Border Insecurity For Sale

Posted July 23, 2007 | 01:49 PM (EST)



One characteristic of the Clinton and Bush dynastic rule of the past 15 years has been the extent to which an elite that crosses party lines has evolved and has been able to run the country and dictate policies with little or no regard to popular sentiment. The rush to war with Iraq was truly bipartisan, featuring neo-cons who had successfully made the transition from Trotskyite to Scoop Jackson Democrat to Republican. Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer before he became Dick Cheney's consigliere. Many neo-cons are now preparing to become Democrats again in anticipation of a change at the top in 2008 and will undoubtedly be welcomed by whichever Democratic hawk manages to get elected president.

The inter-party elite, enabled by its friends in the media, knows what's best for the United States and its people and it usually gets what it wants. One need only consider the ongoing saga of the Iraq war in which the wishes of 70 percent of the American public to bring the troops home now are ignored. A surge policy is being pursued that only delays the inevitable while giving the elites room to maneuver before the next round of pointless conflict, which will be directed against Iran. That the American public does not wish a war against Iran after the debacle in Iraq is immaterial, as is the fact that the elite that has guided the country for the past 15 years has been demonstrably wrong about virtually everything. Getting hold of power, keeping it, and profiting personally from it is the sum total of the American elite's political vision.

But sometimes, if only rarely, the elite does not get what it wants. It is truly an ugly sight when "We, the people" rear up on our hind legs and say no, but this is precisely what happened with the so-called immigration reform bill that went down in flames late in June. Claims that conservative talk radio egged on listeners to defeat the bill are true only to an extent. Both Democrats and Republicans pressured their elected officials in what was a genuine popular revolt against the latest con job coming out of Washington. That the bill was being strongly promoted was in itself a tribute to the power of the elites that had crafted it as it was more a confirmation of the status quo than any actual attempt bring about real change. American citizens who had never contacted a Congressman before were suddenly calling and e-mailing, registering their displeasure. Republican Party contributions fell by more than half, with phone calls to the Republican National Committee citing the immigration policy as the issue driving their refusal to give. President George W. Bush's already abysmal approval ratings took another dive, down to Nixonian levels.

But the elites struck back by calling their opponents ignorant "bigots" and "racists" and it appeared for a while that they would triumph in spite of the popular dissent. Republican politicians like illegal immigration because it provides the ultimate in a flexible labor force at below market wage levels. Democrats like the thought of millions of Hispanics-soon-to-be naturalized voting in lock step for the party of the people. Politicians and think tankers of both parties residing in their enclaves in Washington, D.C. Northwest love work-for-peanuts itinerant laborers that wander the area doing odd jobs and the ask-no-questions house cleaners and babysitters that their status entitles them to have. Not needing to change diapers, clean house, or cook meals frees one up to do a lot of ruminating on the taxpayer's dime.

But we the people redoubled our own efforts, knowing that immigration reform was a latter day Brooklyn Bridge up for sale even if the politicians did not. However one feels about the advisability or morality of amnestying 12 million illegal immigrants, the history of immigration reform suggested to the public that one might well want to pause and consider before embracing a new fix. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan was able to pass into law a one-time only measure meant to legalize up to three million illegals. The actual number turned out to be closer to five million, but no matter. Reagan promised that the border would henceforth be protected and illegal immigration would never be a problem again. The enabling legislation also established fines of up to $1 million and other punitive measures for employers who knowingly took on illegal workers. Even if Reagan's intentions were good, and there is every reason to believe that they were, he nevertheless failed to reckon on a feckless Congress and three gentlemen named Bush, Clinton, and Bush Junior for the subsequent enforcement of the new immigration system. Twelve million illegals later, the price in social disruption and wasted tax dollars is still being paid, together with a border that is, to say the least, permeable and an enforcement system that is completely broken. Even the shock of 9/11 has failed to provide the incentive to make the system work, with the Bush Administration willing to spend hundreds of billions dollars to engage the whole world in unending warfare while simultaneously failing to secure America's southern border. Three years after 9/11 in 2004, only 90 immigration inspectors covered the entire United States, and they were responsible for arresting immigrants who are here illegally as well as policing businesses who hire the undocumented laborers. In 1999, there had been 240 inspectors. In the same year there were only three prosecutions of businesses for hiring illegal labor, down from 417 in 1999. Was there a pattern there? You bet. The Bush Administration was and is unwilling to enforce immigration law.

And then there is the issue of security, which most Americans also understand. If you are waging a self-proclaimed global war on terrorism that is costing some hundreds of billions of dollars annually and you are leaving your back door wide open, there is little point in spending the money to deter a terrorist attack. The Bush Administration version of reality that insists that "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," nonsensical when applied to Iraq, could more logically be applied to the Mexican border as keeping terrorists out is far more effective than continuing to make it relatively easy for them to enter with a minimum effort on their part. Law enforcement and intelligence sources note that the same mechanisms that assist illegal immigrants to cross borders are frequently used to distribute drugs and to permit free movement of any number of other miscreants. The same false document factories that supply the illegal immigrant industry also can, and do, supply individuals who have other objectives. A large number of the illegals who are caught crossing the Mexican border, amounting to more than 100,000 in 2005, are described as "other than Mexican" or OTM. Up until recently, they were briefly detained and then released to appear at a later immigration court hearing. More than 85 percent did not show up. Most OTMs are admittedly Latin American, but given the ability to acquire false documents and assume identities, there should be little complacency about the nearly half million non-Mexican illegals believed to be present in the U.S..

The solution to the border security and immigration problem is obvious and is clearly understood everywhere in the United States except, apparently, in Washington, D.C. First, you secure the border absolutely and completely. That there can be an immigration policy that does not start with total control over the national borders is a dangerous illusion. Build a wall if you must. It would cost less than the money being wasted in one month in Iraq. A wall worked for Hadrian's Rome and kept the barbaric Picts out of the Empire for nearly 300 years. Once you do that, it makes it possible to consider in a rational and humane way what should be done about all of the illegals who are already in the United States. Better enforcement of sanctions against employers would reduce the number of jobs available which would in turn mean that many illegal immigrants would voluntarily go home. Others might opt for a path to citizenship that would require them to return home to apply and wait for admittance after paying fines and legalizing their status. Still others might be legalized on humanitarian grounds or for political asylum. Best of all, a return to a status quo ante on our southern border would mean that the United States would finally be forced to address in a serious way the principal responsibility of any government, which is to protect its territory and its citizens. It would also mitigate the international terrorism threat, which is a real and continuing problem that must be taken seriously. Border control would shut down the option that terrorists now have to enter undocumented and unmonitored as part of the wave of millions of illegal immigrants. That alone would be worth the effort.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-gi ... 57419.html