Each time we deport an illegal immigrant there should be an outstanding charge of $100,000 plus the cost of deportation attached to that individual. In addition, the illegal immigrants nation of citizenship should be charged $100,000 as well as the crossing nation; these funds should be collected via tariffs.
Obviously the illegal immigrant isn't going to pay the fine. But if they get caught again, we jail them and put them to work at minimum wage to pay off their fine (two since they are a repeat offender).
We don't want them to engage in labor that would be better off in the free market, so I have a solution. Something that would be nice to get done, but wouldn't make a dent in the free market labor pool: have them dig rainwater harvesting holes in the desert areas of America to catch rainwater. A 2-4 foot deep hole, 5-10 feet wide placed every 20-30 feet would turn huge areas green. In a few decades it would be enough to turn the entire southwest into a green patch.
"...have them dig rainwater harvesting holes in the desert areas of America to catch rainwater. A 2-4 foot deep hole, 5-10 feet wide placed every 20-30 feet would turn huge areas green. In a few decades it would be enough to turn the entire southwest into a green patch."
What you are proposing would destroy the ecosystem -- an ecosystem that has persisted for thousands of years and has many plant and animal species adapted for that ecosystem.
We don't need more water in deserts. They do just fine without us meddling in something as you proposed. Making the "southwest green" would be as destructive as tearing it apart with a bulldozer. Even something as benign-sounding as free-ranging cattle has an impact upon arid/desert regions, because the manure changes the soil over time, and cattle eating the choicest plants alters entire plant/animal communities.
Incorrect. It would not destroy the ecosystem, it would provide more water for that ecosystem, while reducing erosion.
Why the insane hyperbole?
You obviously don't have an understanding of how fragile a desert ecosystem is. This isn't hyperbole. You bring water to an ecosystem adapted primarily because of limited water resources, and you don't think that would destroy it? You want to turn the southwest green. How does that not describe a destruction of what was previously there? What process does one use to determine whether one ecosystem is "not good enough" as is, and needs to be more green?
If you overwater a cactus, the obvious result is the death of the plant. I could name dozens of other consequences, but you (hopefully) get the picture.
This is not hyperbole.
It makes no sense to leave it a desert when it can be made greener. Especially when the desertification is relatively recent geologically speaking.
Why preserve the arid landscape?
Especially when as little as two hundred years ago, the beaver were exterminated in many areas, the ponds they created drained. The landscapes of water features were drained. Cattle killed off the existing flora. And what we were left with was dry landscapes with no natural depressions to hold water.
This is true of large swaths of Texas and the Desert Southwest.
And all it takes is manpower to return these areas to more fertile landscapes.
As little as a few thousand years ago the southwest was lush and green. Why does the current desert landscape need preserving? I'm not sold and there is literally nothing I could think of that would sway my opinion.