Thread: Bordering on Insanity

Shockingly, the open-borders folks at the Journal are at it again. Alas, facts must once again interfere with their fringe ideology.

WSJ: The calendar says 2005. But the U.S. immigration debate still seems stuck in 1986, the year Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act that criminalized the hiring of illegal aliens and boosted funding for Mexican border patrols.

After nearly 20 years and numerous enforcement escalations, the undocumented immigrant population continues to grow -- and restrictionist lawmakers continue to insist that throwing ever more money, men and material into border enforcement is the key to fixing the problem.

Me: So we’ve been throwing money at the problem, eh? President Bush does not appear to have heard that. Nor Clinton.

And enforcement escalations? According to Time: “the INS's employer-sanctions program has all but disappeared. Investigations targeting employers of illegal aliens dropped more than 70%, from 7,053 in 1992 to 2,061 in 2002. Arrests on job sites declined from 8,027 in 1992 to 451 in 2002. Perhaps the most dramatic decline: the final orders levying fines for immigration-law violations plunged 99%, from 1,063 in 1992 to 13 in 2002.�

Call me crazy but an explosion of enforcement means increases, not radical reductions.

WSJ: Yesterday, Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) introduced legislation that would authorize $5 billion over five years "to acquire and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, camera poles, vehicles barriers, sensors" and other technologies. They'd also create a new 10,000-man army to raid businesses across America and make sure there are no illegal chambermaids working at Marriott. For this, we need Republicans?

Me: Personally, I always associate Democrats with being soft on crime. I guess the Journal only takes law enforcement seriously when the perps where baggy pants and not Brooks Brothers. That’s some rock-ribbed conservatism there.

WSJ: Never mind that since 1986 the U.S. strategy of spending more and more money on militarizing the border hasn't worked. According to a recent Cato Institute study by Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey, "By 2002, the Border Patrol's budget had reached $1.6 billion and that of the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] stood at $6.2 billion, 10 and 13 times their 1986 values, respectively."

Over the same 16-year period, the number of border patrol officers tripled, and the amount of hours spent patrolling the border increased by a factor of eight. By 2002, Professor Massey notes, "the Border Patrol was the largest arms-bearing branch of the U.S. government next to the military itself."

Me: A Cato study that opposes border enforcement. That’s shocking!

Seriously though, even if one assumes that the Cato study is accurate, it ignores significant factors. One is whether the initial outlay of funds and manpower was sufficient. If not, significant increases in those numbers might still not be enough to make a difference.

Another issue is that of sanctuary city policies, in which local law enforcement ignore the immigration status of those they come in contact with. Thus, if you make it past the border, your odds of getting caught go way down. This is especially true when you look at how Border Patrol internal enforcement efforts are cut off at the knees.

Then, when you factor in catch and release, where illegal immigrants are released after capture if they promise to attend their deportations hearings. Remember John Malvo, Beltway sniper?

I’ll concede that increased funding to nab lawbreakers doesn’t help if we ignore those who slip by and release those who don’t.

WSJ: Meanwhile, the illegal immigration flow has only increased, and all of this extra "enforcement" is arguably one reason. When illegals felt they could more easily cross the border, they'd enter the U.S. on a seasonal (or sometimes even daily) basis or when they needed the money. Then they'd often return home. But with the difficulty of re-entry so much higher in the last 20 years, many more migrant workers choose to remain here permanently. The risk of staying is lower than the price of re-running the border gantlet.

Me: I’m confused. I thought that Massey said our border enforcement was worthless. Now it’s so menacing that illegals are terrified to go home.
And could folks be choosing to stay here permanently to enjoy such benefits as our medical care, free elementary education and, in some jurisdictions, in-state resident subsidies to college?

WSJ: Messrs. Cornyn and Kyl aren't immigrant bashers, and they both support President Bush's concept of a guest worker program. They argue that this enforcement escalation at the border is necessary to gain enough public support to pass such a guest-worker plan, and they may be right about the price of winning over some Republicans. But no one should think that pouring billions more into enforcement will stop Mexicans from crossing the border for economic opportunity, much less induce those already in the U.S. to come out of the shadows.

Me: Well, it was a terrifying “border gauntlet� a moment ago. Now an increase of enforcement is useless. Well, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

WSJ: A more promising reform was introduced in May by Senators John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.). Their approach is a welcome acknowledgment of certain realities -- namely, that enforcement-only policies have failed repeatedly and that wiser uses of limited government manpower and tax dollars are in order.

Me: John McCain and Ted Kennedy working together. Conservatives are supposed to get excited? The only thing that could make this better is if Dennis Kucinich sponsors the House version of the bill.

WSJ: Based on the fact that the vast majority of migrants come here in search of work, Senators McCain and Kennedy aim to lower the level of illegal immigration by expanding our relatively few channels for legal entry to meet the demand. Giving economic immigrants legal ways to enter the U.S. will reduce business for human smugglers and counterfeiters. Moreover, it will allow our border authorities to concentrate their resources on chasing down real security threats instead of nannies and gardeners.

In short, the McCain-Kennedy bill would enhance homeland security without harming the immigrant labor market so essential to the country's economic well-being. But the measure's guest-worker initiative, which would allow undocumented migrants already here to work legally if they first pay sizable fines and undergo criminal background checks, has brought charges of "amnesty" from Republicans who call any "work and stay" provision a poison pill.

Me: Ah, so if there’s a lot of crime, just declare forbidden activities legal. This is a brilliant advance in criminal science

As to giving our law enforcement authorities the ability to better distinguish between criminals and “economic immigrants� one must wonder if the terrorists and thugs will be so kind as to self-identify. Or might they just be crafty enough to say that they are simply looking forward helping lower wages for America’s low skilled workers before committing crimes that Americans just won’t do?

And the amnesty issue. According to the Journal, paying a “sizeable fine� and undergoing criminal background checks – which I’m sure, when dealing with regimes like Mexico that are known for their incorruptible law enforcement – should put paid to the “A word.� How many people around the world waiting their turn under our immigration rules wish they could just pay a fine and get a background check? Do conservatives really want to teach people that obeying the law is a suckers game?

WSJ: This "amnesty" charge may be potent as a political slogan, but it becomes far less persuasive when you examine its real-world implications. If paying a fine isn't good enough for illegals already here, what are the restrictionists proposing? Mass arrests, raids on job-creating businesses, or deportations? No illegal settled in a job or U.S. community is going to admit his status if he will then immediately be jailed or sent home to wait in line for years before he can get his old U.S. job back. Those who wave the "no amnesty" flag are actually encouraging a larger underground illegal population.

Me: So mass deportations are out of the question. This leads to one question: What happens when the guests don’t want to go back? If deporting the illegals today is not feasible, what will change by allowing even more immigrants in? Why will illegals admit their status when they will be forced to leave in a few years?

So opposing amnesty is an invitation for more crime? I wait with baited breath for the Journal to call for amnesty to stop car theft and burglaries. But given that the Journal’s editorial staff probably like their cars and safe homes, I figure it will be a while.

WSJ: Republicans in Congress may well decide to push an immigration "reform" that militarizes the border and harasses more businesses. But we doubt they have the votes to pass it without a guest worker component, and in any case it won't work. The only reform that has a chance to succeed is one that recognizes the reality that 10 or so million illegal aliens already work in the U.S. and are vital to the economy and their communities. More enforcement is a slogan, not a solution.

Me: So reform is now defined as surrendering to lawbreakers and, by legislative fiat, declaring them law abiding citizens? Will the Journal support similar relief to drug offenders? Or is this a rule applied only when it protects business interests from paying decent wages for Americans?

Cross posted at: http://unhyphenatedconservative.blogspot.com/

Moreover, it will allow our border authorities to concentrate their resources on chasing down real security threats instead of nannies and gardeners.

Did bayourod over at FR write this? It sounds just like him.

The open borders crowd always characterizes illegals this way. If anyone else did it, they'd be called "racist" at the very least.

Bordering on insanity?

It's crossed the border of insanity.