It is, by now, well known—or should be—that conservatives do not peddle solutions to social problems, for the simple reason that there are no “solutions” to social problems. Edmund Burke enunciated this in his famous aphorism, There are no permanent victories as there are no permanent defeats. But this is less than a counsel of despair. And over the weekend I listened to an American of extraordinary personal achievements (among other things, he has visited the moon), who encouraged his conversational companion to think out loud about certain problems that we know exist.
Take, for instance, the matter of illegal immigration. There is Mexico, to the south of us, for whose people we desire only the best, our war with Mexico having concluded 135 years ago. But we cannot accept all the Mexicans who would like to live in America, for reasons it is vulgar to go into. And yet, although we have laws, we all know that these laws are not being enforced, because, given the existing situation, they are unenforceable. The existing situation is that any Mexican who chooses to come into the country illegally has very little trouble in doing so. Occasionally they are caught; indeed, south of San Diego, one Mexican was caught seven times. He must have been extraordinarily informal, because usually it isn’t necessary to be caught. All you need to do is wear a red wig, or whatever.
Is there a solution?
Well, my friend said, why not a wall? Instantly the mind turns to a Berlin Wall. But a wall designed to keep people from coming in—the kind of wall you would build around Fort Knox—need not be so punitive in character as such a wall as you would construct to keep people from getting out—of Sing Sing, for instance—with watchtowers, and machine guns.
Do we want to build a two-thousand-mile-long wall, with barbed wire and land mines, to keep illegals from coming into the country? Who says A, must say B. If you desire an end, you must accept the means necessary for the realization of that end. Just a thought.
Do we want to build a two-thousand-mile-long wall, with barbed wire and land mines, to keep illegals from coming into the country?
Another question. What about the illegal drugs pouring into this country? It is estimated that somewhere between 85 per cent and 95 per cent of the stuff that comes up from Latin America reaches U.S. consumers, and the returns are measured in broken families, broken bodies, suicide, theft, muggings, and murder. Our Coast Guard stops a lot of vessels, finds the dope, makes arrests, seizes the booty, and in due course the vendors are released, and they go out again. But the important datum is that if your chances are 85 per cent of getting through, you are encouraged to continue in the enterprise.
So, my inquisitive friend said, why not shoot down the vessels that carry the stuff?
You mean after you get the people off the boat?
No no no. You miss my point! The people stay on the boat.
How would you—old shoe—reconcile that policy with the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees fair trials, etc. etc.?
Well, you see, the Constitution of the United States authorizes Congress to grant “letters of marque and reprisal.” So that you might consider deputizing free-enterprise counter-pirates to stop the drug traffic, which is itself a form of aggressive piracy. These entrepreneurs would go out to sea, stop vessels coming up from Latin America, and search them. If drugs were discovered, a frogman from the counter-pirate fleet would descend to the keel of the drug-smuggler boat and plant an explosive on it. The apprehending vessel would withdraw, and in a couple of minutes the pirates’ boat would go down, with all hands.
But—but, you would in effect be sanctioning the continuing execution, without trial, of a lot of people!
I don’t think so. You see, precisely the point is that there wouldn’t be a lot of people, after the first, oh, dozen sinkings. The drug smugglers would decide that, on the whole, it was more pleasant to stay home. But the congressional grant would remain in force—as required to dull the appetite. I’d guess that would stop most of the drug trade. That was the point of the discussion, wasn’t it?
— William F. Buckley Jr. was the founder and editor of National Review.