http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ho ... 543997.php -


Sunday, January 14, 2007

Border fence makes sense




GORDON DILLOW


GLDillow@aol.com Last week I wrote about my recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in western San Diego County, and about how much had changed there since the federal government built a 9 1/2-mile, state-of-the-art border fence to deter illegal immigration.

And as I said in the column, compared with 15 or 20 years ago, when that section of the border was essentially wide open, the change is nothing short of astonishing. Unlike in the old days, when hundreds of illegal immigrants swarmed across that section of the border every day, pursued by a handful of overwhelmed U.S. Border Patrol agents, today the illegal cross-border traffic in that 9 1/2-mile section is a relative trickle.

True, it's not just the fence – actually, it's two fences running parallel – that caused apprehensions of illegal border crossers in the fenced section to plummet by 95 percent during the past 15 years. (The number of apprehensions is accepted as a rough indicator of how many people are trying to cross.) It's also a result of putting in high-tech security gear – cameras, motion sensors, etc. – and a more than doubling of Border Patrol agents in the San Diego sector.

Still, if the border fencing system in western San Diego County works so well, wouldn't it make sense to build more of it? And if we managed to more effectively control the U.S.-Mexico border, wouldn't that solve the illegal immigration problem?

The answers are yes – and no.

Last fall Congress passed a bill calling for an additional 700 miles of San Diego-style double-fencing along the 2,000-mile border – although in the end it was left to the Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Border Patrol) to decide how much of it to actually build. And as far as the Border Patrol is concerned, fences are only part of the solution.

"The idea of creating a 'Great Wall of China' all along the border isn't really practical," says Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Robert Harvey. "But that doesn't mean that we can't have operational control of that area."

The way the Border Patrol sees it, it doesn't make economic or law-enforcement sense to build a continuous fence, and the roads and other infrastructure to support it, over every mountain peak and vast expanse of empty desert along the border – this at an initial cost of up to $3 million per mile or more, depending on how many lawsuits are filed by environmental groups and others to try to stop it.

Instead, the Border Patrol would prefer a series of San Diego-style fences along populated sections of the border, which would channel illegal crossers out to remote areas where they are more easily seen, and more easily caught. In those areas the Border Patrol would set up a defense in depth, using cameras, sensors, aircraft and expanded manpower to nab illegal crossers before they can make it to the roads to carry them north.

That's what's happening in the 66-mile San Diego Border Patrol sector. Fifteen years ago more than half a million people a year were caught illegally crossing the border into San Diego County. Now, with the fences pushing border-crossers eastward, and expanded technology and Border Patrol manpower waiting for them there, that number has dropped about 70 percent – and it's only logical that if that same border protection system was expanded it would reduce the flow of illegal border-crossers elsewhere as well.

And remember, we aren't just talking about illegal immigrants simply seeking work. Controlling the border isn't just an economic issue – it's a security issue as well.

"People don't realize how many criminals are coming across," says Senior Border Patrol Agent Matt Johnson, whose usual "beat" is the rough country east of the fenced area. "I've arrested smugglers, murderers, child molesters….You just don't know who these people are."

As for the people who really are just seeking a better life, well, Johnson says: "We enforce the immigration laws. And they're committing a crime."

Of course, in the history of the world there has never been a border that somebody wasn't able to climb over or dig under or sneak across. But given enough fences, and enough resources to back them up, it's certainly possible to drastically reduce the illegal traffic across the southern border.

Unfortunately, that by itself won't solve the illegal immigration problem.

A more secure southern border wouldn't do anything about the estimated 12 million or more illegal immigrants who are already here. A more secure southern border wouldn't by itself force the governments of Mexico and other countries to provide for their own people, instead of actively encouraging them to come here illegally by foot or plane or boat.

And a more secure southern border wouldn't force American employers, large and small, to stop hiring illegal immigrants, in the process creating an economic and social underclass that is ripe for crime and exploitation.

No, addressing those problems would require some hard choices and tough decisions – and so far, our politicians have generally proved themselves spineless in making them.

So, yes, more border barriers will help. But if we really want to fix the problem of illegal immigration, we as a nation – and our politicians in particular – can't just build a fence.

We'll also have to grow a spine.

Contact the writer: Contact Dillow at 714-796-7953 or GLDillow@aol.com