Notes and thoughts on the world at large, from the point of view of those of us at ground level.
07 April 2006
The Border
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column in today's Washington Post on what to do with the border and dealing with the estimated 11 million illegals already here.
Let me say that I find it very ironic that I am agreeing with a Charles Krauthammer opinion and you don't. What is the world coming to?
On the question of "why a fence?": it is not just a fence but a series of fences, ditches, razor wire and patrol roads, as well as assorted electronic and video monitoring equipment. I don't know if you are aware, but there is a Border Patrol, under the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Patrol (or whatever alphabet-soup acronym it goes by this week) is chronically underfunded and likely will remain so, and is currently unable to cover much of the border with the men and materiel that they have. That is the reason for the so-called Minute Men, who are there as the eyes and ears of the Patrol.
Two reasons for a fence: Israel, and South Korea. Both have placed security barriers along their border, with an amazing decrease in incursions by suicide bombers and North Korean agents respectively. As the saying goes, you can't argue with results.
Fence or no fence, there will always be people who want to come here, because here is better than where they come from. Bolstering a border patrol isn't likely to deter anybody. A physical barrier is needed.
Besides, as one of those Minute Men said in a recent article in the Star-Ledger, it isn't the illegal immigrants that they are worried about, its the terrorists and the drug lords, who are going to be far more determined to get across the border and better able to avoid the Border Patrol.
As to the other 11 million, we do nothing, at least not at the moment. Here are the reasons why:
- Cost: Can you imagine how much it would cost to find, arrest, detain, and deport those 11 million? Isn't there something better to spend the money on? Not to mention the occasional legal challenge for those that might actually have a good reason for staying, such as children who are born here in the United States. For good or ill, these children are by virtue of location and by law, American citizens. Do you really want them to have to choose? - Economic impact: Like it or not, a good number of these illegals are filling the menial back breaking labor that companies want and need. Sending them home deprives companies of effective labor, forcing them to hire Americans who won't work for less than twice or three times what the illegal does. I'm not saying its right (I would rather they hire native Americans), just reality. Since a lot of these companies are contributors to Republican causes, this legislation is akin to the GOP biting the hand that feeds it. - Cuba: Currently the US Government has a so-called "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy towards Cubans trying to make it to the US. If the Coast Guard intercepts them at sea, they get turned back. If the Cuban refugee sets foot on US soil, they are allowed to stay, no questions asked. (They then make a beeline for either Miami or Union City, NJ.) Why the favoritism towards Cubans and not, say, Venezuelans? - Here is better than there: Despite any threats of deportation, being here illegal is usually better than legal anywhere else, especially the banana republics of the Caribbean. They'll probably take their chances.
There are probably a number of reasons, but this whole legislation, at least the House version as sponsored by Sensenbrenner and King, is a political ploy, playing to the fears of the American people, while wasting a whole lot of money and doing absolutely nothing to increase security.
1 comment:
Let me say that I find it very ironic that I am agreeing with a Charles Krauthammer opinion and you don't. What is the world coming to?
On the question of "why a fence?": it is not just a fence but a series of fences, ditches, razor wire and patrol roads, as well as assorted electronic and video monitoring equipment. I don't know if you are aware, but there is a Border Patrol, under the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Patrol (or whatever alphabet-soup acronym it goes by this week) is chronically underfunded and likely will remain so, and is currently unable to cover much of the border with the men and materiel that they have. That is the reason for the so-called Minute Men, who are there as the eyes and ears of the Patrol.
Two reasons for a fence: Israel, and South Korea. Both have placed security barriers along their border, with an amazing decrease in incursions by suicide bombers and North Korean agents respectively. As the saying goes, you can't argue with results.
Fence or no fence, there will always be people who want to come here, because here is better than where they come from. Bolstering a border patrol isn't likely to deter anybody. A physical barrier is needed.
Besides, as one of those Minute Men said in a recent article in the Star-Ledger, it isn't the illegal immigrants that they are worried about, its the terrorists and the drug lords, who are going to be far more determined to get across the border and better able to avoid the Border Patrol.
As to the other 11 million, we do nothing, at least not at the moment. Here are the reasons why:
- Cost: Can you imagine how much it would cost to find, arrest, detain, and deport those 11 million? Isn't there something better to spend the money on? Not to mention the occasional legal challenge for those that might actually have a good reason for staying, such as children who are born here in the United States. For good or ill, these children are by virtue of location and by law, American citizens. Do you really want them to have to choose?
- Economic impact: Like it or not, a good number of these illegals are filling the menial back breaking labor that companies want and need. Sending them home deprives companies of effective labor, forcing them to hire Americans who won't work for less than twice or three times what the illegal does. I'm not saying its right (I would rather they hire native Americans), just reality. Since a lot of these companies are contributors to Republican causes, this legislation is akin to the GOP biting the hand that feeds it.
- Cuba: Currently the US Government has a so-called "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy towards Cubans trying to make it to the US. If the Coast Guard intercepts them at sea, they get turned back. If the Cuban refugee sets foot on US soil, they are allowed to stay, no questions asked. (They then make a beeline for either Miami or Union City, NJ.) Why the favoritism towards Cubans and not, say, Venezuelans?
- Here is better than there: Despite any threats of deportation, being here illegal is usually better than legal anywhere else, especially the banana republics of the Caribbean. They'll probably take their chances.
There are probably a number of reasons, but this whole legislation, at least the House version as sponsored by Sensenbrenner and King, is a political ploy, playing to the fears of the American people, while wasting a whole lot of money and doing absolutely nothing to increase security.
Post a Comment