Thread: Border fences -- and fantasies

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... KEHVG1.DTL

Border fences -- and fantasies
-
Sunday, September 17, 2006


AFTER YEARS of debate about what to do about immigration, Congress has been able to agree on one thing: building a border "fence," stretching hundreds of miles, at a cost of billions of dollars.

Last week, the House of Representatives once again voted, 283-138, to build a 700-mile fence. In May, the Senate voted, by a lopsided 86-13, to approve building a fence stretching 340 miles.

Thus, an idea once harbored by only the most extreme immigration restrictionists has moved into the political mainstream, and now has a chance of being implemented.

The most disturbing aspect of this fence tomfoolery is that it embraces an approach to immigration control that began 15 years ago, and which has had just the opposite effect it was intended to have.

Beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government began building a 14-mile fence on the California-Mexico border as part of what was called "Operation Vanguard." The fence did reduce crossings into California significantly -- but simply pushed would-be migrants eastward. The government's theory was that far fewer people would attempt to cross the border in these more dangerous desert areas. The few that tried would be more easily picked up by the Border Patrol.

The policy flopped. Instead, people have continued to cross in huge numbers at other parts of the border, even as thousands have died trying to do so. Even more unexpectedly, the border fence increased the numbers of illegal immigrants in the United States. That's because in the past immigrants from Mexico and Central America could easily return to their home countries, either permanently or to visit family members. The new barriers on the border meant that once they arrived in the United States they were more likely to stay here permanently -- and bring their family members to live with them.

The result: Today there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, by all accounts a big increase from a decade ago.

The Republican immigration strategy doesn't deal with any of these issues. It also doesn't confront the fact that the southern border is 2,100 miles long, which means that even if their fence proposal was fully implemented, two-thirds of the southern border would still be "unprotected," along with most of the 7,000 miles of the U.S.-Canadian border.

Fence proponents are also silent on what will happen during the years that it will take to build. The prospect of additional barriers is likely to encourage people thinking of migrating to do so before construction is complete, and could trigger a new surge of border crossings.

So when House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said last week that "Republicans believe we can have a no-penetration border" and that "if we build a fence, they will no longer come illegally," he was operating in the realm of politics, not reality.

What's needed is a far more sophisticated response to the immigration problem. A fence is likely to exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it.

http://newsbusters.org/node/7699

SanFran Chronicle Says Border Fence Increases Illegals
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on September 17, 2006 - 12:35.
The Chronicle today has published a piece titled "Border fences -- and fantasies", that claims that illegal immigration has increased because of the California border fence project (Called operation Vanguard) and calls the larger border fence approved by Congress recently "tomfoolery".

The piece, though, is contradictory and filled with absurd reasoning in its desire to torpedo a larger border fence idea. On one hand the Chronicle claims that the current fence has not stopped immigration and is useless, yet on the other has caused immigrant's to bring their entire families because the fence keeps them inside.

How a fence can fail to keep anyone out, but is successful at keeping them IN makes no logical sense, Chronicle.


"Beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government began building a 14-mile fence on the California-Mexico border as part of what was called "Operation Vanguard." The fence did reduce crossings into California significantly -- but simply pushed would-be migrants eastward."

So the policy failed to keep them out. But, then the Chronicle goes on to say...

"Even more unexpectedly, the border fence increased the numbers of illegal immigrants in the United States. That's because in the past immigrants from Mexico and Central America could easily return to their home countries, either permanently or to visit family members. The new barriers on the border meant that once they arrived in the United States they were more likely to stay here permanently -- and bring their family members to live with them."

Huh? So immigrants know that the fence doesn't stop them from getting in, yet are afraid to leave BECAUSE of that same fence once here? Couldn't the real problem, Chronicle, be that our immigration laws go unenforced and that is why illegal immigrants stay and bring their whole families? They have a lack of fear that they will be caught and deported?

Additionally, in it's effort to castigate the Republicans, the Chronicle tries to cast the argument as if the GOP has NO other plan but to build a fence, imagining that the fence will solve all problems. But, in truth, the fence is but the beginning of the efforts to solve illegal immigration, a mere starting point.

The Chronicle also throws the canard about the Canadian border into the mix as if not building two fences is a failed effort to curb illegal immigration.


"It also doesn't confront the fact that the southern border is 2,100 miles long, which means that even if their fence proposal was fully implemented, two-thirds of the southern border would still be "unprotected," along with most of the 7,000 miles of the U.S.-Canadian border."

Um, Chronicle? We don't HAVE 12 million illegal Canadians crossing the border! Perhaps the Chronicle is unaware of that, though?

Another "point" the Chronicle attempts to score is that of what happens during the building of the fence?


"Fence proponents are also silent on what will happen during the years that it will take to build. The prospect of additional barriers is likely to encourage people thinking of migrating to do so before construction is complete, and could trigger a new surge of border crossings."

So, we should just do nothing at all because for a while we might see some immigrants pass through before the fence is finished? Won't they continue to come regardless of whether the fence is being built or not? Does the Chronicle think that if we announce we won't build the fence, immigrants will suddenly stay home?

What facile nonsense.

So, the Chronicle's points are as follows
-The fence keeps no one out
-The fence keeps too many in
-Once built, the southern fence won't stop all those illegal Canadians that are swamping us
-The GOP thinks the fence will solve every problem -- despite the talk of guest workers and other ideas
-The Fence will increase illegal immigration
-While the fence is being built we will get immigrants

Talk about ridiculous!