The Politics Of Improving Security

Michael Rosen, at TCS Daily, has an interesting analysis of a convergence of benefit between successful politics and good policy. Specifically, he has a look at gains made over the last few months toward improvements in homeland security, including the 700 miles of border fence recently passed by both the House and Senate, as well as legislation establishing military tribunals for terrorism detainees and basic standards for interrogation of combatant prisoners. There are clear advantages to both achievements. The fence, as I've noted earlier, is about knowing who's coming into our country. Setting tribunals and interrogation standards gives guidelines for CIA and military questioners, protecting both the detainees (from abuse) and the interrogators (from unjust accusation.) Rosen points out that, with an election looming, these accomplishments are beneficial to Republicans politically, as the party in power, but says that "the U.S. as a whole is the true beneficiary." Have a look.

A Good Neighbor Fence

There's a rather interesting look at the political trend toward a fence on our border with Mexico, by Rich Lowry, at Townhall.com. It seems the fence idea is gaining momentum and, potentially, funding, from Washington. Both the House and Senate have now passed legislation authorizing several hundred miles of barrier. (Now the two sets of legislation have to be reconciled, which still could take a while.) The mere concept of a fence faced a good deal of opposition from certain quarters at its inception, but, over time, public opinion is swaying the politicians, who are gradually coming around to the notion that the U.S. citizenry at large want the borders enforced. I'm hoping that what they are realizing is that most of us are for both immigration and border security. It's not only possible to be both, I suspect it is the dominant position.

Honestly, I don't know a single person who has ever expressed, in my hearing, the desire that we keep immigrants out of the country. After all, most of us are ourselves descended from immigrants. However, we want people coming into our country who will obey its laws, and in sneaking across the border, illegal immigrants are breaking those laws at the outset. There are security issues, as well as economic ones. We want to know who's here, and for how long, and why. We want accountability, and we also want those who work here to pay their fair share of taxes, so that the infrastructure and services provided by government at all levels can be funded by everyone who uses them, not excepting those who are working under the table to avoid detection. In this case, I think most of us want a "good neighbor fence," one that will enable us to continue growing a positive relationship with Mexico, unhindered by some of the current fears and resentments.

Most people aren't heartless. I doubt very much that the average American resents the money that gets sent from here to Mexico. Dollars from here goes a long way toward helping the quality of life there, and many of us are happy to see how much immigrant workers can aid their families back home, but they need to do it legally, and contribute to the infrastructure and services that they use while they're here. If U.S. citizens are assured of safe borders, with a flow of immigration that is generous, but accountable, controlled, and not sucking the public trough dry without reciprocal contribution, there will be a lot less resentment on the part of those Americans who are, right now, frustrated by abuses of the system. Most of us recognize that there are many benefits, on both sides, to be gained by a healthy exchange of goods and labor between our neighboring countries. I'm a big "a rising tide floats all boats" proponent. The more Mexico prospers, the better off we all are, in the long run.

I acknowledge that not everyone wants large numbers of immigrant workers flooding the American job market. Some people fear competition for employment, coming from migrant workers who willingly work for less than Americans generally will. Many immigrants accept a lesser standard of living than the people born and raised in American prosperity, and for good reason; even what would be considered a lesser standard here is still very high compared with the conditions back home. I'm not dismissing the fact that some Americans find competition from immigrant laborers, and that that competition might keep some wages suppressed; however, a prosperous Mexico also purchases more goods than an impoverished one, so if Mexico thrives, we have the potential to create more jobs here as well. Again, looking at the long run, a goods-consumer contributes to economic growth. Prosperous immigrants become goods-consumers.

Of course, there are other issues involved; the Mexican government is responsible, in the long run, for the economic climate south of the border, and those issues are far too complicated for me to get into without a lot more information than I have right now. My main point here is that I think it's a good thing that a border fence is gaining ground in Washington. Hopefully, Congress is seeing the light, that it's possible to be both pro-security and pro-immigration at the same time. It's encouraging that public opinion is having an impact on public policy. Maybe we'll see some consensus come out of the capital. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

If Half A Fence Is Good...

There's a really good article by Duncan Currie at The Weekly Standard today, saying that now that the Senate has voted for the Sessions amendment to the immigration bill, currently in progress, which authorizes 370 miles of triple layered fencing on our border with Mexico, the real debate over border security can begin. (Just as a side note, our border with Mexico is 1,951 miles long.) So, why does the real debate begin after the votes are cast?

Currie makes the point that up till now the conversation has been "...fraught with demagoguery and suspect analogies. Witness Rep. James Sensenbrenner's recent description of employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor as '21st-century slave masters.'" Currie also cites the frequent comparison of a wall on the Mexican border with the Berlin Wall--you know, the wall that separated a previously united country/city into two parts, the free side and the communist side. However, the people who pull out the Berlin Wall/Mexican border analogy generally fail to note the primary difference between the two; The Berlin Wall was put up to keep people in the country, and a U.S./Mexico wall, while not exactly designed to keep people out, would serve to force people to stop entering illegally and start using the front door. Hardly a legitimate comparison.

Despite the assertion that building a wall would put us on par with repressive communist regimes, 83 Senators voted last week for the partial fence to be built. All of the Republicans voted for it, but 83 affirmative votes means that Democrats voted for it as well-- a lot of them, including "Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein." Currie points out some inconsistency here:

Last December House Republicans took heat for endorsing some 698 miles worth of Mexican border fencing. So now we know the crucial difference between sensible border enforcement and crude "immigrant bashing"--about 328 miles of fencing. Fences that cover 698 miles are a noxious emblem of right-wing nativism. Fences that cover 370 miles are a reasonable means to fortify American security.

The fencing debate reflects the general frivolity of the immigration row. If building 370 miles of border fencing is worth the trouble, then building 698 miles of fencing seems to be at least a reasonable option to consider. Either fencing will help discourage illegal border crossings, or it won't. Yet many senators who pronounce themselves "serious" about dealing with illegal immigration scorned the House bill but then turned around and voted for the Sessions legislation last week.

His observation is a good one. So, now that 28 Senate Democrats are on record as supporting enhanced border security, what does it mean? If a partial fence is good, wouldn't a whole fence be better? Currie says that there are three main issues within the fence debate: symbolism, cost, and effectiveness. What would a fence say to Mexicans? What will it's price be, and can we afford it? Finally, the most important question: will it work? The answers to these questions, and others ( like what to do about the people already here illegally), are still in limbo, but Currie declares that, now, we are ready for a real discussion.

...when 28 Senate Democrats jump on board with the concept of security fencing, you know it's an idea that merits serious bipartisan debate, rather that just casual dismissals and partisan bombast. Thanks above all to Sen. Sessions, we may now have that debate.

Maybe if they put aside Berlin Wall comparisons and talk of "21st-century slave masters", and recognize that this is something the American people really do want addressed seriously, the Senate can truly act as representatives of the people who elect them; by voting for even a part of a wall they've made a small step or two in that direction. The Pollyanna in me would love to believe it's just the beginning. The realist in me is thinking they'll do just enough to pacify the public, and then fall back into the routine, holding televised hearings on such weighty matters as steroid abuse in baseball. I hope the Pollyanna is right this time. The realist would like a few days off.