You are on page 1of 2


July 9, 2018
Contact: Abigail Hirn


SANFORD, FL- Republican congressional candidate Scott Sturgill is raising some eyebrows among elite
policy analysts with his approach to immigration enforcement.

The businessman’s “Mix-the-Mortar-to-Fix-the-Border Plan” would be officially titled “The American

Sovereignty Restoration Act” as Sturgill’s first piece of legislation should he defeat Stephanie Murphy for the
FL-07 seat in the November general election. The proposal would require every undocumented immigrant who
came to the U.S. as an adult to pay $2,000 towards building a border wall covered with “big, shiny solar
panels.” Sturgill calls it a “Mortar Mixing Fee” to pay “restitution for their crime against American

Most Republican candidates across the country are campaigning on President Trump’s promise to build a “big,
beautiful wall,” but the Sanford businessman claims he has a secret sauce that will make all the difference to
his party’s conservative base.

“When I start any project in my business, I need to make sure there’s a way to pay for it. The wall is no
different,” said Sturgill. “We’ve got to stop mortgaging our grandchildren’s future to the Chinese. My plan
actually pays for the wall without adding to our $21 Trillion national debt.”

His solution? Make the undocumented pay for the wall and fund more stringent enforcement.

“The Democrats want to abolish ICE- I want to double it,” says Sturgill. “And the people in our country
illegally should be paying for it, not hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers. This plan will not cost actual
Americans a dime. The illegals broke it, so they should pay for it. My plan will save billions on welfare,
education, enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and incarceration going forward.”

The plan would permanently ban illegals from ever seeking amnesty or a path to citizenship. “American
citizenship is a privilege,” Sturgill argues, “not an entitlement. The point here is ultimately about security,
knowing exactly who is in our country. Immigration should be safe, legal, and merit-based.”

Paid for by Scott Sturgill for Congress


Scott Sturgill’s Mix-the-Mortar-to-Fix-the-Border Plan

All adult illegal immigrants must report to an ICE satellite office

• to get documented and permanently banned from seeking citizenship and chain migration,
• to be vetted for additional criminal violations and possible deportation,
• and to pay $2,000 restitution for their crime against American sovereignty
• within 90 days of the proposal being signed into law.
o After that, any unregistered alien encountered will be immediately arrested and deported
without a hearing.

Approximately 11 million illegal immigrants each paying a $2,000 Mortar Mixing Fee (MMF) will generate
the $22 billion Homeland Security (DHS) estimates will be necessary to complete the full border wall,
although President Trump estimates a cost of only $12 billion, so any surplus MMF would be designated for
additional ICE funding. The Brookings Institution estimates remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants
fluctuate between $20 billion and $25 billion annually, accounting for 3 percent of Mexico’s GDP and roughly
$2,000 per illegal alien.

Private companies will be offered contracts to cover the wall structure with big, shiny solar panels for
sustainable energy generation.


Seemingly every Republican candidate is now making calls to build the wall, but almost none of them have a
real plan to get it done without adding more debt to our tab with China. No candidates should be taken
seriously if they claim to be conservative but don’t bother figuring out how to actually pay for their proposals.


• Full border security, finally

• Doesn’t cost American taxpayers a dime
• All resident aliens registered so we know who’s in our country
• Less need for immigration judges, bureaucracy
• Saves money on interior immigration enforcement going forward
• Clean, sustainable power generation
• Sensible solution to humanitarian, fiscal, drug abuse, and security crises


• NOT Amnesty
• NOT A “path to citizenship”
• NOT A violation of due process

You might also like