Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States had a problem with its borders. It was too easy for people to enter the country. Many of those people came here looking for better opportunities. Some did not.
After 9/11, our world changed. Or so we were told.
Well, we did abolish the INS.
And we did make it a bit more difficult for foriegn nationals to enter the country... this year, anyway.
But the border is big. It's impossible to cover all the ground. And so it comes as little surprise that some 3 million people will cross our borders illegally this year alone, according to a recent Time magazine report. Maybe that number is too high. Maybe it's too low. But it's a lot.
Many of those 3 million are migrant workers looking for better paying jobs than they would find in Mexico or Guatemala. Some will return to their home countries, some won't. But some are not from Mexico. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has a special designation for those illegals: OTM, or "Other Than Mexicans." The Border Patrol catches quite a few of those. Emphasis on "a few."
According to the Tucson Weekly:
depressing caution about Border Patrol apprehension numbers: They're almost meaningless. The number caught isn't important; the number of "gotaways"--those who weren't caught--is, and nobody, in government or anywhere else, has any idea how many of those exist. But it's always greater than the number arrested, sometimes much greater.That leaves a lot of illegals from high-risk countries on the loose in our country.
You get it in bits an pieces. You read, for example, a story in the Wall Street Journal last week, about car donations:
OTAY MESA, Calif. -- Early last year, Peggy Saul donated her 1991 Chevy Cavalier with 194,000 miles on the clock to Father Joe's Village, a charity that runs homeless shelters in San Diego. The 55-year-old family therapist received a $1,500 deduction toward her next tax bill.Father Joe's Village then shipped the red two-door to an auction it runs here, where it sold for $350. Within a few days, the Chevy was in the hands of a Tijuana-based smuggling organization. Ms. Saul's car was impounded by federal agents when they discovered an Iranian man trying to enter the country hidden in the trunk. The Iranian said he agreed to pay smugglers $2,000. The Iranian was deported; the alleged smugglers were fingerprinted and, as is typical at overworked border crossings, released.
"I thought when I donated the car, they were going to fix it up and sell it for a profit to help pay for their programs," says Ms. Saul, who lives in Manteca, Calif. "I feel betrayed."
The story goes on to discuss how charities in the U.S. are essentially fueling the coyote business in Mexico. But there is, strangely, no further mention of that Iranian, or what in the hell he was doing trying to cross the border, or why in God's name the feds deported him, rather than hold him for questioning...
Forget that for a moment. What is the vaunted Department of Homeland Security doing to secure the borders, and how is the Border Patrol handling the problem?
Not as well as you might think.
"Some federal law-enforcement officials have estimated that for every alien caught, as many as four make it into the United States and disappear."
"Concerns about border security were highlighted on July 19, when officials at McAllen-Miller International Airport in southern Texas arrested a woman suspected of having ties to al Qaeda."
And today we learn that 25 Chechen terrorists entered the country from Mexico in July.
Needless to say, David Dreier and Joe Baca must go. Why? Because neither man is serious about securing the border to the south. This is a war, dammit. I don't care if Dreier is a leader in the House. He is wrong on one of the most important questions facing us today. If I still lived in Dreier's district, I'd hold my nose and vote for the Democrat, who is running to his right on immigration. And Baca is simply a boob. (Read them in order, and you should get the joke.)
Both men have no business holding elective office. Let us be done with them.
Posted by Ben at October 12, 2004 11:22 PM | TrackBackUnfortunately, there seems to be a lot of room to the Republicans' "right" on the borders issue. Sadly, I think that so long as the President does not lead on this issue, his party functionaries will do likewise. For some reason, immigration seems to have become the new "third rail" of politics, and for no reason. The public strongly supports border enforcement, yet the politicians and a large segment of the business world refuse to listen. But to turn to Democrats on this issue is to surrender it completely. While there is a constituency in the GOP for border enforcement, there is none on the Left.
I admit, I am repulsed by Bush's surrender of our borders. The one advantage we have with him is we know he will aggressively take the fight to the enemy. With Kerry and the Dems, we get open borders (no defense), and no offense. (Hmmm, just think "Arizona Cardinals?)
Posted by: JamesPh. at October 13, 2004 11:23 AMNeither of the major parties want to pay anything but lip service about the border problem. We could defend our borders, but instead we are expending our limited resources defending the borders of other countries.
Effective defense of our borders means committing to either a much more open immigration policy for Mexicans or committing to losing a huge part of the Southwest's work force. Because effective border enforcement means shooting to kill anyone who doesn't enter through the front door. Anything short of militarization of the borders is simply insufficient.
Posted by: RobbL Monkey at October 13, 2004 10:17 PMAlthough it is true that our borders are almost impossible to cover completely (I live in Michigan and we border Canada) it does seem incongruous that the U.S. Army patrols borders in almost every country but our own. I am also annoyed that the IRS is bigger than the INS. Priorties, no doubt.
Posted by: jayn donaghue at October 14, 2004 06:29 AM