Centerfield

Building a massive wall across the border does not in any way address the actual problem at hand: 11 to 13 million illegal immigrants are already inside the borders of the United States.

Not in ANY way? Depends on what you see as "the problem," Max.

Here's the thing: If we build a wall and police it, we'll make it substantially harder for more people to immigrate illegally, and we'll also make it harder for many of the people we may later decide to deport to come back. If there's a hole in your roof and the rain ruins the carpet, you fix the roof before replacing the carpet, right?

I think you're a bit off if you are suggesting that resentment of illegal immigrants is an issue that politicians have created. Fanned? Maybe to some extent, but they didn't light the flame. It's a deep and long-simmering stew of resentment, especially among the blue-collar set. Prior to recent times, the status quo of winking at illegal immigration was protected because many democrats court blue-collar ethnics and pro-business Republicans know that their monied backers love cheap labor.

I for one don't belive that a wall is either a solution to illegal immigration all by itself or a permanent solution to the enduring international economic disparity that drives it. But what it might be, and what I'm guessing a fair majority of everyday Americans thinks it is, is a small but necesssary step in the right direction for the short term.

I think what we're seeing now is a serious popular push from the grass roots. Some opportunistic politicians are rushing to run to the front of this rush with a baton and declare it a parade. And notice that the house(as opposed to the senate), which is supposed to represent the people more closely, is in fact more closely representing the average Joe view here.

I believe that the sum total (legal and illegal) of immigration into the US has both substantial pluses and very obvious minuses for our country. To paint it as either an unmitigated good or the root of all evil is IMO just silly. What makes sense to me is that we as a nation take control of it, by tracking immigration as closely as we can based on the ideal that all non-citizens within our borders are documented, have permission to be here, and have a well-defined legal status. Only then can we have any sort of realistic discussion about how many people we can afford to let in, and what they should be like.

I think the analogy that makes sense here is a tourniquet. Not a permanent solution, but a necessary short term step. We can build this wall without glee in order to take control of our nation for both economic and national security reasons. IMO, a patch that stems the flow and redirects it without completely stopping it is better than doing nothing.

But if we do decide to build this wall, we should acknowledge that the only way it will do any good is if it's part of a serious and comprehensive reform of immigration policy both as such policy is written and as it is enforced. And at first groundbreaking, we should take note that even as we build it, we look forward to the happy time when we can tear it down.

Posted by: bk at June 7, 2006 12:37 PM

Max,

I couldn't disagree with you more. The few areas of the U.S. border that have had security fences put up have proven that they are remarkably effective at reducing illegal border crossings. Of course to be genuinely effective, one has to combine security fences with personnel sufficient to patrol them. However, obstacles, like security fences make those border agents far, far more effective at doing thier jobs.

Futhermore I am a little surprised at what seems to be a rather flippant attitude toward border security on your part. Although I've disagreed with a number of positions that you've taken in the past.... you've always struck me as being fairly level headed about issues of soveriegnty and national security. What is more basic to the concepts of both national security and national soveriegnty then a nations ability to exercize some control over it's own borders and who crosses them?

Why bother to issue terrorist watch lists to customs agents at airports and ports if such individuals can simply join the throngs of undocumented individuals who WALK across our southern border with no record of entry whatsoever? If you are an individual who wants to emmigrate to America why bother with all the hassle and time of using legal channels to do so when you can just violate our laws, walk across the border illegaly, pay a small fine and be on your road to a green card...as the most recent Senate Bill would have?

Your right in that building a security fence along the border doesn't solve all our problems with immigration.... it's not intended to....anymore then a blood transfusion is not intended to be the sole medical treatment that a person has had a limb severed is intended to recieve... but it IS neccesary portion of the total treatment.

You are again right that building a wall does nothing to address the issue of the 11 to 13 million illegal immigrants (some estimates put it a more then 20 million btw, we really have no way to know for sure) already here but it does help stop that number from rapidly growing to 30-40 million.

There are alot of issues that need to be addressed in regards to immigration....and alot of different avenues through which we need to address that problem..... but one thing seems certain to me. If we don't start excercizing at least some control over who crosses our border and how...then nothing else we do will make any difference.

Posted by: cengel at June 7, 2006 12:50 PM

first. he makes the problem too narrow. the problem is not ONLy the 11-13 million people already here.
when thats the issue, then..DUH! we know a wall will have no impact. this is typical, people who ignore the entire spectrum of the issue, to focus on one minor point.

second. we all know people are smuggled by land and air. amazing he has no stats to back up that the air is as big a problem. I would bet, that the land is the easier route. again, this guy tries to define the other sides argument, just to be able to attack it. not what his opponents actually think or beieve.

third. the british-ohio analogy is stupid. its pretty simple what we would have done. We would have torn the wall down, when we intot he ohio territory.

fourth. he basically just attacks, but offers no solutions.

fifth. politicians have not whipped people into a frenzy. sorry, but the people have been the ones leading this issue. not the politicians.

sixth. NOBODY is saying that a wall is the only solution. NOBODY IS! It is part of a plan. the main reason for a wall, is to raise the cost of entering this country illegally.

Posted by: sm at June 7, 2006 01:09 PM

Most of the criticisms of this post strike me as being valid. (I'm picturing desperate farm workers huddled in the back of a Lear jet.) But I think the real issue regarding a fence on the border is whether the money spent on it could be better spent elsewhere, not simply whether or not it would have benefit. My guess is that there are many other tools that should have higher priority in addressing illegal immigration.

Posted by: WHQ at June 7, 2006 01:59 PM

Building a massive wall across the border does not in any way address the actual problem at hand: 11 to 13 million illegal immigrants are already inside the borders of the United States.

Since when is the actual problem at hand just what to do about immigrants that are already here? What point is there to trying to address the problem solely in terms of illegales who are already here if you don't deal with the ability of more to come here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've tried this focus on those already here before; after the 1986 amnesty, did the number of illegal immigrants go up or down? Did that 1986 amnesty fix the immigration problem so that twenty years later we wouldn't be having this conversation? I submit that it did not, on the fairly indisputable proof that we are having this conversation. That being the case, why would you think that if we now attempt to solve the problem purely in terms of those already here, that we will not be back to square one in another twenty years?

So, is your position that there is no need to prevent further immigration (which is an indefensible position), or that the wall will not suffice to provent further immigration?

Posted by: Simon at June 7, 2006 02:44 PM

I think some of you are missing the sarcasm content of Max's post. :-)

The illegal immigration problem breaks down into three parts. Supply, demand, and amelioration (what to do with those already here). And the solution is not all that complicated. The supply comes in because the border is too loose. Tighten the border. The demand is from the employers--actively enforce the laws against employing illegals. And amelioration is a matter of willpower and enforcement.

If you cut down the demand, much of the problem with supply and amelioration will diminish. If the jobs for illegals are not there, they will quit coming and some will go home. But as long as the demand is there, there WILL be a supply. Gotta punish the employers and enforce the laws for ANY strategy to work. Period. It's the keystone to any effective strategy.

We don't really need any new laws to do any of that. We just have to keep Congress from leaning on the INS when they enforce those laws against employers and border enforcement, and make sure the INS has the resources to do so. The only thing we'd need to change the laws for would be to make life easier for illegals already here. We already have the laws to be tough on them, if that's what we want. But if we don't cut down that demand they'll keep coming, one way or another.

Posted by: Tully at June 7, 2006 03:20 PM

"And notice that the house(as opposed to the senate), which is supposed to represent the people more closely, is in fact more closely representing the average Joe view here."

That's a valid point, but all that means is that the House is closer to what appears to be the popular view, not necessarily the right one.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 7, 2006 03:24 PM

i agree with most comments. something must be built. at a cost of about 1/14th of the big dig in boston we can have a fine wall! now, implementing our laws already on the books is something else. how do average citizens report these guilty employers. is there a national number we can call? in the immortal words of barney fife, let's nip it in the bud.

Posted by: marcia rice at June 7, 2006 03:25 PM

The illegal immigration problem breaks down into three parts. Supply, demand, and amelioration (what to do with those already here). And the solution is not all that complicated. The supply comes in because the border is too loose. Tighten the border. The demand is from the employers--actively enforce the laws against employing illegals. And amelioration is a matter of willpower and enforcement.

If you cut down the demand, much of the problem with supply and amelioration will diminish. If the jobs for illegals are not there, they will quit coming and some will go home. But as long as the demand is there, there WILL be a supply. Gotta punish the employers and enforce the laws for ANY strategy to work. Period. It's the keystone to any effective strategy.

I agree entirely, although I'd add that there is a far greater chance that if we both close the door of employment and refuse to open the door of amnesty, there is a far greater chance that more of the illegales will go home (or at least, leave and re-enter legally). The problem is, they will not leave if the amnesty door is held open. If there is any possibility of coming here and having your status legalized after the fact, illegales will keep coming here, and the ones already here will not leave.

Now, I do realize that to deport twelve million people is a thing never done before in the history of the United States. IIRC, that is six times more than the total number of aliens deported in the last half-century. As I see it, though, if we refuse to give in to amnesty, remove the sources of employment, and make it easier to enter the country legally, many of those twelve million will leave of their own volition, if only for purposes of returning legally.

Even if we do not actively seek out the illegales, amnesty should be taken off the table. I can't and won't agree to any solution that doesn't include efforts to take control of the porous border, or that includes any form of amnesty.

how do average citizens report these guilty employers?

Since the government is singularly unwilling to enforce the law, perhaps the simplest method is to create a private cause of action whereby any person who is denied a job by an employer can sue an company who hires illegal immigrants. Posted by: Simon at June 7, 2006 03:45 PM

Simon,

It's probably pointless to explain why the path to cirizenship plan isn't amnesty, so I'll skip that for now. The point about illegals going home on their volition is an interesting one (I've read your post on your blog, as well), but that only gets you so far. Assuming we sceure the border and punish employers, most illegals will stop coming, and many already here that unwilling to play by the rules will leave.

What about those here for many years, with children who're legal? What about those who want opportunity? They're not just going to go back. That means the problem of deportation, which is unworkable, is still an issue.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 7, 2006 04:12 PM

Simon, Tully suggests that if we decrease the demand for illegal labor by holding employers responsible for illegal hiring, immigrants won't keep coming and some will leave.

So suppose we decrease the demand for illegal labor by enfoircin labor laws and cut into the benefit eligibility of illegal immigrants by not granting many benefits to non citizens, again enforcing existing laws.

What's your basis for at this point for the contention that illegal immigrants will stay in this country illegally if they can't keep or find a job and don't qualify for benefits? Aren't you missing the point that one of the attractions of illegal labor is the much lower under-the-table cost of hiring them?

Let's consider the notion of offering some immigrants a path towards citizenship, which you call "amnesty."

Isn't such a path likely to include paying back taxes and various application fees, and finding and keeping a legal and documented job for an extended period at pay rates where existing American citizens can compete?

Then let's leave aside the painfully obvious semantic point that a citizenship track which includes making good for past offenses and is fairly rigorous going forward does not in fact constitute amnesty, because amnesty means that you are not held to account for your past sins. You're pardoned, free, and clear.

Posted by: bk at June 7, 2006 04:30 PM

Rafique,

I'm also on the record against amnesty for reasons that Simon has stated and others that have already been touched on elsewhere. I think that as a rule we must deny eligibility to people who have entered this country illegaly. However, I am open to the idea of an exception process whereby individuals who meet certain minimum criteria can petition an immigration court for a hearing....and if an immigration judge finds the individuals case has merit can grant an exception whereby a person could stay legaly and potentialy get on a citizenship track. I know Brian will never let me live this down, but I feel comfortable with allowing immigration judges lattitude to make decisions in individual cases based on merit.

An 18 year old who was brought to this country illegaly by her parents when she was 2, speaks English fluently, is an honor student, has never been in trouble with the law, has no appreciable ties to her home country and is a volunteer in her community aught to be granted a citizen track (....and probably a seat in the Senate, she'd be more deserving then half the bozo's there).

However my sticking point would be the minimum requirements one had to meet in order to file such a petition be pretty stringent. The plan that the Senate passed is a farce...and IS the equivalent to blanket amnesty.

- A person is elligable for citizenship if they only commited ONE VIOLENT FELONY?

- A person is elligable to claim Social Security benefits that they filed under a FRAUDULENT IDENTITY?

The Senate has disgraced itself. Putting your name to a Bill like that aught to be grounds for a charge of High Treason.

Posted by: cengel at June 7, 2006 04:57 PM

Rafique, I think that the argument goes like this. If you vigorously enforce the laws against employers, you cut off the source of income for illegals. They therefore have little motivation to stay. Now suppose that, in addition, you fix the problems with the immigration process, and make it possible for them to come back, as legal immigrants, permanent or otherwise: now they not only have little motivation to stay, they have active motivation to go home.

Alternatively, suppose that you begin to enforce the law against employers, but you offer the illegales a path to citizenship: now they have every reason to stay, because they may be able to gain legal status without leaving.

I dispute that the "path to citizenship" is not amnesty. Amnesty, as Brian says, means that you are not held to account for your past actions. If you do not pay your taxes for five years, and are told that you won't be prosecuted, but you will still have to pay back your taxes, you have been the beneficiary of an amnesty; you will not face the normal legal consequences of your actions. The normal consequence, of immigrating illegally is deportation and refusal of future entry; any plan wherein illegals are not deported and refused future entry is precisely being not held to account for your past sins.

Posted by: Simon at June 7, 2006 04:57 PM

Not to roil the waters too much, but the point should be made that not all of our illegal immigrants are here just for work. We have a goodly share of refugees who snuck in because "home" was unlivable for them. Even living "underground" in America is better than living in fear and poverty in many places. Scrounging as a homeless person in America can be a better life than going "home" for some.

These are people who have NO incentive to leave the US to go "home," and they come from many countries.

Also worth remembering is that while we tend to focus on the border-runners who come in via Mexico (wherever their country of origin) roughly half of our illegals are people who entered on completely legitimate visas of one sort or another, and simply never left when their visas expired. And they're from everywhere.

Posted by: Tully at June 7, 2006 05:26 PM

I'm not against amnesty for those who are here and working. In my mind I see them as americans already. If they are here doing the same thing you and I are then I have no problem with them.

I do however fully support a wall for national security, both from terrorists and for drug gangs. I believe that today we need to protect our borders.

Posted by: Bernie at June 7, 2006 05:42 PM

It's easy to say, well, border security is essential.

Saying and doing things are sometimes two very different things. The Big Dig is a good example. They said it'd be a little $2.5B program in 1985. It ended up at 15 big ones. It's pretty dubious Boston'll make that back for several decades. Good thing for them it was mostly on the Fed dime!

My guess after reading this article is that it'll cost about a third of the Big Dig cost, based on actual costs in San Diego.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/26/BORDERFENCE.TMP

If you want the whole border curtained, it'll probably be about a whole Big Dig.

I'm pretty skeptical about long walls because past ones have been serious failures. Both the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall failed to keep out the 'barbarians' for long atall. The Emperor of China would've done better to spend time breaking down the barriers that made it hard for China to deploy strong military forces, and Rome would've done better to spend the sesterces on a bigger border force in Britannia. IMHO, Israel's leaders would do better to spend more effort on ending settlemens and increased fairness toward individual Palestinians.

Posted by: Jon Kay at June 7, 2006 06:43 PM

Build that Wall and see what is costs, in cash, votes and hemispheric political dynamics. I think that leading with just a wall and dubious labor enforcment is a tactical error.

Can such a long border wall possibly be effective without 1. cooperating Mexican security on the Mexican side 2. proper management on the US side (popular support in border states) 3. sufficient funding and a cost effective way to build it?

I still think an expanded guard could do these large projects more effectively with a “Rebuilding America” corporate pool that is open to qualified American or Allied sub contractors. It would mean a transformation from the group that built the New Orlean levees. Given the cost of such a wall and operating it, I think rebuilding the electrical grid or other energy projects might actually produce more energy savings than a fence would save on the welfare costs minus labor given by illegal aliens. It would probably be more expensive as well. While AQ might sneak across our southern border, the cost of protecting the south with a wall must be weighed against other critical security concerns.

Don't count on present coast guard, port security or northern border security to catch the end runs around this great wall by illegals, terrorists and drug merchants. They come by land, sea and air. If I had to choose between stopping illegals or catching AQ, I would pick the latter. I know border security is part of homeland defense, but with limited manpower and money, West and East Coast ports are porous.

One cannot forget the global effect on perception as well. It is certain to draw comparisons with the Israeli fence. I do think both can be effective in slowing illegal transit, but without some political movement they are seen as simply maintaining the status quo. With other blow back floating around the globe, a socialist revolution lead by Chavez (spurred by the racial profiling border control must implement) would be catastrophic to US interests. This might be avoided if we simultaneously build a fence and work with Mexico to advance a guest worker program and more factories on the Mexican side. US funds must find a way to southern Mexico where many illegals come from including Central America.

Tully is right that more than 40% of illegals fell out of status. Yes, a life under the table is often much better than "home" and intelligent people can often find ways to survive. It is so hard to get a visa from the US if you are Filipino because so many gladly over stay permanently. Such visitors were approved for visas in the first place; perhaps they could represent a second track towards eventually citizenship for illegals. I wonder how many here advocate deportation given the impossibility of enforcing all labor regulations.

BK is right I think, as is Bush (yep I said it) that the 11 to 15 million should have some route to citizenship. Not accepting a compromise on the definition of amnesty given the general criteria of McCain and Bush is hardly something I think any centrist President since FDR would support. Despite present polls, Hispanics will remember this and I think it is a mistake for Republicans.. I think McCain understands this and will score points later on, no matter that the Republicans are about to embark on a path that is certain to alienate both Hispanics in America and Hispanics south of the border. With Russians selling weapons to Chavez, is that smart?. Why are Mexico, Brazil, Columbia and others immune to the neosocialism of Chavez when powered by fuel and cheap labor and readily enabled by all our adversaries?

We should seek to get better control of our borders for security reasons, but in general, a case can be made that illegal aliens contribute more than what they cost society. The DOD and the guard might need more recruits. And Russia is shrinking while China has a few boys for every girl.

The Republican end game is either deportation and work place enforcement or eventual pathways towards citizenship. I think the former will not receive centrist support, though perhaps, a few here agree with such an approach (deportation through attrition). And think of all who pay to marry someone to get in. The second choice doesn't make must sense, because it dampens the needed local and Mexican cooperation that a modified guest worker program and citizenship pathways would spur in this geopolitical climate that an otherwise singular response would hurt. And the great wall will meet political obstacles: a possible Democratic House and even possible Republican and Unity Party candidates running opposed to such singularity.

Given the shrinking federal security funds for NY and D.C. and the questionable effectiveness of DOD border control in various foreign theaters, I wonder if the rush to lead only with a wall is a tactical mistake even if a comprehensive bi-partisan strategy includes some eventual pathways for illegals. It will be seen not as simply an effective way to control the southern border, but to as I said, maintain status quo which is one demonstrative criticism leveled against Israel(not that both fences deal with identical problems). I believe a perception will emerge that Republicans want just a wall. What to do with the illegal millions is another matter, but they are linked. The absence of the second part of the McCain/Kennedy proposal will be seen as the Republican’s desire for the eventually "exit" of all who fell out of status or entered illegally. I do not think the voters will support this view over time and, as the marriage proposal, it will fall under the centrist axe, be it Hillary’s, Warner’s, Biden’s, Rudy’s, or McCain’s.

Posted by: maxtrue at June 7, 2006 08:39 PM

I dispute that the "path to citizenship" is not amnesty. Amnesty, as Brian says, means that you are not held to account for your past actions. If you do not pay your taxes for five years, and are told that you won't be prosecuted, but you will still have to pay back your taxes, you have been the beneficiary of an amnesty; you will not face the normal legal consequences of your actions. The normal consequence, of immigrating illegally is deportation and refusal of future entry; any plan wherein illegals are not deported and refused future entry is precisely being not held to account for your past sins.

Absolutely true, even if complete amnesty would involve forgiveness of the debt as well. Simon, since you always adore bright lines, why don't you acknowledge that the following is also absolutely true:

As soon as any sort of additional penalty is applied, such as a higher application fee for people who have immigrated illegally, or paid even the most nominal of fines, any illegal immigrant thereafter on the path to citizenship has no longer received that which could properly be called amnesty. Instead, they would have only been the beneficiary of leniency.

So be clear. Where do you stand? Is it the case, as I am guessing, that in addition to opposing amnesty, you also oppose much of which could far more properly be characterized as leniency...you believe that the vast majority of illegal immigrants should be substantially punished by being deported and not allowed re-entry. Out of the let's say 10 million illegals her now, you'd deport 9 million of them, and forbid their re-entry. Would your forbidding of re-entry be a lifetime ban, or would it be a 1, 2, 5, or 10 year sentence?

Supposing we devoted ourselves to finding and deporting these hypothetical 9 million illegals. How do you propose we go about this? Who would be in charge of doing this? How much would it cost? How long would it take? Would we need an extra 1000 immigration officials? 10,000? 100,000? For 1 year? 2? 5? 10? Should we pay for this with new taxes, or from cuts elsewhere? From what part of the budget? Or should we use the army.

I'm VERY curious to see you describe how you'd do this. I hope you don't cop out on me here by saying it needs to be done by any means necessary and we'll just have to find a way.

Here's a place to start. Suppose we need to hire 5000 more people to find and deport illegals. Let's ballpark the cost at about 75,000 per year in salary and federal benefits, assuming the folk have to be trained professionals willing to do a dangerous job. That's 375 million right there annually before you even add in operating costs (gas, rent, paper, lots and lots of paper, plane tickets) or capital expenditures( more handcuffs, lots more handcuffs, guns, batons, cars).

Forgive me if I've convinced myself already that your hard line is pretty fricken unrealistic.

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2006 08:42 AM

Brian,
I'm always a sucker for a bright-line rule. ;)

I'd accept that differentiation between amnesty and leniency. It's not so much that I think they should be punished, I just don't think they should be rewarded. As I've said before, I think it actually makes a great deal of sense to be quite conservative about illegal immigration but quite liberal about legal immigration, not least because if you don't liberalize immigration laws somewhat, you'll have a very difficult time stopping the influx of illegals. As noted above, I don't think there's any need to undertake a vast dragnet to find and deport all twelve million; if you remove their incentives to stay illegal, and if you give them an incentive to go home (and possibly even transportation), I think a great number will leave of their own volition, and I think that those who do should not be forbidden from re-entry. They have demonstrated sufficient good faith that they should be given leniency: they entered illegally, but left of their own volition, and I think that balances out. What about the remainder? They should be deported, and they should not be permitted re-entry (which will serve as further incentive to leave of their own volition). But I don't accept that doing so necessarily entails a vast dragnet operation to remove all twelve million in one fell swoop; I really think that of those few who can stay, we can mop up in the normal course of business.

To be sure, though: we MUST fix the immigration service. It has to be more efficient, and it has to be more, dare I say it, liberal about permitting temporary residency. As Newt Gingrich has said, you can't fix immigration without a guest worker program. You just can't.

Now, there are some difficult questions that inhere in that, some of which Rafique raised. What do you do where children are involved? Well, the problem is that the moment you say "anyone who has children who are American citizens can stay", or "anyone who has children who are American citizens can have path to citizenship", every illegal wife will be impregnated by the illegal husband within a week. So that doesn't work. That's a tough one, and I'd admit that I don't know what the answer is.

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 10:54 AM

As long as the US has far greater opportunities for work, stability and prosperity, lots of people will want to come here. "Supply" amounts to the people who feel they would be better off here and there -- it probably amounts to more than a billion people worldwide. The only way to drive down supply is to drive down the number of indigents. I suppose the CFC could engineer a virus, but absent that, that means lots of worldwide development, grants (not loans), rewarding countries with progressive social and environmental policies (not countries which treat their workers like slaves to produce our import good cheaply), and... you get the idea. That will cost a huge amount. Since the American people think that less than 1% of the budget is way too much to pay for foreign aid, they certainly aren't ever going to support that kind of investment.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 9, 2006 04:59 PM

Tully;

But if we don't cut down that demand they'll keep coming, one way or another.

So in your opinion (and assuming we can vigorously enforce employer penalties) what would be the short and long-term economic effect of suddenly losing such a large large pool?

Second question: Isn't the demand as much a "push" from Mexico as a "pull" from the US? How do we get Mexico to help on the demand side?

Posted by: c3 at June 10, 2006 11:40 AM