We have been constantly reminded that "diversity is our strength."

It is as inarguably a fact of life as death; taxes; and the brain damage suffered by all Progs, Libs, and Dems.

Curiously, some states appear to be hesitant about having illegal aliens — i.e., additional diverselings — dropped off within their borders.  (See, e.g., Florida, Texas, Arizona.)

Gov. Kristi Noem (R[easonable]-South Dakota) probably encapsulated the feelings of chief executives of multiple states when she tweeted:

South Dakota won't be taking any illegal immigrants that the Biden Administration wants to relocate. My message to illegal immigrants... call me when you're an American. (9:06 AM 04 Apr 2021)

There are data indicating that providing benefits, services, privileges, and protections to illegal aliens can be costly:

New York's 2021 legislative session has provided illegal aliens with a host of benefits, privileges, and protections, while citizens and legal immigrants suffer under some of the highest taxes and regulatory burdens in the country and crime skyrockets.  When lawmakers adjourned their session on June 11, they provided a preview of more to come…

The single biggest giveaway was the $2 billion "Excluded Workers Fund," which will provide illegal aliens with cash payments of nearly $16,000[.] ...

In addition to the $2 billion stimulus package, the legislature also passed $2.4 billion in "rental assistance." The "rental assistance" bill authorized payments of up to twelve months of back rent and utility bills[.] ...

The legislature didn't stop at monetary payments alone for illegal aliens. Senate Bill (SB) 4394A and its companion Assembly Bill (AB) 5144 prohibit "retaliatory actions" by employers against their employees based on citizenship or immigration status.  This legislation would allow illegal aliens to sue for being fired even though federal law makes knowingly employing them a crime, putting employers in an impossible position where they're unable to comply with both federal and state law[.] ...

An Information Sheet, "Federal Benefit Eligibility for Unauthorized Immigrants," lists some of the perks "Unauthorized Immigrants" can expect to receive — at a minimum.

What's a governor to do?

Gov. Greg Abbott (R[esponsible]-Texas) provides some hint of a potential course of action governors who are not thrilled to have relocated illegal aliens in their states can take:

The Republican governor's [Abbott] mandate forbids any person other than a "federal, state, or local law-enforcement official" from moving migrants.

Referring to illegal aliens ("migrants"), Abbott appears to be acknowledging that the requirement needed to move these folks is to be a "state or local law enforcement official."

Assuming the above to be true and can be similarly mandated by the other uneager states, I propose the following:

When your state is made aware of illegal aliens being relocated to within your borders, find them and, using a "state or local law enforcement official," move them.

To Wilmington.

Delaware.

Surely, the cost of this re-relocation is substantially less than providing benefits, services, privileges, and protections to the illegal alien population.

A pilot program, say, comprising several thousand, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands could prove or disprove the proposition that this would be cost-saving.  The results of this experiment can be specific and measurable.

Data collected from Wilmington can be used to determine the effects that illegal aliens have in an area where none would otherwise (almost certainly) be sent.

Barack Hussein Obama (D[issimulation]) famously said, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

What better way for states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona to display national philanthropy than by sharing this overabundance of newly acquired diversity?

Image: Martin Leveneur.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.