The reason comprehensive immigration reform remains in jeopardy, despite yesterday's partial resuscitation, is that it is a complex compromise with too many moving parts and too many competing interests. Employers want a guest worker program; unions want to kill it. Reformers want to introduce a point system that preferentially admits skilled and educated immigrants; immigrant groups naturally want to keep the existing family preference system. Liberals want legalization now; conservatives insist on enforcement "triggers" first.
There is only one provision that has unanimous support: stronger border enforcement. I've seen senators stand up and object to the point system, to chain migration, to guest workers, to every and any idea in this bill -- except one. I have yet to hear a senator stand up and say she is against better border enforcement.
Why not start by passing what all sides say they want? After all, proponents of this comprehensive reform insist that the current situation is intolerable and must be resolved. It follows, therefore, that however much they differ in the details of how the current mess should be resolved, they are united in the belief that such a mess should not be allowed to happen again. And the only way to make sure of that is border control.
So why not pass it, with the understanding that the other contentious provisions would be taken up subsequently? Because for all the protestations, many of those who say they are deeply devoted to enforcement are being deeply disingenuous. They profess to care about immigration control because they have to. But they care so little about the issue that they are willing to make it hostage to the other controversial provisions, most notably legalization.
Why am I so suspicious about the fealty of the reformers to real border control? In part because of the ridiculous debate over the building of a fence. Despite the success of the border barrier in the San Diego area, it appears to be very important that this success not be repeated. The current Senate bill provides for the fencing of no more than one-fifth of the border and the placing of vehicle barriers in no more than one-ninth.
Instead, we are promised all kinds of fancy, high-tech substitutes -- sensors, cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles -- and lots more armed chaps on the ground to go chasing those who get through.
Why? A barrier is a very simple thing to do. The technology is well tested. The Chinese had success with it, as did Hadrian. In our time, the barrier Israel has built has been so effective in keeping out intruders that suicide attacks are down more than 90 percent.
Fences work. That's why people have them around their houses -- not because homeowners are unwelcoming but because they insist that those who wish to come into their domain knock at the front door.
Fences are simple. They don't require much upkeep. Two fences with a patrol road between them along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border would be relatively cheap, easy to build and simple to maintain.
Why this preference for fancy high-tech surveillance stuff that presents no physical impediment to illegal entry but instead triggers detection -- followed by alarm, pursuit, arrest and possible violence? It makes for great TV. But why is that good for the country?
It is certainly good for the Border Patrol, ensuring a full employment program till the end of time. But why for the rest of us? Fences have no retirement benefits.
The final argument against fences is, of course, the symbolism. We don't want a fence that announces to the world that America is closed. But this is entirely irrational. The fact is that under our law, America is indeed closed -- to all but those who, after elaborate procedures, are deemed worthy of joining the American family. Those objecting to the fence should be objecting to the law that closes America off, not to the means for effectively carrying out that law.
A fence announces to the world that America is closed to . . . illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that? Is not every country in the world the same? The only reason others don't need such a barrier is that they are not half as attractive as America, not because we are more oppressive or less welcoming.
Fences are ugly, I grant you that. But not as ugly as 12 million people living in the shadows in a country that has forfeited control of its borders.
Comprehensive immigration reform has simply too many contentious provisions to command a majority of Congress or the country. We all agree on enforcement, don't we? So let's do it. Make it simple. And do it now. Once our borders come visibly under control, everything else will become doable. Including amnesty.
Posted by: The Ghost of Mullah Dadullah ||
06/15/2007 06:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
..except one. I have yet to hear a senator stand up and say she is against better border enforcement.
Cause any one with half a brain understands, its not what the crooks pols say, its what they do that counts. It's all smoke and mirrors. An illusion to con the audience. The trouble for them is that the audience knows the trick.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Abraham Lincoln
Best advise for them on border security is -
"Try not. Do or do not, there is no try"
Yoda
#2
I think if you post under another nym, and then post an article, the article refers to your latest cookie, even if you change it on the article post. So change your name cookie in a comment, not a post.
I guess anyone posting as "The Ghost of Mullah Dadullah" deserves it.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/15/2007 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?
My heavens, I wish I could vote for this guy! Too bad Harry Reid can't read.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/15/2007 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
WONDER what Iraq would look like if we left to morrow? Take a look at Gaza today. Then imagine a situation a thousand times worse.
We need to stop making politically correct excuses. Arab civilization is in collapse. Extremes dominate, either through dictatorship or anarchy. Thanks to their dysfunctional values and antique social structures, Arab states can't govern themselves decently.
We gave them a chance in Iraq. Israel "gave back" the Gaza Strip to let the Palestinians build a model state. Arabs seized those opportunities to butcher each other.
I noted a buzz comment today that asked whether I might have any opinion about the situation in Gaza, something along the lines of a Nelson Ha ha. I understand the point, but its hard to be flippant about what this all means, either this summer or next. Weve just seen the logical expression of Arafats legacy, defeated by people who took his tools and turned them to cause whose potency was trebled by its immersion in religious fundamentalism. In the YouTube clips below, the Beeb reporter says: Gazas secular foundations, undone in a hail of bullets.
Actually, no. They were undone long ago, undone in a hail of rhetoric that praised the bullet, worshipped the bullet, fetishized the finger on the trigger. Meet the old boss, worse than the old boss: Im sure well be asked to supply foreign aid to these gentlemen, eventually.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/15/2007 06:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
