where there are civilian populations near both sides of a narrow border? As I said, under some conditions the barrier can be circumvented quite easily. I wouldn't apply this particular solution in certain environments.

Easy: Two smugglers coordinate by radio. One drives refugees up to the fence, sets up the ladder, they jump over, the other picks them up and goes 100mph/160kph to evade authorities. The patrol does not chase for fear of causualties. Repeat many times, at random locations. There was an article just last week, about ~10 fatalities when a human smuggler tried to evade arrest.

I am not familiar with the current set-up, but my assumption was that patrols will try to chase intruders - they're useless if they can't. The barrier can only be used identify infiltrations, not capture them, unless you want to use bear traps and electrocuted fences.

Or perhaps wirecutters.

That will be discovered immediately by the indicative fence. Operator directs camera to location, and directs a patrol to the intruders.

Or going around the fence (it's only 1/3 of the border).

That is a possibility.

Or explosives, or tunnels, or boats on the Rio Grande.

Explosives will be heard all around, patrols will start moving there immediately. We've already covered tunnels. There's very little a ground barrier can do against boats.

Or through water pipes near Los Angeles (well documented on CNN).

I think you can come up with a solution to that just as well as I.

Keep in mind, the Gaza barrier is some 50 times shorter than this border (100 times shorter than Canadian), and has virtually no comparable threat to that in Israel.

Obviously, the resources needed will be of that magnitude, but it is implementable nonetheless.

A few drug smugglers, zero terrorists, and a whole lot of unarmed refugees. Not much of an incentive.

I only said it was possible. I don't know enough to decide whether it's needed or not.

 

[Yonoz]

I'd just like to emphasize that barriers aren't meant to stop intrusions, but to slow them down and expose them. It is only a part of a defensive array.

 

[ptabor]

In response to Rach3:

Why there's a socially justifiable reason:

How about enforcement of our laws? Our laws say that if you want to enter this country, you must follow a certain procedure to do it legally. If we were to grant amnesty to those who enter illegally, this wouldn't be very fair to those who followed the proper channels, no? By granting amnesty, we would be saying that we don't respect our own laws. Where would you stop? We'd have to grant amnesty to all criminals at that point.

In addition, many of these illegal immigrants are capable of voting (most states don't require you to display proof of citizenship) - which should be obviously unacceptable.

As for an economic reason:

Despite what some may want to believe about the american worker, many americans will go out and work in agriculture (indeed, most of the people employed in the agricultural industry are americans); by employing an illegal you are taking a job away from a citizen.

And of course, there is the issue of healthcare and schooling. These immigrants send their families to our schools, to sap our taxpayer dollars so that the class can be taught in english and spanish because they don't want to learn our language.

As far as a wall goes:

Yeah, this sounds far fetched. It's not likely to be a fix for the issue. A better measure would be to enforce hard prison time for those that employ illegals. A revamp of our current system would be in order, to make it more difficult to falsify the necessary documents to receive education and health care.

As to terrorists coming across the border, I believe this argument is two fold. First, it is to draw away the attention of the american people from the glaring incompetence of our government. The very basic job of a government is to secure its borders from foreign invasion, and to protect its citizens from attack. On both these accounts, they have failed miserably.

Second, is of course to keep the taxpayers scared so they'll agree to just about anything.

This is not to say that there is no legitimacy to the argument itself. While it must be demonstrated that terrorist factions are currently hopping the border, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that it could happen in the future. After all, many of those on this forum may have said prior to 9/11 that it was ridiculous to think that terrorists were coming into our country via a plane. Even more ridiculous to think that they could have been training in our schools to hijack our own aircraft to kill our citizens.

I perceive the threat from the border to be real. I will say, however, that it requires real action and not rhetoric on the part of our politicians.

 

[Rach3]

In response to Rach3:

Why there's a socially justifiable reason:

How about enforcement of our laws? Our laws say that if you want to enter this country, you must follow a certain procedure to do it legally. If we were to grant amnesty to those who enter illegally, this wouldn't be very fair to those who followed the proper channels, no? By granting amnesty, we would be saying that we don't respect our own laws. Where would you stop? We'd have to grant amnesty to all criminals at that point.

But why? I don't see why Congress should throw away $50 billion+ (an open-ended figure) to enforce a regulation that's bad for businesses anyway. Leave intrusive, socialist micromanagement to the Soviets.

 

[Yonoz]

Leave intrusive, socialist micromanagement to the Soviets.

I wouldn't call this micromanagement. Besides, it's this very attitude that is the cause for illegal immigration.

 

[ptabor]

heh, bad for business?

The same argument could have been made for slave owners in the south. It's bad for business to have to pay your employees, certainly, but it's also part of the government's job to protect the fair market.

By allowing this immigration and allowing employers to pay these people dirt cheap wages, we would apply a downward pressure on the wages of low skilled workers all around the country. This would lead to a decrease in our way of life.

Face the facts, if having a large pool of unskilled workers were the key to economic success, we'd be crossing the border into mexico, not the other way around.

 

[Rach3]

By allowing this immigration and allowing employers to pay these people dirt cheap wages, we would apply a downward pressure on the wages of low skilled workers all around the country. This would lead to a decrease in our way of life.

Decrease in unskilled wage, decrease in supply costs, increase in domestic production, increase in income disparity. All kinds of tradeoffs - certainly not a straightforward "decrease in our way of life" (there are strong arguments for the opposite). Keep in mind that (in an economic sense) immigration controls are little more than trade barriers, a restriction on imports of labor. As such unskilled labor wages are artificially high, inflating supply prices and decreasing the competitiveness of our businesses on the international market (as well as depressing net production!).

In one sense it's a tradeoff between mean economic health on one side, and wage equity on the other. But of course the current status quo is not a free market, but an aritifically regulated state.