The liberal case against illegal immigration


Ken Marotte
June 26, 2007


The media have proven particularly adept at attributing anger over illegal immigration to conservatives.


"[Agreement] is a striking show of support for a primary element of an immigration overhaul bill that has stalled in the Senate amid conservative opposition," reports the Los Angeles Times.


CNN writer Peter Hamby similarly pens: "But no issue in recent memory has united conservative bloggers like the debate over immigration. Their frustration has culminated in a full-scale revolt against the Bush administration and a Senate bill that activists say does little to solve the country's border security problems."


"This week," writes Brian Darling in National Review, "conservatives will watch in horror as Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell give a wink and a nod to amendments approved by the drafters of the bipartisan amnesty approach to immigration reform in anticipation of a final deal."


While conservatives have indeed been more vocal on the issue, liberals have just as much to decry — although for different reasons. With the facts and analysis below, I seek to extend my arm to the Left in hopes of truly confronting — in an effectual and bipartisan fashion — this crucial issue.

Many environmentalists fret over global warming and oil drilling while ignoring an equally monstrous problem — illegal immigration. Aliens almost always enter the country with various goods; when the time comes to dispose of their trash, illegals often litter so as to avoid detection.

This isn't just a couple muchachos ditching their Snickers wrappers in the desert. In fact, according to government statistics, the average illegal alien discards eight pounds of trash during his/her journey into the country. Multiply eight by 20 million (the number of illegals working and living undetected in America), and you'll understand the magnitude of the problem.

As reported in the Arizona Daily Star, "The trash includes water bottles, sweaters, jeans, razors, soap, medications, food, ropes, batteries, cell phones, radios, homemade weapons, and human waste." The same article quotes Steve Singkofer, president of the Southern Arizona Hiking Club: "In the Huachucas, you are almost wading through empty gallon water jugs. There's literally thousands of water jugs, clothes, shoes. You could send 1,000 people out there and they could each pick up a dozen water jugs, and they couldn't get it all."

Additionally, the Washington Times recently revealed that illegal immigrants are starting forest fires to force Border Patrol agents from their posts and routes. Such fires "correspond to a dramatic rise in assaults against Border Patrol agents — up more than 100 percent over last year."

This is disconcerting enough. But it doesn't stop at environmental issues.

Liberals often assail poor conditions in the third-world countries. The illegal route into America is not much different.

According to recent statistics, approximately 500 folks die annually trying to reach safe haven in America — a figure doubled from 1995. The most common causes of death? Heat stroke, hypothermia, and dehydration. The stories are harrowingly morbid.

How do we strengthen the environment and reduce the risk of mortality for would-be Americans? The solution is not an absolute open-border policy. For history has proven that without defined and respected borders, a country perishes.

But here's the solution: build the fence. Well-built fences (using barbed wire, ditches, heavy-duty metal, security cameras, etc.) have a record of working reliably and effectively. In Israel, such fences have reduced terrorist attacks by 90 percent. A double-fence built on the San Diego-Mexico border, championed by 2008 presidential contender and Congressman Duncan Hunter, was found to decrease the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90 percent.

You may not like the idea of the fence. You may think it archaic, draconian, or even inhumane. Say what you will, the fence would decrease illegal immigration — largely if not entirely.

A fence means fewer illegals. Fewer illegals means less strain on the environment. Fewer illegals means fewer desert fatalities. And fewer illegals would allow us to appropriately accept, welcome, and assimilate legal immigrants as we once did.

There are two arguments concerning this issue. On one side, there is a gentle balance between compassion and prudence; on the other, a dangerous temptation to elevate emotion over logic and law.

Where do you stand? Regardless of political orientation, it is high time for all patriots — liberal, conservative, and everything in between — to stand firm as one.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/marotte/070626