http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 64301.html

The fence debate


Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Fencing off troublesome areas of the U.S. border with Mexico often is ridiculed by critics who have never been to those areas or have seen the criminal activity that migrates north.

T.J. Bonner has seen it. And he's seen what a difference fences make.

The border south of San Diego had been "rampant" with drug smuggling, says Mr. Bonner, union president of the National Border Patrol Council. It was "anarchy."

When a fence went up, drug seizures dropped significantly, as did crime, Bonner told a joint congressional hearing.

Of course, the fallback position against securing the nation's porous border is that doing so threatens the lives of impoverished Mexicans in search of the American dream. "Those who are not deterred will become increasingly dependent upon profit-minded coyotes and criminal traffickers in order to cross the border in remote areas," says Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md.

Yes, as long as the incentive remains for them to do so illegally. Today U.S. employers exploit cheap labor without penalty while President Bush and the Senate respond by offering amnesty to illegals.

It's reasoned that those already in the U.S. illegally, those who flagrantly disregard America's laws, will suddenly abide by the rules. That's worse than wishful thinking.

Only when illegals no longer have reason to trample the U.S. border will the fence issue become moot.