TOPICS
TOPICS
Border security will loom large for Obama administration
Two years ago, some Republican lawmakers floated a proposal to require all undocumented workers wishing to become Americans to first return to their countries of origin and apply for U.S. citizenship.
Here's how Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano characterized that proposal in a February 2007 speech at the National Press Club: "What a joke."
"That would be like asking everyone who lives in New York City and Los Angeles to get up and move," Napolitano said, noting that many of those workers risked their lives to come to the United States or were brought here as children, and have children who are themselves U.S. citizens. "That presumes we have the administrative and legal infrastructure to handle such a mass exodus. We don't."
"We must have the courage to talk openly and honestly with the American people about the need to address immigration. And we must have federal legislation that is reality-based," Napolitano said.
As President-elect Barack Obama's choice to lead the Homeland Security Department, Napolitano will have an opportunity to pursue reality-based proposals of her own. Some of them are likely to involve the Secure Border Initiative, the Bush administration's multi-year plan for reducing illegal immigration and bolstering protections at U.S. borders.
"I think the new administration is clearly going to look at the whole SBI program and see what is the best strategy going forward," said John Mayer, a vice president at consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in McLean, Va. "Gov. Napolitano is very familiar with border operations and the impact SBI has had on the states."
As a former federal prosecutor and border-state governor, Napolitano has an understanding of the security and economic implications of what she has called failed federal immigration and security policies. In mid-2006, with an estimated 4,000 immigrants then crossing Arizona's 376-mile border from Mexico every day, she declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard.
But Napolitano also has been critical of the physical barrier the Bush administration has been building along much of the southwest border. "As I often say, 'You show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder,'" Napolitano told the Press Club audience.
Mayer believes any redirection of SBI needs to be risk-based. "There are a lot of ways you can do border security. You can build fences, hire more Border Patrol agents, use unmanned aerial vehicles and cameras. None of these by themselves is the right answer, yet if they're integrated into a program that you balance with risk analytics, I think you can come up with a pretty sound border protection program that will not only work but be efficient in terms of allocation of resources," he said.
Homeland Security needs to do a better job of developing strategies and plans that are integrated across agencies within the department, according to Mayer. For example, he said, border security strategy must involve support from DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau, not just the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection.
"A new secretary has the opportunity to be able to start with what's been accomplished over the last five years and really push this concept of one department in terms of how they collectively look at the missions across the department," Mayer said.
COMMENTS
- “But enforce the law lady.. and don't make me pay the costs.” Ah… the consumer/bail out mentality again; someone else asking for something for nothing. “Please put that on this plastic for me, would you? And wrap it up nice and prompt while you’re at it!” While I know I can’t (and really don’t care to) speak for the nominee, I must ask “Who pays for anything around here anymore?!” When we were a consumer culture, if we wanted something done we had to pay for it. If you wanted criminals locked up, you better pass a budget with a jail in the cost. If you want those illegals deported; you best figure on more Patrol agents, more detention holding cells, more food as they wait, more processing clerks, more buses/planes to get their butts home, more gas for those buss/planes, and a slew of other mores… smores of mores! Perhaps she was being more of a bean pusher or a bureaucrat but she was upfront about the horrendous cost and herculean effort that the deportation of every illegal would require. I THINK that is what she was saying; but then I’ve been wrong before. IMHO, this article is picturing her as a realist in the nature of his majesty, Shrub II; why else do you think he was for “comprehensive immigration reform” (CRI)? It WAS one of his election promises. Unfortunately he found only the Blue Dogs willing to broker a deal with him, while his own Party Pachyderms rioted and trumpeted their outrageous indignation. This is not just a one-party albatross here. Whatever the answer is, and once more I surely do not know what that is, “Please, PLEASE DEAR LAWD, let us pay for the damn thing before my grandchildren must!” I’d really rather leave them a different legacy than I currently foresee. For if most of the folks who commented here have their way, I can see my little bambinos now; broke, poorly educated, and non-healthcare-covered but at least every one on their block speaks perfect American! (Oh, I’ve been to England and whatever we speak… it ain’t their English!) Tip off Posted January 5, 2009 3:35 PM
- Anyone who argues the merits of a border fence is delusional, and ignores the international evidence that repeats itself with increasing frequency. No one has suggested that a border fence is the ultimate solution. What has been argued, and is presently proving to be the case, is that a combination of physical barriers, employer sanctions, and stepped up enforcement can and will reduce inflows. One can only surmise that eliminating the jobs and benefits magnet would also apprecaiably reduce inflows. Attrition through enforcement is anathema to politicians who refuse to accept the will of America's Citizens (that our borders be secured and our immigration laws be enforced) as guidance for our own governance. Indeed, unable to make inroads with America's Citizens, these politicians seemingly hope to supplant America's voters with more compliant, easily manipulated populations. One need look no farther than the constant sundry refugee crisis afflicting other nations to appreciate the value of a border fence, with controllable choke points, as a responsible deterrent to similar refugee crisis in our own nation. Increasingly, we're seeing that the slightest economic or political unrest, often results in chaotic, disasterous refugee inflows into neighboring nations with dramatic negative social, economic and environmental consequences. Ed Weirdness Posted January 5, 2009 3:18 PM
- And we have shown the illegal aliens the fence, and it worked. Napolitano was WRONG! Was wrong again. A criminal act was accomplished. The question is very clear; do the American Taxpayers have to pay for that criminal act, or does the criminal have to pay for that criminal act? You get a sick feeling she is going to force the American Taxpayer to do the paying. And if you look at the processes, as these people discover they cannot get jobs, they are going home. That is the kindest thing we can do. And if we need to provide money to help them get home, that is fine with me. But enforce the law lady.. and don't make me pay the costs. I would finally point out that the Governor was not doing well in her political career in Arizona. If she forces her will on the people of this country, and the people have made it clear they do not want her policies made law, I think Obama will not do well at all. Joel E Wischkaemper Posted December 31, 2008 6:07 PM
