Some thoughts on border security and the illegal immigration nexus.

I have traditionally shied away from commenting on the immigration debate because it's such a polarized and emotional debate, and I try to keep my analysis as even-tempered and available to readers as possible. I don't like to alienate potential readers who want to learn more about events in Mexico by spouting my personal opinions about illegal immigration. And don't worry, I'm not going to start doing that now. It's just that with all the crazy events going on right now along the border - as well as in our nation's capital - I wanted to offer some thoughts about the confluence, as well as the divergence, of the concepts of immigration and border security.

Just the term "border security" means different things to different people. Some people believe a secure border implies NO ONE who isn't allowed into the US actually gets in. This means terrorists, illegal immigrants (from any country), and drug smugglers. Other people believe a secure border means that only people who are criminals or mean us harm are consistently caught and prevented from entering. I was reading an opinion piece in Reuters this morning, and the author explained how no border can truly be 100% secure, meaning no one gets in and out without the authorities noticing and approving. I have to agree with that. I mean, you can build an electrified fence that covers every square inch of the 2,000-mile US-Mexico border, but both good and bad people will find creative ways to get across. We've seen this in all major border lockdowns, like countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, and even Cuba.

In light of recently growing tensions over border incidents, the AZ immigration law, and illegal immigration in general, we have to place the debate over border security in some kind of perspective. That means asking the question of ourselves AND the federal government, "What does it mean to have a secure border?" You have to know that we will NEVER keep ALL criminals and illegal immigrants from entering the US through our southwest border. Knowing that's the case, we have to prioritize because our law enforcement agencies have limited financial and logistical resources. In my opinion, we need to focus first on keeping people out who mean to do us harm or engage in dangerous/violent criminal activity on US soil. This includes terrorists, drug smugglers, human smugglers, DTO members, and gang members who work for DTOs.

Again, knowing our law enforcement agencies can't stop everyone, I'm willing to acknowledge that I have to be OK with the continuation of illegal immigration to some extent. I'm NOT okay with immigrants trashing our land, or trespassing on private property, or robbing/assaulting innocent Americans who get in their way. I do know that there are many illegal immigrants who come to the US from Mexico who don't engage in criminal behavior. I'm not saying it's any less of a violation of federal laws that they're here, but when it comes to the concept of border security, we have to look at who and what is making our border INsecure.

I know many of you - and maybe most of you - have very strong opinions about immigration, drugs, and guns, and your opinions are what make civil debates in my comments sections so lively and interesting. Many of you will probably disagree with me, and I'm totally OK with that. It's a free country after all! I just felt the need to explain that a secure border doesn't necessarily imply a complete border lockdown. It means that ALL Americans, whether they live in the SW border states or elsewhere, can feel safe and secure in their homes, and free from the dangers posed by terrorists and smugglers who attempt to enter our country surreptitiously. The illegal immigration debate often crosses paths with the border security debate, but I implore my readers to try to keep this in mind: When you can't keep everyone out, a secure border means you can effectively keep the BAD people out. We're not there yet, but our law enforcement agencies trying to do that can probably benefit from a government that realizes it needs to focus on what border security really means.

Comments

[P]

Sylvia

It seems to me that the best thing the USA can do would be to settle on defining one reasonable policy for immigration - and maintain it consistently. We hurt ourselves a lot when we flip-flop between easy stances and hard-line positions. Our immigration policy should be sensible and practical. It should not be a political football.

I don't expect our LE officers to keep out all illegal aliens. If they can stop the drug cartels and any possible terrorists ... that will be a major accomplishment for them. Even those objectives are a tall order.

[Fred Hiker]

Quite well stated Silvia. It is very commendable of you to not only understand, but to hold such a separation of the problems we face here on our Southwest border. In your commentary you have touched quite well upon the reality of the border, and I’d like to expound a bit:

>

What you have stated here is the simple truth, and in my opinion the highest expectations which fall under the heading of a ‘’secured border’’ under the current polices. It is in this area of concern where the true nexus to Illegal Immigration, and of those of the criminal elements you reference is found. It’s a most difficult area to not only explore, but near impossible to fully understand, and through enforcement to get right a fair share of the time. To further this, and borrowing your own words: how do you catch a ‘’ terrorist, a drug smuggler, a human smuggler, DTO members, and gang members who work for a DTO‘’…if you do not interdict ALL that illegally cross the border? This has been the argument used from the ‘’lets build a big fence’’ crowd. Seemingly though a big fence and staffed by untold numbers of border guards (Border Patrol) our border would be secure. That simply is not the case, and such thinking falls far outside the box of reality, as the numbers of untold and overflowing drop houses in many hub cities will attest to. So how DO you secure the border to your( mine as well) expectations without interdicting all which illegally cross it? I of course have my own understanding of this, perhaps it’s the same as yours, or perhaps it isn’t. But since you introduced the subject I’ll let you shoot first.

[OnTheBorder]

Silvia,
I've just discovered your web site and I appreciate your research, analysis and insightful articles.

I live roughly 145 miles north of the Arizona-Mexico border. In the past two months I have found and documented 21 illegal alien smuggling sites that are within a 45 minute drive of my home. Documentation includes GPS coordinates, hundreds of photos, and analysis of dozens of discarded backpacks. All of these sites are "active" and many of them show evidence of recurring, long term use. In some cases the sites have seen activity as recently as one week ago. I have never seen the Border Patrol in any of these areas - and that means over a span of years - not weeks.

My question is this: If the BP and ICE do not operate against human and drug smugglers 125 to 145 miles inside Arizona, how will any Federal agency be able to declare that border security has been achieved - even by the most relaxed definition of the term? By the Border Patrol's own assessment, they claim to apprehend only one in three illegal alien border crossers. I shudder to think that is an acceptable standard.

I cannot accept that, for every 350 they apprehend, 650 slip through to smuggling transfer points deep inside the state, like the ones I have referenced.

I will follow your web site with great interest. Keep up the good work!
Thanks.