Law and Borders

Douglas, Arizona
LEE MORGAN'S SMALL, spare office has the somber feel of a personal shrine. A Vietnam veteran with 30 years' experience in the immigration and customs services, Morgan does undercover and investigative work on the Arizona border, now the gateway of choice for illegal immigrants entering the United States from the south. Everything in his lair in the dusty frontier town of Douglas speaks to his patriotism and dedication: his Bronze Star, his Purple Heart, the three folded American flags--comrades' commemorative flags--and proud photos of his fondest undercover busts. Like everyone who works on the border, he has had a new assignment since 9/11. The twin fights against illegal immigration and drugs, though not forgotten, have been subordinated to a new preoccupation--terrorism. But, tough and determined though he is, Morgan is far from confident that he can hold the line.

Every day last year, the immigration service apprehended some 1,400 illegal immigrants trying to cross into Arizona. Over 12 months, along the whole southern border, the total number arrested was more than a million. Morgan has seen too much in life to be anything but candid, and although it's his job to help catch these unauthorized migrants, he criticizes the apprehensions as a waste of time and resources. "They're just poor people trying to feed their families," he shrugs. But that doesn't mean he isn't concerned--very concerned. The main issue in his eyes: the distraction the immigrant influx creates. "What if another 9/11 happens and I'm responsible?" he asks. "What if the

Morgan's personal nightmare is one urgent reason why all Americans, no matter what their politics, should support President Bush's plan to retake control of our southern border. The White House proposal, introduced in early 2004 and allowed to drop from sight during the election year, is back on the table. The president laid out his ideas again in the State of the Union and is reportedly planning a major initiative to take the issue to the public later this spring.

Republicans are no less divided this year than last, and the White House has been working overtime to finesse those divisions. In early February it shrewdly avoided a confrontation in the House by backing a package of tough enforcement measures that many had expected would expose a rift between the president and less immigrant-friendly Republicans. Instead, the administration and its allies cast the "REAL ID Act"--the brainchild of powerful Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner--as a first step toward the broader reform they seek, helping the measure pass by a healthy margin. But this will hardly end the discord in Republican ranks, and a major showdown is sure to come, both in Congress and, more broadly, among conservatives across the country.

The Bush plan has two key components: a guest worker program and a transitional measure that would allow illegal immigrants already here and working to earn their way onto the right side of the law and participate legally in the U.S. labor market. Conservative critics lambaste both elements, not just as bad policy, but as inherently un-conservative--out of keeping with core principles and detrimental to Republican interests. The impulse behind the challenge is understandable. Conservative criteria are different: not just security, but the rule of law, traditional values, and national cohesion--not to mention the interests of the GOP. It's also true that the president often touts his proposal in terms designed to appeal across the political spectrum. He talks about "compassion" and a desire to reward "goodhearted" workers, and sometimes this emphasis obscures the hardheaded, conservative case for his approach--a case that begins but does not end with America's economic interests. In reality, though, demonized as it has been on the right, the Bush plan meets every conceivable conservative criterion--with flying colors.THE PRESIDENT'S REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS often put their case as a rhetorical question--"What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?"--and the gibe hits home, not necessarily because of what it says about the Bush solution, but because it so accurately diagnoses what's wrong with the existing system. Our immigration system is indeed based on illegality--on a long-standing and all but deliberate mismatch between the size of our yearly quotas and the actual needs of our labor market, particularly at the lower reaches of the job ladder. This mismatch has often been convenient for employers--it provides a docile, disposable foreign labor force--and it has been the norm in agriculture off and on for nearly a hundred years. But in recent decades, new technologies have spurred demand for low-skilled workers in a wide range of other sectors as well, and the public, quite understandably, is beginning to find the hypocrisy intolerable.

As the president's critics understand, this is a large part of what is driving voters' concerns about immigration. People don't like the idea of 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States but outside the law. They're appalled that entire American industries--not just agriculture, but hospitality, food processing, construction--operate on the wrong side of the rules, relying on the black market to find the labor they need just to keep their businesses open. The very idea of this second, illegal America is an affront, its practical consequences even more troubling: not just criminal syndicates that thrive on lawlessness, but also the haven it

So the critics' diagnosis is not far from the mark. But the question is what to do about this other, illegal America--and the fact is that the president has the best idea, arguably the only idea that can possibly work. Many of his critics believe that the answer is to turn off the immigrant influx. We should, they say, make the necessary economic adjustments and do without the imported labor. It's an option; with enough resources, we probably could stop the flow. But are the American people prepared for the changes that would come with that decision? The likely economic sacrifice is incalculable: not just a few extra pennies on the cost of lettuce, but forfeited growth all across the economy, on a vast scale. In many industries today, growth depends on foreign laborers, who filled one in every two new jobs created in recent years. Then there would be the cost of enforcement--a cost in dollars but also in the way we live. Just ask experienced agents like Lee Morgan: Cutting off illegal immigration would require thousands more men on the border, routine sweeps in every city, roadblocks, roundups, massive deportations, a national ID card, and more.

The president has a better solution. He proposes that we face up to the reality of our growing demand for labor, skilled and unskilled. His outline is still just that--an outline--and he is likely to leave it to Congress to fill in the details: to devise a way to match foreign workers with American employers, to make sure American laborers aren't undercut in the process, to design a method for monitoring employers and punishing those who don't comply, and so on. But the White House has nailed down the all-important central principle: If we raise our quotas to make them more commensurate with the existing flow of foreign workers, we can reap the benefits of immigration without the illegality that currently comes with it.

A new, more realistic policy would be much easier to enforce. The best analogy is Prohibition: Unrealistic law is extremely difficult to make stick. Realistic limits are another thing entirely. We can have robust immigration and the rule of law too--if, instead of wishing away the influx, we acknowledge reality, then find a smarter, more practical way to manage it. And that is exactly what the president proposes we do through his guest worker program. The idea is not to expand the total number of immigrants who enter the country each year, merely to provide those who are coming anyway--and would otherwise come illegally--with a safe, orderly, legal route. Assuming it works--assuming, as the White House does, that once most jobs are filled by authorized immigrants, there will be little incentive for others to come illegally--it's a simple, pragmatic solution, and that in itself should recommend it to conservatives.

EVEN MORE IMPORTANT would be the dividends for national security. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners enter the country each year without benefit of background checks or security controls of any kind. Then, once in the United States, they cluster in transient, underground communities, as often as not beyond the reach of the law. The president understands that we must come to grips with these potential terrorist havens, eliminating not just the illegal arrivals but also the illicit population that has accumulated here in recent decades. That's why he has included a provision that would allow unauthorized migrants to come in out of the shadows and get visas. Though mocked as a spineless, soft-hearted giveaway, this part of the plan too is driven by our needs--our security needs.

Under the Bush plan, foreigners seeking to disguise their identities would no longer find fake ID cards readily available on street corners in every American city. The Department of Homeland Security would have a much better grasp of who is here and what their names are and where to look for them if they turn up on an international watch list. Agents like Lee Morgan would be able to get back to their real jobs: tracking criminals and terrorists, not farmhands and busboys. And all this could be achieved without a draconian crackdown of the kind we would need were we to enforce the quotas we have, let alone close the border. Far simpler to bring the law back into line with market reality, then implement the new rules with modest, commonsense enforcement measures of the sort we rely on in every other realm of American life.

But isn't what the critics say true--isn't the president's plan in fact an amnesty? Not necessarily. It depends how it's done. Illegal immigrants should not be forgiven for breaking the rules; they should be offered an opportunity to earn their way back onto the right side of the law. Think of it as probation--that all-American idea, a second chance. The president is unequivocal: Unauthorized workers will not be permitted to jump the queue ahead of legal applicants waiting patiently for visas back in their home countries. And Congress should add other conditions. Those already in the country illegally should be required to pay a penalty; they should have to wait just as long as other applicants for full legal status. While they're waiting, they should be required to fulfill a variety of additional obligations: hold a job, pay taxes, abide by the law, take English classes, and demonstrate their commitment to American values. Once they've met these terms, it might even make sense to require them to go home to pick up their visas.

The vetting alone is sure to be a huge job, and it will have to be done with the utmost care on the part of law enforcement. But the truth is there's no other realistic way to eliminate the vast illegal world these immigrants inhabit: no other way to clear the ground in order to build for the future with a realistic, legal system of the kind the president envisions. After all, we as a nation aren't going to deport 10 to 12 million foreigners. However much they dislike the idea of illegal immigration, the American people aren't likely to have the stomach for that. Nor would it ultimately be in our interest. Surely it makes more sense to retain these trained, already assimilating workers than it does to send them home and start over with people who know nothing of the United States or its ways.

DOES THIS MEAN it may be possible to bridge the gap between the president and his conservative critics? Well, yes and no. The critics are right about many things. Our current "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" policy is unacceptable. The erosion of the rule of law cannot continue. We must secure our borders against terrorists. The critics are also right to be worried about the costs that even legal immigrants impose on social services--primarily schools and hospitals--in the communities where they settle. Any overhaul of the immigration system must deal with those costs, and it ought to include a set of provisions, both carrots and sticks, to encourage assimilation. About all of that, there can be no doubt. The only catch: Just think a minute about this list of concerns. In fact, what the critics find intolerable is not the president's plan; it's the status quo.

The Bush package acknowledges the critics' concerns and attempts to address them with realistic solutions. It's designed to serve America's economic interest. It's our only hope of ending the hypocrisy that undermines our law enforcement. It's the best way to restore the rule of law in our workplaces and enhance security on the border. Issues of assimilation and local service costs are among the practical matters still to be thought through--on the table for Congress to tackle as it writes the legislation to implement the president's plan. But surely eliminating the barriers that now prevent 10 to 12 million U.S. residents from participating in the body politic and requiring them to pay their full freight in taxes would be a good start on both problems. And this can be accompanied by other, more proactive strategies like mandatory health savings accounts for guest workers and incentives for employers to offer them English classes.

Where the critics are most wrong--where they seem most shrewd but are ultimately the most misguided--is in their view of the politics of immigration. Here, too, they see the symptoms accurately enough. Americans are frustrated and angry. They know the system is broken; they want change. Uncertainty about just how to effect that change is driving a wedge into the Republican party, dividing the president from his conservative base in Congress and at the grassroots. And if the system isn't fixed, it could create a dangerous opening for Democrats: an opportunity for Democratic immigration hawks to outflank Republicans, not just on law and order, but even more devastatingly on security. All of this is true--and scary. But the answer isn't to block reform. The antidote is to deliver a remedy, as the White House proposes.

The president isn't misreading public opinion. If anything, he reads it better than his critics do. Most Americans aren't anti-immigrant. As poll after poll shows, what they want is to regain control--of both the border and the underground economy. The paradox at the heart of the Bush plan makes it a little hard to explain to voters. The president is promising to regain control by means of a more generous and welcoming approach to immigration. But that doesn't change the underlying truth: The Bush plan is the only way to restore the rule of law, either on the border or in our communities. It's the best answer to the critics' complaints, the only answer to the illegality that plagues us. And surely--no matter what the skeptics say--it can't be political suicide to give voters a solution to one of the problems that frightens and disturbs them most.

Luke 16

[19] There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[20] And there was a certain beggar named Lazaro, the 3rd World Unwanted, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[21] And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazaro, the 3rd World Unwanted in his bosom.
[24] And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazaro, the 3rd World Unwanted, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[25] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazaro, the 3rd World Unwanted evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And with that I leave you in the hands of God, Who is both merciful and just.

Poobah, you don't have to fire a shot to prove you will do it.

According to you, we're at war. Why do you demand that we not fight?

The invasion by foreigners whether they're Mexicans or others who travel through Mexico can be stopped, going into Mexico to stop them is not the answer.

You're saying that Mexico is invading the United States, which is an act of war against the United States by Mexico. A properly Clausewitzian path would involve the invasion and conquest of Mexico, followed by refashioning Mexico into something that we deem more congruent with our national interest.

Great White Fleet that Theodore Roosevelt sent to tour the world in 1907 was a show of force as a deterrent and to make a point.

You're saying that we are at war now, and that said war is well underway. But then you speak of deterrence.

Deterrence is a pre-war issue. Once the war has started, deterrence has failed.

You demand that we not fight a war, even as you claim that we are under invasion. Your positions are mutually contradictory.

When did I say invade Mexico?

That's the problem: you refuse to support such a path, even as your rhetoric makes it mandatory.

Defense is the weaker form of war; without taking the offensive, it is impossible to win, and defeat is inevitable if one deliberately avoids seeking victory.

Poobah, You fail to see my points, you fail to see the strategy I point out, you fail to see the difference between a hot and a cold war. I still like debating you and in time we could find a mutual ground of understanding. If you spank a puppy when it is young for doing something you want the puppy not to do and remember such as leaving the yard, is it not possible the puppy learns from the correction and for the remainder of his life no further spankings are required but of the fear of force against him for violating what he knows it wrong?

Poobah, You fail to see my points, you fail to see the strategy I point out, you fail to see the difference between a hot and a cold war.

Invasions are, by their nature, hot wars. Are you still calling this an invasion? If so, then you are committed to fighting and winning a war against Mexico. Which, in turns, demands that America invade Mexico and conquer it. War has its own rules. If you are saying this is war, you must adhere to those rules.

I still like debating you and in time we could find a mutual ground of understanding.

Sure we can. All you have to do is understand a few things:

Remember that words mean things
Understand that you understand about as much about war as those bilious bastards at the Saturday Evening Post knew about fornicating
Understand that when you say "invasion," you are saying that we are in a hot war
Understand that offense wins wars, not defense
Understand that there is no substitute for victory

That's it. Pretty simple.

If you spank a puppy when it is young for doing something you want the puppy not to do and remember such as leaving the yard, is it not possible the puppy learns from the correction and for the remainder of his life no further spankings are required but of the fear of force against him for violating what he knows it wrong?

We are dealing with what you call an "invasion," not a f***ing puppy.

Either get a clue, or get a private room with your violence-espousing buddy "TheBrotherhood" and have at it.

Your population is slightly under 500,000, with an estimated 2,500 illegal aliens living there, or roughly one half of one percent of your total population are illegal aliens.

If you consider the ten million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. today, and with an estimated total population of 281,422,000, Wyoming's population of illegal aliens is actually higher as a percentage of the population, than the rest of the US.

10 million out of 281 million would be pretty close to 3.5% and I don't understand how you think with 0.5% (half a percent), Wyoming has a higher percentage. In fact, the national average is six times higher than Wyoming's. Check your math! And that is before you consider the fact that Bears Stearns says we likely have closer to 20 million illegals. The census bureau has a long history of underestimating these things so there is no reason to trust them over a private organization with a fiduciary responsibility to investors.

Here's a clue...they're not all Mexicans.

I never said they were. I am well aware that about 40% of them are from elsewhere besides Mexico. And I have nothing against Mexicans or Hispanics of any sort. My mother was born in Cuba so I am half Hispanic. My problem is with illegal aliens and I don't care about their race, creed or color.

But this thread is largely about securing our borders and I'm sure you know what country lies South of our southern border. Of the million plus illegals apprehended on the southern border last year, about 65,000 of them were OTMs (other than Mexicans). The rest were Mexicans.

"I'm against open borders, illegal immigration, etc....but what do we do, become a police state?"

The problem is exasperated by a government unwilling to enforce the law until near anarchal proportions -- only THEN do we approach the semblance of a "police state."

"Bush is at least trying."

That's the biggest joke going. NO, he's not -- even most Republicans recognize that fact.

He hasn't come up with a plan yet, has given NO priority, allotted minimal resources, and while virtually ignored the entire crisis since 9/11.

Bluntly put, President Dubya Bush has been a disgrace on the issue of border security and illegal immigration.

The problem is you think war means to conquer you enemy and to do so means to take their land and/or slay the army and citizens and that can be true in a hot war. A war by its definition is all acts of war short of violence. Displaying a willingness to use violence as a deterrent against those who violate our borders such as citizens of Mexico for example or even the soldiers can be considered war. The ability to stop someone from committing a crime by show of force is done every day by police officers who patrol our streets, they don't run around shoot their guns at everyone but they do carry them and will use them if necessary and the criminals know this. They may still commit crimes but not within the grasp of the law officers. The border patrol doesn't work because the Mexicans know they will not shoot and sometimes they will not even stop them. There is a whole in the fence around San Diego that we are not allowed to patch for some odd reason and the Mexicans crawl through it by the thousands. As a child I know there were a lot of things I might have done to get myself in trouble and I would have done so if I didn't fear facing the wrath of my parents, it kept me clean for the most part and I am better for it today.

"Why do you refuse to fight the war you claim we're in?"

Some of us are rather busy supporting families and maintaining America's societal tasks.

But isn't there a method to the madness of paying taxes, electing governmental officials, and fielding law enforcement, border patrol agents, and armed forces?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.