No Need For A Fence Here, Nosireebob
By Mitch Berg
Malkin: Mexican military, cops routinely cross the border to aid drug and human traffickers:
fiscal year 2006 alone, there were 29 confirmed incidents along the U.S.- Mexican border involving Mexican military and/or law enforcement personnel, 17 of which involved armed Mexican government agents. Moreover, between 1996 and September 30, 2006, there were 253 confirmed incursions into the United States by Mexican government personnel.
The recipe for the border, once again for those who weren’t paying attention for the past thirty years: a high fence. Wide, well-lit gates with instructions in all the world’s languages on how to get in legally (and learn English) posted prominently, to welcome those who come legally. But not without the high fence.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
>The recipe for the border, once again for those who weren’t paying attention for the past thirty years: a high fence.
Tell it to Maverick, Mitch.
Or is he flip-flapping on that like a Confederate Flag?
/jc
January 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Or is he flip-flapping on that
One might hope.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
For those who have been arguing that a fence won’t work, we now have evidence that may dissapoint you.
Yuma Az has recently surpassed San Diego as the busiest crossing point for illegals. Why?
Because the border fence was raised by 12′ and extended.
Now the border patrol is free to concentrate in the high traffic areas along the AZ and TX borders that are awaiting their fence enhancements.
We do not need a coast to coast border fence people. Nor do we need to patrol every mile of the border.
If you’ve never been there, let me assure you that the border country between the US and Mexico is a very nasty place. The wife and I rode US 8 from San Diego to Yuma this past summer, and the temperature was a constant 120 deg. F. It was no picnic and we were on a motorcycle doing 70 mhp…I cannot imagine walking.
The “safe” routes are few and far between, and well known to our border patrol. Fencing these routes puts a big roadblock in the way of people who do not have the time to waste cutting through, digging under or climbing over it.
Besides, every time a group cuts a hole, they tell our border patrol where to look.
Building the fence will save this country billions and is a very necessary step to making sure that terrorists are not slipping in among hotel cleaning ladies.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Back when I was living in San Diego it was always dangerous to be driving on I5 anywhere near the border. You’d always have illegals jumping out of the ditches and running across the road. It led to many accidents and more than a few illegals dead or in the hospital.
When I went back there a few years ago the problem was less severe simply due to enhanced enforcement.
And I’ll agree with swiftee, that border is a dangerous place if you don’t know how to handle deserts. If we build fences, the illegals will go to the more remote locations to cross and more will die in the desert, which will lead the lefties to whine about all the death down there. Just ask the folks down in Arizona now.
It’s better if we just make sure that folks don’t want to come here and break the law in the first place. It’s far simpler to enforce employment laws with the fangs directed at employers.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
You’re right nerdbert.
The Governor has asked the legislature to toughen enforcement on employers that hire illegals and to increase the fines they face, and I’m all for that.
It remains to be seen if the lefties that have been screaming for just such a move will now back up what they say, or now that we agree will they change the topic.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
They’ll change the topic.
During the immigration “debate” I actually asked one of our leftie bloggers why they were so against the lower class. After all, the bulk of the suppression of lower class wages in this country has been due to an oversupply of unskilled labor coming from illegal immigrants. If they really cared about the lower classes the DFL and lefties would be fighting tooth and nail to enforce immigration. But they don’t, or at least they care less about the economic health and welfare of the bottom quartile than about other issues. (Note: asking any leftie about why they want to hurt the poor by allowing illegal immigration is just about assured to make them change the topic from immigration, at least in my experience.)
If we do enforcement we get fewer people coming over. If we make it harder to cross over with physical barriers like the fence then even fewer come over and we can pay much more attention to the folks who do come over and are bad guys. But you get much more return for the buck from employment enforcement than from a fence.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
After all, the bulk of the suppression of lower class wages in this country has been due to an oversupply of unskilled labor coming from illegal immigrants.
Precisely. The population of Mexico is 106 million. Between 10 and 20 million (maybe more) Mexican illegal aliens now reside on the United States. This is a significant portion of all living Mexican nationals.
If you are a journalist the illegals aren’t competing for your job.
If you are a lawyer the illegals aren’t competing for your job.
If you are a school teacher the illegals aren’t competing for your job.
If you are a state or federal employee the illegals aren’t competing for your job.
Journalists, lawyers, the teachers and other public employee unions form the backbone of the Democrats party. The only Dem interest group that has seen their wages stagnate due to competition from illegals are blacks, and they are kept safely on the plantation by people like Sharpton & Jackson who have no fear of illegal immigration at all.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Well, Gov Richardson of Border state New Mexico is pretty against a fence.
“”We can address the illegal immigration problem by taking three realistic steps.
First, we have to recognize that no fence ever built has stopped history. And a border fence wouldn’t either. If you build a ten foot fence, someone will use an 11 foot ladder.
Instead, use that money to secure the border with more Border Patrol officers. We need to at least double the number of Border Patrol agents. That would secure the border.
Second, we need a path to legalization requiring those living in the United States illegally to pay a realistic fine, pass a background check, and pay any back taxes.
And third, we have to work closely with the Mexican government. Mexico needs to do more to stem the flow. But if we create a reasonable guest worker program and provide a path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here, there is every reason to expect Mexico to do its part with economic reforms and to help us with border security.””
I am torn on the path to citizenship, but what do you do to the child, who was born here and is a citizen and their parents who are undocumented. Do you split the family, do you strip the child’s citizenship, neither appealing or compassionate options. But I struggle with rewarding illegal behavior. There is middle ground here, but I don’t think building a fence is the answer.
I am convinced if we enforce the laws we have it would stem a good chunk of the issue. The bigger debate is how do we deal with those already here.
Flash
January 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Flash-
Richardson is a fool.
We’re not trying to use a fence to stop history, but to keep people out. Fences have long been used effectively for this task. If Richardson really believed that ten foot fence & eleven foot poll nonsense he’d tear down all the security fences that surround state property in New Mexico.
_We_ do not need “a path to legalization” for illegal immigrants. Some of the illegal aliens want it and some businesses want it. The number of Americans who will benefit from this “path to legalization” is small and not deserving of the word “we”.
The Mexican government has no incentive to “work with us” on reducing immigration to the US. None. Zero. Zip. Mexico is an oligarchy, run by a few dozen families for their own benefit. As long as the government down there can export its unemployed to the US, they will never have any incentive to end the corruption and quasi-socialist practices that have made what should be a wealthy nation a cesspool of poverty and crime.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Wasn’t Richardson vying for the Democrat endorsement until a couple of days ago?
Yup, there’s a guy I’ll go with on illegal immigration policy, alrighty.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am
“Yup, there’s a guy I’ll go with on illegal immigration policy, alrighty.”
You’re wising up in your old age . . . oh . . . . you’re kidding . . . figures!
I give a nice reasoned reply, conceding two of his three issues and that’s all I get.
I’d still like to hear from you all on what do you do to the child, who was born here and is a citizen and their parents who are undocumented. Do you split the family, do you strip the child’s citizenship, neither appealing or compassionate options?
There was a time, not that long ago, where reasoned debate could be found here. I can spew talking point with the best of them. On this particular issue I am still molding my opinion and don’t think either side has the perfect plan, the answer will be a combo platter, but that will take reasoned debate and compromise.
Flsah
January 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Swiftee said:
> Wasn’t Richardson vying for the Democrat endorsement until a couple of days ago?
> Yup, there’s a guy I’ll go with on illegal immigration policy, alrighty.
What’s McCain’s excuse?
The Mack dials it back!
/jc
January 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’ll bite
“Do you split the family, do you strip the child’s citizenship, neither appealing or compassionate options?”
Under the US constitution, the child is a citizen and it’s citizenship can not be stripped. However, the child is still a minor in the custody and care of its parents. The parents should be returned to their home country with the child. When the child is 18 and independent, it would still have the right to return to the US.
The only way to curb illegal immigration is to remove all incentive for people to come here illegally. That doesn’t mean just job opportunities, but also all educational and medical opportunities (except emergencies). At the same time, as has been said here many times, we open wide the legal pathway.
As for the current illegals. I’m mixed on this. If the borders are secured first, I’d have no problem with a pathway to legal status that didn’t require a round trip home. But without a secure border, no deal.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
On the child thing…boo hoo. The child could care less..just wants to live with mom and dad….which should be in Mexico. Then, like MON says, come back when you’re ready to fly the nest. That’s about the lamest reason for letting illegals stay. I wonder if any illegals pop out an anchor baby just for that reason? I don’t spose so…never heard of that happening before…
Why would the child’s citiizenship need to be stripped anyway? And the only way the course of action I want to see (send them all back) would be non-compassionate would be if we said the kid had to stay here. Otherwise, what’s the difference-except you’re playing the children-heartstrings card.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
MoN:
“”As for the current illegals. I’m mixed on this. If the borders are secured first, I’d have no problem with a pathway to legal status that didn’t require a round trip home. But without a secure border, no deal.””
Yeah, this is my leaning, but I simply struggle with rewarding negative/illegal behavior while many are waiting to come here legally. It is where I break from the Left on, I think.
Colleen, I’m not sure where the condescending tone is coming from. i am in search of an answer and am not advocating any position just yet. Regardless, the children born here are still citizens, deserving all that goes with citizenship. I suppose their ‘rights’ can wait till their 18 when they can decide on their own if they want to come back.
Again, it is an issue I am still working on internally. I hope a legislative solution that is balanced can be found soon.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“I simply struggle with rewarding negative/illegal behavior”
Me too, but I don’t think this pathway should be a very easy or quick path.
“I suppose their ‘rights’ can wait till their 18 when they can decide on their own if they want to come back.”
I’m actually in this position. I was born in a country that my parents were not citizens of. They didn’t leave me there obviously. I could return to my birth country and immediately enjoy all rights of citizenship, but I’m pretty happy here.
Read Ed’s post on removing incentives and its effect (good and bad).
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016593.php
January 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
“I could return to my birth country” I can;t tell you how relived I am to hear this. It means you are ineligible for President *smile*
On my way to read Ed.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Arnold and I are working on that.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I knew you’d play the Terminator Card on that one *laughing*
Ed’s right on. Liked the punch at the end:
“”At least this shows that proper enforcement of employer sanctions might be enough to resolve most of the issues with illegal immigration, and the more onerous proposals may not be needed. It also shows how difficult the transition could be for the entire nation as the process of purging illegal immigrants from our economy slowly proceeds.””
We can do much more by enforcing what we have, than building walls and spending money and creating new laws. By creating an environment sans enticements to come here, walls will be unneeded.
But there is that flip side. Much of the work these undocumented workers do is work that we citizens don’t want, for the most part. Which means the work in the groves goes undone, dominoing all the way through the Economic chain.But my understanding of Green Card laws (and it isn’t very good) is that if you are coming her to do a job that a citizens doesn’t want, or isn’t doing, that accelerates the process. Or I may just be dreaming that.
Mitch will grab this one and set my straight I am sure. Not many issues I still waffle on. He pulled me to the Right on the 2nd amendment, so here is another chance *grin* I can be a reasonable man. Shocking, I know *laughing*
January 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“By creating an environment sans enticements to come here, walls will be unneeded.”
Walls may be less needed. Drug traffickers will still try to cross, no matter what.
Also, “sans enticement” needs to be all inclusive. No jobs, no school, no medical. It wasn’t clear from the Oklahoma data if the illegals were returning to their home country or just going to other states with less restrictive laws. Probably some of both.
But I don’t understand your position on wanting to hire more border security but not wanting to build walls. Walls are just a tool that border guards use to make themselves more productive. Not building walls would be like not giving border guards vehicles to patrol in. Is it some sort of symbolic issue?
January 11th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
flash said:
“I can be a reasonable man”
I see this, I am not shocked, and I applaud your reasonable behavior. 🙂
January 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“But I don’t understand your position on wanting to hire more border security but not wanting to build walls. ”
It is as much a money thing and only slightly a symbolic thing. If we do everything right, like enforce laws, eliminate enticements, and increase border security patrols I don’t see a need to spend even more on a wall. A Wall may lead to a false sense of security, reduced patrols, and then here comes the ladders/tunnels.
All of this is in the context of immigration, adding the drug trafficking component adds an additional set a variables. If a wall is that important to those proponents, they may be better served putting it in the context of the War on Drugs rather than Immigration.
Again, I haven’t draw a line in the sand, yet, in fact I haven’t drawn any line at all*. Mostly thinking out loud, still.
Flash
*Actually, I had to search Centrisity for ‘immigration’ and found that I haven’t said much of anything about it. I have to go way back to a Feb 2004 post where all I say, in the context of Homeland Security is “I venture Right in my support of tighter immigration controls. ” Seems like that is still where I am at.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“It is as much a money thing and only slightly a symbolic thing. ”
So if a cost trade-off shows that a wall is more cost-effective than just an increase in border patrol personnel (assuming equal effectiveness), then you don’t have a problem?
I’m indifferent as to exactly how the border is secured, as long as it is actually secured. I see no symbolism good or bad in an actual physical fence. From the rights perspective, an actual wall is evidence that something tangible is being done, but that alone is not sufficient reason to build it. Evidence of the effectiveness of walls (as swiftee has provided) is a good reason to proceed.
Secure boarders encompasses immigration, drug trafficking and national security. We have to address all three requirements. Immigration enforcement only addresses one of these issues.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
A wall is needed because it’s permanent and it’s visible. Other security measures that may have the same disincentive effect, like greater employer sanctions, increased border patrol, a ‘virtual’ fence, require much more political maintenance. Their funding may be reduced or their rules changed so that they aren’t effective, and it will not be front page news.
The open borders fans are a politically powerful minority. It will be much easier for them to undermine the laws and rules that keep illegals out if they can do it without raising a ruckus about it (I think that this is why Bush likes the virtual fence idea). The history of illegal immigration since the Reagan amnesty shows this.
Once built, tearing down the fence or letting it fall into disrepair would be a high visibility event.
I trust walls more than politicians.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:13 am