Thread: Bush should have dissed Mexico border fence

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13770931.htm

Posted on Thu, Feb. 02, 2006

THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT

Bush should have dissed Mexico border fence

BY ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
aoppenheimer@MiamiHerald.com

President Bush deserves an ''A'' for denouncing economic isolationists in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but I would give him an ''F'' for failing to show the same courage to condemn immigration isolationists who want to build a senseless fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Before getting into what's so crazy about the plan to build a fence to stop the flood of migrants into U.S. territory, contained in a bill passed by the House of Representatives in December and scheduled to be debated by the Senate this month, let's look at Bush's key paragraphs on free trade and immigration in his annual address to Congress.

On the trade side, Bush acknowledged that the rise of powerful competitors such as China and India ''creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears.'' But he immediately criticized protectionists, who ``want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy.''

When it came to immigration, however, Bush failed to show the same determination, most likely because nearly 90 percent of Republican members of Congress voted for the bill sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., which among other things calls for building a 700-mile bridge along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

Bush called for ''stronger immigration enforcement and border protection.'' His only concession to common sense was adding that ``we must have a rational, humane guest-worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally and reduces smuggling and crime along the border.''

LITTLE MEAT

''He didn't really put much meat on the bones,'' says Angela Kelley, a top official of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington think tank. Bush didn't move forward on the need for a more comprehensive plan, which would include ways to allow millions of hard-working undocumented migrants to come out of the shadows, or better alternatives than the proposed fence, she said.

What's so wrong with the fence idea? It would mean wasting billions of dollars -- $2.2 billion, according to pro-fence congressional sources, and more than $7 billion, according to fence opponents -- for nothing other than allowing Republican hard-liners to create the illusion that they are doing something to slow down the migration flow.

How come?

• First, without even entering into the damage the fence would do to what's left of U.S.-Latin American ties, the premise that erecting a wall is necessary to stop terrorism is shaky: Not a single one of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists came into the United States through Mexico.

• Second, building a 700-mile wall along the 2,000-mile border will only help force migrants to seek more dangerous border crossings.

• Third, 40 percent of undocumented workers come to the United States legally and overstay their visas. The border fence wouldn't do anything to stop them.

• Fourth, the wall may actually help swell the number of undocumented immigrants, since the estimated 11 million of them already in the United States would no longer circulate back and forth for fear of facing greater difficulties to come back.

• Fifth, unilateral enforcement has failed in the past. According to Princeton University Professor Douglas S. Massey, over the past decade Washington has increased the U.S. Border Patrol budget by 383 percent, yet illegal immigration didn't slow down. On the contrary, it has more than doubled, Massey says.

DEVELOPMENT

My conclusion: The only solution to reduce the flow of immigrants will be focusing on Mexico's development, rather than on sealing the border. As long as the U.S. per-capita income is four times that of Mexico's and as long as the U.S. economy keeps needing foreign workers, people will keep coming in, whether it's through the Canadian border or by boat or by digging tunnels. The solution is greater economic integration rather than spending billions on futile fences.

Postscript: Cuba watchers are puzzled by Bush's omission of Cuba when he mentioned that more than half the people in the world live in undemocratic countries ''like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran.'' For a speech that White House aides say was subject to 30 revisions by the president, it couldn't have been an oversight. Most likely, Bush has concluded that, compared with other bad guys, Cuba is irrelevant on the world scene.

PRO-IMMIGRATION PROPAGANDA!!!

A REBUTTLE:

• First, without even entering into the damage the fence would do to what's left of U.S.-Latin American ties, the premise that erecting a wall is necessary to stop terrorism is shaky: Not a single one of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists came into the United States through Mexico.

REBUTTLE: If securing our borders and enforcing our laws offends other countries, TOO BAD! With increased transportation security, the easiest way to get in the country is across the border. The terrorists know that.

• Second, building a 700-mile wall along the 2,000-mile border will only help force migrants to seek more dangerous border crossings.

REBUTTLE: That's exactly the reason to build it, more dangerous=less attempts, plus the Border Patrol will know exactly where to look.

• Third, 40 percent of undocumented workers come to the United States legally and overstay their visas. The border fence wouldn't do anything to stop them.

REBUTTLE: That leaves 60% who come across the border, which equals hundreds of thousands of people, year after year. That's a good place to start.

• Fourth, the wall may actually help swell the number of undocumented immigrants, since the estimated 11 million of them already in the United States would no longer circulate back and forth for fear of facing greater difficulties to come back.

REBUTTLE: Once interior enforcement kicks in, ie: employer sanctions, they will begin to leave on their own. We don't keep people from leaving. Once they're out, it will be much harder to get back in.

• Fifth, unilateral enforcement has failed in the past. According to Princeton University Professor Douglas S. Massey, over the past decade Washington has increased the U.S. Border Patrol budget by 383 percent, yet illegal immigration didn't slow down. On the contrary, it has more than doubled, Massey says.

REBUTTLE: This is laughable. Enforcement has NEVER been tried. Most of the increases in budget cited, have been only in the last two years. We've made only token attempts at securing the border, in the past and virtually no attempt at interior enforcement. Enforcement would work, IF we really did it.