An Immodest Proposal by Jonathan Swift and AI

An Immodest Proposal

For securing the border in a time of Crisis and Invasion, by means of sober calculations and expert testimony, with particular attention to Cartels

It is a miserable spectacle to behold the present condition of this great nation, wherein every conversation—whether at the diner, the boardroom, or the glowing altar of cable news—must be conducted as if we were living through the final chapter of civilization. We are assured daily that we face a Crisis of unprecedented magnitude, an Invasion of unspeakable cunning, and a criminal hydra of Cartels so omnipotent they can apparently command both the weather and the moral character of teenagers in suburban cul-de-sacs.

And yet, for all this righteous noise, the drugs persist. They persist stubbornly, like mold in a damp basement, no matter how passionately we point at the border and announce that we have discovered the source of the rot.

Indeed, I have observed a peculiar habit among us: when confronted with a domestic agony—addiction, despair, loneliness, untreated pain—we march to the nearest map and accuse a line.

But I am not so unpatriotic as to deny the border’s importance. Far from it. I regard the border as the nation’s most productive industry: it generates fear, donations, careers, and compelling B-roll. It is a renewable resource.

Still, as I was lately informed by a gentleman of serious countenance and impeccable authority (he had been interviewed on television, and thus qualified as an oracle), the fundamental obstacle to victory over cartels is not merely supply, but demand—that pesky, inconvenient truth that the cartels, for all their villainy, have not yet mastered the art of forcing Americans to purchase their wares at gunpoint from the comfort of their own bathrooms.

Therefore, being a person of humane disposition and great tenderness toward solutions that are loud, immediate, and morally satisfying, I humbly submit the following:

That in order to defeat the Cartels, end the Crisis, and repel the Invasion, we must imprison drug users in the United States with such breadth and vigor that demand collapses under the weight of our own enforcement.

This is my Immodest Proposal, and I recommend it with all the warmth a civilized society can muster toward those it finds inconvenient.

Sober Calculations (Presented in the Proper Modern Manner)

I shall now proceed by numbers, because nothing calms a moral panic like arithmetic.

Let us suppose (for the sake of a tidy argument) that the nation contains a considerable number of drug users. I shall not trouble the reader with the precise count, as precision may invite compassion, and compassion may lead to treatment, and treatment may lead to acknowledging root causes, which is the first step toward doing real work.

Instead, I offer this sober calculation:

Every imprisoned user equals one fewer consumer in the market.
One fewer consumer equals a discouraging signal to the cartels.
A discouraging signal equals victory.

Thus, by the flawless logic of the modern press conference, if we imprison enough users, we shall “shut down the pipeline.”

Now, some pedant may inquire whether we are merely relocating the crisis from street corners to cellblocks. To which I answer: that is precisely the point. A crisis is not considered “managed” until it has been moved somewhere the cameras do not go.

Expert Testimony (Of the Sort Policymakers Find Most Nourishing)

I have consulted several experts in the manner customary to our age: I have listened to panel discussions, read a few executive summaries, and glanced thoughtfully at charts with arrows.

From this I have gathered the following expert testimony:

A Security Expert assures me that the nation is experiencing an “Invasion” of narcotics.
I asked whether the invaders might be repelled by addressing the reasons Americans keep opening the gate from the inside. He replied that my question was “soft.”
A Law-and-Order Expert testified that “consequences deter.”
I requested evidence. He provided a stern face and a sentence beginning with “People need to understand…” which is the recognized scientific method of his discipline.
A Border Expert observed that the cartels are “innovating.”
I commended their entrepreneurial spirit and asked whether our own citizens might be innovating in the consumption of despair. He accused me of blaming America.
A Budget Expert explained that prisons are expensive.
I thanked him for confirming that our plan is serious, for nothing says “serious” like spending vast sums to avoid spending modest sums on prevention.

This testimony convinces me that my proposal is not merely practical, but fashionable.

The Plan (Border Security, But Domestic)

To implement this policy with the efficiency the crisis demands, I recommend the following measures:

1) The Crisis Classification System

Every drug user shall be officially categorized as a Border Security Incident.
This will allow federal agencies to treat addiction as an act of foreign aggression, which is emotionally satisfying and makes for excellent fundraising copy.

2) The Invasion Response Framework

We shall respond to the “Invasion” by invading our own communities, with raids, checkpoints, and the kind of muscular theater that reassures the public that problems can be solved by boots.

The advantage here is twofold:

It creates the appearance of decisive action.
It produces arrest numbers, which are the most reliable form of success.

3) The Cartel Defeat Through Caging Doctrine

We shall declare: If cartels profit from users, then users are cartel collaborators.
This is wonderfully convenient, because it allows us to fight cartels without ever touching the money, the corruption, the laundering, the guns, or the despair—those fussy details that complicate slogans.

4) Quotas (Because a Crisis Must Be Quantified)

Each jurisdiction shall receive monthly targets for “demand reduction,” to be met through arrests and sentencing.

We must insist upon quotas, because a nation cannot remain calm unless it has dashboards.

5) Compassionate Rebranding

To avoid the unpleasant charge of cruelty, the program shall be marketed as:

“The Freedom and Border Integrity Wellness Initiative”

Its brochure will feature sunsets, barbed wire blurred into tasteful bokeh, and language like:

“accountability”
“public safety”
“restoring order”
“breaking the cycle”

None of which require us to house people, treat people, or employ enough counselors to be effective.

The Benefits (As Listed in a Victory Speech)

First, we shall finally “secure the border” by securing something else entirely.
This is the essence of modern problem-solving: if you cannot control the cause, control the narrative.

Second, the cartels will be “defeated” in the sense that we will have declared them so.
And if drugs continue to arrive, we may blame the border anew, thus ensuring the border remains employed.

Third, we will enjoy moral clarity.
Nothing unites a frightened public like a designated internal enemy described as an extension of an external threat.

Fourth, we will purify public space.
People suffering in plain sight distress the comfortable. Prisons solve this discomfort elegantly by removing the suffering from view.

Considerations for the Tender-Hearted (Briefly, and With Visible Impatience)

Some readers may object that addiction is a health issue, and that imprisonment often worsens outcomes, and that this plan will fall hardest on the poor, and that it may increase overdose risk after release, and that it resembles—if one squints—punishment as a substitute for care.

To which I answer: yes. And that is why it will be adopted.

For the nation has long preferred policies that punish visible symptoms while protecting invisible causes. It is less embarrassing to build cages than to admit we have built a society where pain is profitable and help is conditional.

My Final Sober Calculation

Since the public is hungry for a grand solution that does not require a grand change, let us summarize:

If we call it a Crisis, we may suspend nuance.
If we call it an Invasion, we may suspend empathy.
If we invoke Cartels, we may suspend responsibility.
If we imprison the user, we may declare victory over the border.

And should the reader doubt whether this will truly end the drug trade, I remind him that the purpose of many policies is not to solve the problem, but to solve the feeling of having a problem, which is infinitely cheaper in the short term and always more popular.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in promoting this proposal—having no stake in private prisons, surveillance technology, or campaign ads—nor any motive but the public good.

Which is to say: I offer it in precisely the spirit that has guided so many successful American reforms.

And I leave it to our leaders to decide how many bodies it will take to make the border feel secure.

Oklahoma Education and You