Thread: Focus on the other border, too

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/o...e11navarr.html

More columns by Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Focus on the other border, too


UNION-TRIBUNE
June 11, 2006


Isn't it ironic? U.S. border policy has come to resemble the lyrics of a song by Alanis Morissette.

It's like rain on your wedding day. It's a free ride when you've already paid.

And it's like obsessing over fortifying the southern border with Mexico at a time when a terror plot has been uncovered just beyond the northern border with Canada.

It's like some Canadian and American politicians reflexively debating Canada's immigration policies when many of the terror suspects were – as in the case of the July 2005 attack on the London subway system – homegrown.

Canadian authorities recently apprehended 17 Muslim males – 12 adults and five teenagers – with suspected ties to al-Qaeda. One of the men allegedly intended to behead various Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Other charges include planned bombings in Canadian cities and a planned takeover of the Parliament building – all in order to force the release of Muslim prisoners and a withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Authorities are investigating ties between the suspects and Islamic terror cells in the United States.

The fact that the alleged terrorists were already part of Canadian society was not lost on Canadian Immigration Minister Monte Solberg, who last week defended his country's process for screening immigrants and said it had no relevance to the case because all of the 17 terror suspects were Canadian residents and many were, in fact, born in that country. Yet in Canada, as in the United States, the immigration debate continues. At least we know that suspicion of foreigners – even those who immigrate to a country legally – isn't a uniquely American phenomenon and that other nations indulge in it as well.

I've never put much stock in the convenient argument advanced by immigration restrictionists that immigration reform is a component of the war on terror.

Why confuse those who come to this country to do us harm with those who come to do the dishes, the gardening and the housekeeping? And let's not forget, not one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers entered the United States through the Mexican border.

When you think about it, why would terrorists go to the trouble of planning an attack and then increase the chances they'd be caught by trying to enter through the fortified U.S.-Mexico border when the Canadian border is more porous. Before the Sept. 11 attacks, there were fewer than 500 Border Patrol agents looking after the 4,000-mile U.S.-Canada border. Today, along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexicoborder, there are about 10,000 agents. Along the northern border, the number of agents has been beefed up to about 1,000.

The outrageous claim that the immigration debate in the United States is free of racism and nativism might be more believable if Americans were as anxious to increase enforcement on the U.S.-Canada border as they are to build walls on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Some people might call that being politically correct. But, as recent events make clear, it's more like good common sense.

Perhaps Canadian officials could have done a better job of screening whichever of the 17 suspects were born abroad. But what should be clear by now are the limits of the vaunted Canadian system for screening immigrants that – isn't it ironic? – has been held up as a model for the United States.

The point system is supposed to make it easier to recruit “high skilled” workers and keep out the riffraff. Those wishing to legally immigrate to Canada get points for having an education (up to 25), proficiency in English and/or French (up to 24) and professional work experience (up to 21). You even get points for your age. Those over 50 are thought to be less desirable than those between the ages of 21 and 49. You need 67 points to gain admission to Canada.

So under the Canadian system, if you have a master's degree, speak English or French, have 10 years of white-collar work experience and money in the bank, you're good to go – even if you have tendencies toward terrorism.

And some see this as an improvement over what we have in the United States?

The Canadians would be smart to fight terrorism, not immigration. And we Americans would be wise to work with the Canadians in fighting terrorism, but not try to emulate them when it comes to immigration.

Navarrette can be reached via e-mail at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

Now that was predictable, wasn't it?

I haven't heard, but I just figured all the talking heads would have already been on the shows saying this same thing.

then increase the chances they'd be caught by trying to enter through the fortified U.S.-Mexico border

How can anyone say this with a straight face. 'Fortified' - when thousands daily just walk across?