Ramblings 

 Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute of Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.

The Time Has Come to Secure U.S. Borders—Our National Security Depends Upon It

Our virtually open borders are increasingly seen as not only a danger to national sovereignty but a serious security threat as well.

In March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are doing everything they can to get into the United States through Mexico and Canada. On a trip to Mexico City, Rice declared:

We have from time to time had reports about al Qaeda trying to use our southern border but also trying to use our northern border. There is no secret that al Qaeda will try to get into this country and into other countries by any means they possibly can. That’s how they managed to do it before and they will do everything that they can to cross the borders.

Intelligence from current investigations, detentions and other sources suggests that al Qaeda has considered using the southwest border to infiltrate the U.S., according to testimony from a top Homeland Security Department official in February before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Vice Admiral James Loy, the deputy secretary said:

Several al Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.

Admiral Loy attributes al Qaeda’s interest in using Mexico as a springboard to the conclusion by al Qaeda’s leaders that their “operational security” will be enhanced. This assessment is correct. Under current conditions, terrorists can easily enter the U.S. undetected in the stream of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who cross from Mexico annually.

John B. Roberts II, a terrorism specialist who served in the Reagan White House, notes that,

At present, the U.S. has no defense against this contingency. Washington’s decades-long policy of benign neglect of illegal immigration has spawned a global infrastructure of underworld industries to facilitate the flow of undocumented aliens. This underground pipeline originates in countries as far away as China, Brazil, and Nigeria, where professional smugglers charge thousands of dollars to transport aliens to the U.S. Many of these smuggling networks converge in Mexico, where “coyotes” intimately familiar with the gaps in our security take over the task of transporting aliens beyond our borders into our cities. Aliens who prefer can travel to Mexico’s border towns and hire their own coyotes as guides for the final passage . . .  . Three and a half years after September 11, we have not begun to address the security issues posed by an internal community of illegal aliens believed to number between 8 and 10 million.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Reports that,

During a recent eight-month period, 8,938 wannabe illegal immigrants from known terrorism-supporting states were caught trying to sneak across our southern border, including nationals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. We don’t know how many were not caught.

The Mexican government is guilty of helping to stimulate illegal immigration. In December, it released The Guide for the Mexican Migrant, Published by the Mexican Foreign Ministry and distributed inside Mexico, it gives tips to would-be migrants on how best to get to the U.S. safely. One section advised would-be migrants on how to deal with U.S. authorities if caught. Another tells how to survive in “high risk zones” like rivers and deserts. A third tells how best to avoid detection once past the U.S. Border.

While the guide does advise would-be migrants that getting a U.S. visa is the best way to get into the United States, and that crossing the border illegally could land them in jail, Mark Kirkorian of the Center of Immigration Studies calls these “disclaimers,” and describes the guide as essentially an official wink and a nudge to illegals. 

In December, President Bush signed a law responding to recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that called for adding 2,000 agents each year for five years to the seriously understaffed Border Patrol. Yet the President’s new budget proposal calls for only “$37 million for 210 additional Border Patrol agents.” At the same time the budget calls for $127 million “in new funding for improved radiological and nuclear screening equipment at our borders” and $596 million “to protect the safety of the nation’s food system from contamination by terrorists.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the refusal to dramatically bolster the Border Patrol. Terence Jeffrey, editor of the conservative Human Events, declares that,

Something doesn’t compute here: if the Bush budget is approved as requested, we will spend far more money next year on new machines aimed at detecting radiation at our border than we will spend on additional Border Patrol agents to intercept the terrorists who might sneak across the border with the purpose of carrying out a radiological attack. . . . We will even spend more money making sure we can quickly detect poison in the local water supplies of five selected cities than we will on additional Border Patrol agents to help make sure the terrorists cannot get near any of our cities.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), ranking member of the Senate appropriations committee, said that the President had reneged on his promise to add 2,000 agents and that he “ignores the stark reality of the resources needed to secure the homeland.” The intelligence overhaul bill, Byrd said, also authorized the hiring of 800 new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICR) agents and approved funding for 8,000 new detention beds for illegal aliens.

 

Yet, when the president submitted his budget request two months after sending that letter, virtually no funds were requested for any of these activities. At the same time, the president’s own terrorism experts are extremely concerned about the threat terrorists pose to our borders.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), chairman of the house Judiciary committee, also has been “disappointed” in the president’s decision not to fund 2,000 new agents. He asked the President in a letter to fully fund the increases authorized by the bill. The letter was signed by all five House Republican leaders on the intelligence bill: Mr. Sensenbrenner and Reps. Henry J. Hyde (IL), Duncan Hunter (CA), David Dreier (CA) and Peter Hoekstra (MI).

Also increasingly controversial is the Bush administration’s guest-worker proposal, which would legalize the status of those already in the U.S. illegally. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) argues that,

By creating a process to legalize illegal immigrants, we provide an incentive for more illegal immigrants to flood America, as happens every time amnesty is proposed, insinuated or actuated. Illegal immigration increased twofold after the 1986 amnesty. And, in the 19 days following the president’s announcement of his guest-worker program in January, nearly 35 percent of the illegal immigrants caught admitted that’s what drove them to cross the border. Rewarding people for committing illegal acts only encourages others to do the same. And with every surge of illegal immigrants looking for work, cover is provided for terrorists and criminals. That is an unacceptable burden on our security.

There are a number of powerful special interest groups who do not want genuine immigration reform or for our government to gain control of the borders. Both Republicans and Democrats are strongly influenced by such groups. Military historian Victor Davis Hanson of California State University at Fresno, and author of the book, Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, credits this “strange alliance” of interest groups with stifling public unrest about immigration.

He declares:

You have the power of the employers that have a lot of money—meat-packing, restaurant business, agribusiness, hotels, construction. They like to have a perennial supply of cheap labor, all the better if it’s illegal and it won’t be able to organize or advocate for higher wages. They’re in alliance with the race industry on the left, who want a non-assimilated constituency. You put the two together and the people in the middle get drowned out.

Dr. Hanson says that defenders of the status quo distort the issue:

The way the political climate is, the issue is never illegal immigration. It’s always portrayed as one is against immigration per se, or is against a particular ethnic group. So when you try to talk about the need for legal, measured immigration, it’s easy to caricature you as a nativist, a protectionist or whatever.

 

While President Bush denies that his plan amounts to “amnesty” for illegal aliens, most experts believe that it does. Michael Cutler, a former special agent for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says that the President’s plan sounds an awful lot like “amnesty” for those who are here illegally, and “welcome” to those who haven’t yet made the trip: 

The plan sends a mixed message at best. On the one hand, we don’t want you to run the border, but on the other hand, if you do, we’ll let you work here and we’ll do everything we can to make it convenient for you. . . . A tidal wave will wash over our borders if this becomes the way we do business. 

Even before 9/11, national polls showed that over 70 percent of Americans wanted immigration reduced. A recent Roper Poll found that more than 80 percent of Americans want immigration control. Politicians, however, have ignored this growing public sentiment. When the INS conducted raids during Georgia’s Vidalia onion harvest in 1998, for example, thousand of illegal aliens knowingly hired by farmers, abandoned the fields to avoid arrest. By the end of the week, both of the state’s senators and three congressmen had sent an outraged letter to Washington complaining that the INS “does not understand the needs of America’s farmers,” and that was the end of that. 

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee of terrorism, technology and homeland security, and a member of the subcommittee on immigration, border security and citizenship, states: 

Immigration enforcement has been a charade, has undermined the rule of law. The people know what’s happening, and they really don’t like it. The time has come to enforce the laws and the technology is there to do it. 

Members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus have applauded the union that represents all 9,000 of the Border Patrol’s nonsupervisory agents for challenging the Bush guest-worker proposal as a “slap in the face.” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) says,  

By definition this is an amnesty program, and we oppose it. Past amnesty programs have not reduced illegal immigration; rather they have increased illegal immigration. Amnesty rewards those who broke our laws, and thus encourages others to do the same. Our immigration laws should do the opposite—discourage lawbreaking by sending the message that illegal entry into the U.S. will not be rewarded. 

Seventeen members of the caucus signed the letter. 

The Border Patrol union’s Vice President, John Frecker, told the agents in a letter that the Bush proposal “implies that the country really wasn’t serious about” immigration enforcement in the first place. He said that the plan, if approved, would result in increased illegal immigration at the nation’s borders.

Mr. Frecker said:

While you’re out there trying to do your jobs, which the country isn’t too serious about, you’ll have to deal with the expected increase in attempted (illegal aliens) who are trying to get here to take advantage of the proposed amnesty, oops, earned legality. 

There are many reasons to secure our borders. Now, we can add national security to this list. Those who are serious about homeland security cannot turn away for this question.     *

“The Modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; but their truth is pitiless. And thus some humanitarians care only for pity; but their pity is often untruthful.” --G.K. Chesterton