One Idea for Dealing with Illegal Immigration

[Barry]

Sun, Dec. 04, 2005

Philadelphia Inquirer

Border fence too essential to ignore


Jan C. Ting is a professor of law at Temple University's Beasley School of Law

Tonight, more than four years after 9/11, thousands of foreigners will covertly enter the United States. This will happen again tomorrow night, and the night after, and every night of the year, until we take the simple step of erecting an effective border fence.

U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions increased significantly in 2004 and 2005, though only a small fraction of foreigners attempting illegal entry are ever caught. Most enter without detection, at least 1 million every year. Apprehensions along the southern border make up about 97 percent of the total.

The world now knows what our Mexican neighbors have known for a long time: Our borders are wide open, and anyone who wants to enter can, with little fear of getting caught. The governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared border emergencies. The sea of illegal aliens provides a potential cover for terrorists and criminals - and a reliable means of entry.

President Bush, Sen. John McCain, and other politicians have proposed guest-worker programs that would legalize illegal aliens already here while effectively leaving the border open to additional entrants, who are already being attracted by the promise of "amnesty." The sponsors deny their proposals amount to amnesty since they don't provide immediate U.S. citizenship. But that's not the test!

An amnesty is any proposal that gives illegal entrants an advantage over law-abiders who wait in their home countries for permission to enter the United States. Millions of qualified legal immigrants have waited and do wait. But to satisfy the cheap labor lobby in Washington, President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and other politicians want America to talk tough on immigration, but actually reward lawbreakers with legal status and make fools of those who wait their turn.

President Bush and other "reformers" claim their proposals will tighten the border by hiring more Border Patrol agents, expanding detention space, and deploying more detection technology on the border. But this is just more of what we've tried for years.

We know what works: a border fence. When illegals encounter an effective border fence, they are driven to unfenced sectors. Granted, sometimes this leads them into less hospitable territory, risking and sometimes losing their lives. The solution is to build a fence that can't be walked around, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) has proposed such a fence.

Critics complain about the cost. But they ignore the costs of not building a fence, of having to hire ever more Border Patrol agents, deploy ever more technology, spend ever more on prosecution, incarceration, and medical care for illegal aliens, as well as public education for the children. As long as the border is open, the crisis will continue, and businesses that try to hire only legal workers will continue to be noncompetitive with those that hire illegals at lower wages. Four years after 9/11, it is ridiculous to worry about our subways and trains and ports and factories yet leave our borders wide open.

If we need more unskilled labor in the United States, then we should lift the legal limit on unskilled immigrant labor, now set at 10,000 visas a year. And we should limit applications from foreigners outside the country.

And what of the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals already here? The "reformers" say we must either deport them all or legalize them all through an amnesty. But there is a third way. First, gain control of our borders with an effective fence. Then strengthen and enforce immigration laws. That includes punishing employers who hire illegals. Once we have done those things, the illegal alien population will decline. Then and only then might we consider some sort of amnesty for illegals who remain.

This is not anti-immigrant. We rightly have the most generous immigration program in the world, accepting each year more legal permanent resident immigrants with a clear path to full citizenship than the rest of the nations of the world combined.

Nor is this blaming illegal aliens. They know their best interests. As long as the benefits of braving our laws and borders exceed the risks, they'll make the logical choice.

The ones responsible are the politicians who pose as reformers yet refuse to defend our borders and enforce the law because some constituents - and contributors - find legal labor too expensive.

A border fence is the essential first step of any serious plan to limit illegal immigration. Without it, no reform is possible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan C. Ting (janting@hotmail. com) served as assistant commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1990 to 1993.

[Ralph]

Sounds like a great public works project. Do we build one on the Canadian border too?

[Brendan]

Do the Canadians behave like this?

Mexico’s Undiplomatic Diplomats
Heather Mac Donald

It’s a strain being a Mexican diplomat in the United States these days, as the plaintive expression on Mario Velázquez-Suárez’s dignified features suggests. Diplomacy may be the art of lying for one’s country, but Mexican diplomacy requires taking that art to virtuosic heights. Sitting in his expansive office in Mexico’s Los Angeles consulate, Deputy Consul General Velázquez-Suárez gamely insists that he and his peers observe the diplomatic duty not to interfere in America’s internal affairs, including immigration matters. “Immigration is an internal discussion,” he says. “We have to respect that regardless of whether it pleases us.”

Well, at least one part of the deputy consul general’s statement is true: immigration is an “internal discussion.” The decision about who can enter and permanently reside in a country is central to its identity. The rest of his statement, though, is utterly false. Mexican officials here and abroad are involved in a massive and almost daily interference in American sovereignty. The dozens of illegals milling in the consulate’s courtyard as Velázquez-Suárez speaks, and the millions more radiating outward from Los Angeles across the country, are not a naturally occurring phenomenon, like the tides. They are there thanks in part to Mexico’s efforts to get them into the U.S. in violation of American law, and to normalize their status once here in violation of the popular will. Mexican consulates are engineering a backdoor amnesty for their illegal migrants and trying to discredit American immigration enforcement—activities clearly beyond diplomatic bounds.

Mexico’s governing class is not content simply to unload the victims of its failed policies on the U.S., however. It also tries to ensure that migrants retain allegiance to La Patria, so as to preserve the $16 billion in remittances that they send to Mexico each year. Mexican leaders have thus tasked their nation’s U.S. consulates with spreading Mexican culture into American schools and communities. Given the American public’s swelling anger about illegal immigration, it’s past time for Washington to tell Mexico to cease interfering and for the Bush administration to start enforcing the law.
From http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_mexico.html

[Ralph]

Do the Canadians behave like this?

Mexico’s Undiplomatic Diplomats
Heather Mac Donald

It’s a strain being a Mexican diplomat in the United States these days, as the plaintive expression on Mario Velázquez-Suárez’s dignified features suggests. Diplomacy may be the art of lying for one’s country, but Mexican diplomacy requires taking that art to virtuosic heights. Sitting in his expansive office in Mexico’s Los Angeles consulate, Deputy Consul General Velázquez-Suárez gamely insists that he and his peers observe the diplomatic duty not to interfere in America’s internal affairs, including immigration matters. “Immigration is an internal discussion,” he says. “We have to respect that regardless of whether it pleases us.”

Well, at least one part of the deputy consul general’s statement is true: immigration is an “internal discussion.” The decision about who can enter and permanently reside in a country is central to its identity. The rest of his statement, though, is utterly false. Mexican officials here and abroad are involved in a massive and almost daily interference in American sovereignty. The dozens of illegals milling in the consulate’s courtyard as Velázquez-Suárez speaks, and the millions more radiating outward from Los Angeles across the country, are not a naturally occurring phenomenon, like the tides. They are there thanks in part to Mexico’s efforts to get them into the U.S. in violation of American law, and to normalize their status once here in violation of the popular will. Mexican consulates are engineering a backdoor amnesty for their illegal migrants and trying to discredit American immigration enforcement—activities clearly beyond diplomatic bounds.

Mexico’s governing class is not content simply to unload the victims of its failed policies on the U.S., however. It also tries to ensure that migrants retain allegiance to La Patria, so as to preserve the $16 billion in remittances that they send to Mexico each year. Mexican leaders have thus tasked their nation’s U.S. consulates with spreading Mexican culture into American schools and communities. Given the American public’s swelling anger about illegal immigration, it’s past time for Washington to tell Mexico to cease interfering and for the Bush administration to start enforcing the law.
From http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_mexico.html

*****

The Canadians infiltrate everywhere. They look and sound like us. They smile placidly overpowering our critical powers. Meanwhile they suck our life blood. Americans Awake!

By the way, Heather MacDonald writes for every issue of City Journal, to which I subscribe. She makes Bush look like a fawning liberal.

[Brendan]

Is her report accurate? I don't care what she makes Bush look like - are the facts and their implications accurate? If so, avoiding the consequences with character-based tangents is hardly useful.

[operafan]

Naw, no need to build walls, just use predator drones to patrol both borders - fire when necessary and the border patrol can shoot 'em from air conditioned buildings. Oh. Sorry. Need to give Haliburton more corporate welfare - the Gulf (east) and the Gulf (west) aren't enough. O.K. Build the walls.

Then we have to kick out 8 - 11 million illegals. But darn it just who is going to do the gardening? Who is going to collect the trash? Who is going to do the day labor? Who is going to work in the sweat shops? Who is going to do the menial work in the health 'care' industry Moi?? O.K. There are going to be some mighty unhappy employers, you know those guys that let 400,000 use the Social Security Number 000-00-0000 and somehow don't know they have 'aliens' working for them. I'm sure those guys will be glad to tighten their belts in the name of patriatism.

And I'm also sure that Mexico will tighten it's belt when the zillion dollar gravy train is cut off from the workers here, but I could be wrong, what if Mexico decides they want Alta California back? Here and all they have all those newly repatriated 'aliens' they didn't want in the first place for cannon fodder.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, that is my perspective.

[Barry]

Brendan beat me to it. When Canadian illegal immigration becomes a major problem we can talk about what to do about it.

[Ralph]

Brendan beat me to it. When Canadian illegal immigration becomes a major problem we can talk about what to do about it.

*****

They're everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they love Philly cheesesteaks.

[operafan]

Hey - it would discriminate against Canadians to only build an anti Mexican wall. Wall equality now!!!

[Barry]

Brendan beat me to it. When Canadian illegal immigration becomes a major problem we can talk about what to do about it.

*****

They're everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they love Philly cheesesteaks.

I've always said they have impeccible taste .

[John Bleau]

A fence between Mexico and the USA sounds way overdue. None needed between Canada and the USA.

[jbuck919]

A fence between Mexico and the USA sounds way overdue. None needed between Canada and the USA.

Oh yeah? Just wait until the Mexicans start pushing all the way up into your terrritory. Then you'll wish we had built that fence so you wouldn't have to.

[operafan]

Every illegal alien I've had contact with has come in quite legally with a tourist or student visa, and simply over stayed, as did some of the 9/11 hijackers. If the Immigration would do it's job, if Social Security did it's job, if employers did their job there would not be nearly as much of a problem.

Why can't we start with the infastructure we already have and see where that gets us? Do we really need to Berlin ourselves? Probably, because there really isn't any will power to change what has been a very advantageous economic situation. Change that (fine and imprison the employers, deport the employees, amnesty for those here over say 10 years), and we save ourselves cubic bucks when it comes to building and manning a wall.

Update: 40% of the illegal aliens here came in on temporary visas. I'm no bureaucrat but it seems like cutting off a huge amount of temp visas might be easier than building a wall. Just my opinion. http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back103.html

[Corlyss_D]

Sounds like a great public works project. Do we build one on the Canadian border too?

Why? Are the Mexicans trying to come in from Canada? If they get to Canada, a paragon of welfare statism, why would they come to the US? Oh yeah, to make money. Never mind.

[Corlyss_D]

Hey - it would discriminate against Canadians to only build an anti Mexican wall. Wall equality now!!!

Post of the Day Award goes to Operafan!

[Corlyss_D]

Every illegal alien I've had contact with has come in quite legally with a tourist or student visa, and simply over stayed, as did some of the 9/11 hijackers. If the Immigration would do it's job, if Social Security did it's job, if employers did their job there would not be nearly as much of a problem.

That's anecdotal evidence. I don't think visa-abusers constitute the bulk of the illegal immigration problem. I do think they constitute the bulk of the potential terrorist problem however.

Why can't we start with the infastructure we already have and see where that gets us?

We should try both approaches.

Do we really need to Berlin ourselves?

And inapposite analogy. The Berlin Wall was erected to keep the Germans in, not to keep the west out, as the killings of fleeing Germans demonstrates.

Probably, because there really isn't any will power to change what has been a very advantageous economic situation. Change that (fine and imprison the employers, deport the employees, amnesty for those here over say 10 years), and we save ourselves cubic bucks when it comes to building and manning a wall.

There's an inevitable quality to the invasion that stymies everyone. Neither country has the political will to stop it, given how much of the Mexican economy depends on money sent home to Mexico by illegal immigrants.

Update: 40% of the illegal aliens here came in on temporary visas. http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back103.html

Thanks. I thought it was lower than that, but certainly by no means the dominant percentage.