The federal government’s first task is assuring national defense, and protecting this nation’s borders is the cornerstone requirement for fulfilling that responsibility. This is Washington’s duty, not that of the states or private citizens.
Amazingly, not even the horrors of Sept. 11 sparked government actions to close gaping holes in American immigration policy and programs exposed by the tragedy of 2001. The harsh reality of the war on terror is our borders must be secured so they no longer represent an open invitation for terrorists to commit more acts of horror and death in our midst.
Securing the borders is probably the one common goal shared by virtually all of the players in the current immigration debate in the nation’s capital. President Bush has promised to double the number of Border Patrol agents, and all of the major proposals before Congress incorporate similar approaches. But throwing more bodies at a problem is a typical bureaucratic response.
It seems counter intuitive, yet the federal government’s own data going back to 1946 shows no correlation between the size of the Border Patrol and its effectiveness in stemming the tide of illegal immigration. From 1995-2005, for example, Border Patrol staffing more than doubled, increasing from 4,806 to 11,106, but apprehensions declined 10 percent, from 1.3 million to barely 1.1 million.
The same pattern is seen in specific Border Patrol sectors like Tucson, Ariz., where the number of agents went from 1,686 to 2,220, but apprehensions remained unchanged. Similarly, the Rio Grande sector in Texas showed a decade of ups and downs in staffing levels, but apprehensions rose nearly 25 percent. Clearly, simply adding more agents — or uniformed soldiers — is no guarantee of secure borders.
The notable exception here is the San Diego sector, where staffing declined from 2,014 to 1,600 even as apprehensions increased from 110,075 to 126,913. The biggest difference between San Diego and other Border Patrol sectors is the existence of an actively patrolled and well-maintained fence along the border.
President Bush and the most prominent Senate immigration reform bills reject construction of an actual fence, relying instead upon more sophisticated sensing and surveillance technologies to identify crossings and to dispatch agents in response.
By contrast, the House immigration bill provides $2.2 billion to erect a steel wall at key points along more than 700 miles of the border with Mexico where illegal crossings are most frequent. The House package also calls for surveillance cameras, motion sensors and floodlights.
The House has the right approach. Besides being a powerful illustration of America’s renewed will to control its border, the wall will dramatically slow the flow of immigrants and thus enhance regulation while expediting the critical task of identifying those who are is entering this country from Mexico.
It is especially significant that liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and conservative Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., support the fence. In the final analysis, the most important barrier to illegal aliens and terrorists is our having the national will to stop them. Doing Immigration Job One by building the fence will vividly and effectively demonstrate our will.
The time to build the wall is now.
