Posted on 05/11/2010 11:26:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Even as the Obama administration plans to challenge and undermine Arizona's new immigration law, the White House still wants state residents to know that it feels their pain. "It's really a cry of frustration from Arizona," Homeland Security Secretary -- and former Arizona governor -- Janet Napolitano said recently. "It's a frustration ultimately that will only be solved with comprehensive immigration reform."
But for the majority of Arizonans, the source of frustration is not the absence of comprehensive reform. It is the federal government's halfhearted enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. And what is seldom discussed in the current controversy is how little -- in relative terms -- better enforcement would cost.
On April 19, the same day the Arizona Legislature passed the immigration measure, the state's two Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, unveiled a new plan to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. It's a combination of completing and improving the border fence, adding new Border Patrol agents, expanding a policy of briefly jailing illegal border crossers and several other programs already in existence. Although there is not yet an estimate of how much it would cost, the price would be vastly less than the sums going to bailouts, the stimulus and the planned national healthcare system.
"When you are talking about national security and laying the foundation for comprehensive immigration reform, it's a relatively small investment," says Kyl.
Start with the fence. The Secure Fence Act, passed by Congress in 2006, specified 700 miles of the Southwest border to be secured with double-layered, reinforced fencing and other physical barriers. The Customs and Border Protection agency says 646 miles of fencing have been finished. For them, the job is essentially done.
But it's not, and the situation in Arizona shows why. The state's border with Mexico is 375 miles long. As it stands today, there are 123 miles of pedestrian fence, that is, high fence meant to stop people from climbing over. However, all but 10 miles of that is single-layered fence, which is easier to cut and get through than a double-layered fence, especially one with a road or other space between the barriers.
In addition, there are 182 miles of vehicle fencing -- bollards or steel beams designed to stop smugglers in cars and trucks. But illegals can easily climb over these, and sometimes smugglers can drive over them using their own ramps.
The Kyl-McCain plan would require double- and even triple-layer fencing in several areas of the border and beefed-up barriers in others. "According to the Border Patrol, it would have a very significant positive effect," McCain says. "Just as it has had a positive effect in San Diego and Texas."
How much would it cost? Given that much of the basic structure already exists, perhaps $1 million per mile. Revamp the whole 700 miles, and it's $700 million.
Kyl and McCain would add 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. A back-of-the-envelope cost estimate is about $100 million per 1,000 new agents, so the plan would cost about $300 million. The proposal also calls for hiring more U.S. marshals, clerks and administrative staff, which would mean more costs.
Then there is the jailing program, called Operation Streamline, which sends all illegal crossers to jail for a period of 15 to 60 days. When it has been tried selected areas, it has caused the illegal crossing rates to plummet. "Very effective," says McCain. "A huge deterrent," says Kyl.
The senators are waiting for an estimate of how much a bigger an expanded Operation Streamline would cost, but so far, the Obama administration has not come up with a number.
There are other expenses. For example, McCain and Kyl want to send a few thousand National Guard troops to the border. When this was done in 2007 and 2008, it cost a total of $1 billion.
There is little doubt such moves would work. In one part of the Arizona-Mexico border where authorities installed double-layered fencing and implemented Operation Streamline, the yearly number of illegal crossers went from 118,000 to 8,000.
Total cost? It's hard to say, but it seems fair to guess that for a relatively low price -- perhaps $5 billion? -- the nation could radically increase the security of the Southwest border. The columnist George Will recently called the cost of securing the border "a rounding error on the ($50 billion) GM bailout." He's right.
As Kyl and McCain see it, Napolitano has things totally turned around. Today's problem won't be solved by comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, solving the problem would make comprehensive reform possible -- and a bargain, too.
Dear Jaun
And the horse you rode in on.
Or we can just spend another $3t
Any rational immigration policy must start with controlling the borders. So build the damn fence.
One exception: Pass a law now that requires taking the finger prints of any illegal found in our country and bars them permanently from any path to citizenship if they have ever been caught entering or inside of our country illegally.
Make it a crime to purposely deliver a baby in the US.
Stop calling it “Immigration Reform”, with or without the word “Comprehensive”. What we need is Border Protection. That should be the only topic. If we had Border Protection we could discuss an “Illegal Immigration Act” to deal with the illegal immigrants already here.
In addition, there are 182 miles of vehicle fencing -- bollards or steel beams designed to stop smugglers in cars and trucks. But illegals can easily climb over these, and sometimes smugglers can drive over them using their own ramps.
IMHO, it's way past time to get serious about a fence:
No climbing over, no vehicle ramps.
It should have been built with WTC steel instead of selling it to china.
Ping!
Border protection is worthless if it is not enforced
Only for illegal aliens. Babies born to legal residents should get their citizen ship automatically when the parents are naturalized
Yes I am aware of that but not the entire ship. ANd alot of the steel was also sold to china. It was on the news. But I thought that using some of the steel would have had good symbolism if use in the border wall. So you can stuff that in your butt.
The most obscene part of this problem to me is that Janet Nappy was the Governor of ARIZONA for a number of years and she seems to have developed a totally blind eye towards the illegal problem there.
This problem certainly CANNOT be new- she apparently ignored it during her tenure, and therefore, IMO, she is a major part of the problem. She cannot be counted on as a part of the solution.
She is talking out of about 9 sides of her mouth all at once- and has a permanently frozen ‘deer in the headlights’ countenance whenever seen in public. Watching her on TV makes me physically ill.
If I saw a skunk with that same lost stare of a look- I would put it out of it’s misery. Especially if I saw it in daylight.
How much would it cost? Given that much of the basic structure already exists, perhaps $1 million per mile. Revamp the whole 700 miles, and it's $700 million.
The structure that is already in most areas is not compatable with the real fence that works.
When politicians use this term they mean amnesty for illegals that are here now plus their immediate families even if those relatives are now in another country. Many politicians and others are convinced that we must give citizenship to all illegals living here now- because they do not believe there is another solution. Some know there are other solutions and just support illegal immigration and open borders.
Amnesty has been given in the past- and it was to be a one time only deal- with strict enforcement of the border and strict enforcement of all immigration laws. The problem is the government did not live up to that, they did not secure the border and have refused to enforce the laws we have now. This is why the border is such a mess now, and why illegal immigration is so far out of hand. It is a disaster and at this point there is no quick fix. Anything we do will cost money- lots of it.
Politicians and many others are trying to sell "comprehensive immigration reform" as a quick, painless fix. It is not- they claim only worthy illegals will be given citizenship after they comply with certain requirements. Someone would have to be able to sort out all of the illegals in this country in order to do that. In order to even attempt to do that tons of money will have to be spent to either add budget, facilities, and manpower to agencies we already have or in our usual government wisdom create some new entity to do that. Either way it would be a very costly proposition and one that is guaranteed to fail. Amnesty of any kind is also very unfair to anyone who has gone through the process legally- if we do amnesty we are rewarding illegal behaviour- which to me is never a good idea.
The reason it will not work is because many criminal illegals will not apply for amnesty- they know they will not qualify so they will continue to be here illegally doing illegal things. Illegals are also masters of fake documents and identities so many will get through the system when they should not qualify. Some will use a fake ID to get amnesty in spite of a criminal record and some will use fake documents to show they have been here, working here however long the requirement will be or fake documents to meet other requirements.
The other part of the problem of giving amnesty is employers hire illegals because they are willing to work for less money, little or no benefits, and will tolerate unsafe or otherwise bad working conditions. If you make all the illegals here now citizens with some stroke of a pen- then those new citizens will be getting better jobs and the employers of illegals now will need more illegals to fill the jobs. It happened when amnesty was done before- the new citizens moved into better jobs and businesses "needed" more illegals. Another side of that coin is there are businesses in every industry that do not and never have hired illegals. Those businesses find it hard or impossible to compete with businesses that do and many U.S. businesses have failed for that reason alone. Again it is unfair competition.
Illegals have taken jobs from citizens, even in good economic times many jobs that citizens wanted and needed have gone to illegals. It is nearly impossible for a citizen to compete with an illegal for a job, and when illegals are hired in large numbers in any industry the wages for that job become artifically low and citizens cannot work that cheap. The dirty little secret of illegal workers is they cannot work that cheap either- which is why they are such a burden on social services and medical care. With illegal labor the business makes a larger profit- but the taxpayers have the burden of the extra expenses of dealing with the fallout of the illegals.
Right now our economy is weak, and many are unemployed. If we move right now to remove illegals from the country those jobs can go to citizens who need them. If we secure the border and enforce immigration laws already on the books it will remove large numbers of illegals- many will self deport and others will be deported through enforcement. Arizona's new law is a step in the right direction to enforcement. After the border is secure and many illegals are out of the country, if we truly don't have enough citizens to do the jobs we need done- then we may need to change some of our immigration laws to allow more LEGAL foreign workers into this country. In my opinion we should never condone or allow illegal workers in any circumstance.
It will cost money to secure the border and enforce immigration laws, but whatever we do to solve these issues will cost money. I support securing the border because no matter what else we do the border must be secured as a matter of security. Terrorists can and do cross our open border- the Cartel War in Mexico is creeping across our border- there are many border issues other than illegal immigration so the border needs to be secure no matter what. I support enforcing all immigration laws as a process to remove most of the illegals that are now here. I believe our money would be better spent securing the border and using our current immigration laws to deal with the problem.
I know this was long-winded, but so many times people only see a small part of the problem and then it is hard to come up with a workable solution. Many who don't live on the border do not see the whole picture so it is impossible for them to make good choices for solutions.
Build a fence? Sounds like the ultimate “shovel ready” job to me....
Excellent analysis. Unfortunately, I agree completely.
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.