WASHINGTON -- Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters, and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.
Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.
We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony.
What do you think was said when in 1986 we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in American history -- nearly 3 million got permanent residency. And we are now back at it again with 11 million new illegals in our midst.
How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every day knowing they're going to be illegal and perhaps even exploited. They come nonetheless. The newest amnesty -- the ``earned legalization'' now being dangled in front of them by proposed Senate legislation -- can only increase the flow.
Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless, they are pernicious. They turn employers into enforcers of border control. That is the job of government, not landscapers.
The irony of this whole debate, which is bitterly splitting the country along partisan, geographic and ethnic lines, is that there is a silver bullet that would not just solve the problem but also create a national consensus behind it.
My proposition is the following: a vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.
Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put cameras. Put sensors. Put out lots of patrols.
Read the whole thing.
I am still against amnesty of any sort, be it through "earned citizenship" or whatever. We should not reward those who break the law, and I am convinced that if we stopped the flow of illegals at the border (and opened up legal immigration processes to allow more legal immigrants in) that we could slowly deport those who are here over the next decade or so.
But that being said, it looks like we're going to get some sort of amnesty program whether we like it or not. So if our politicians are hell-bent on granting amnesty then why not make that amnesty actually mean something by taking action to stop new illegal immigrants at the border?
Sadly it seems as though we aren't even going to get that. Politicians have apparently settled on a "virtual" wall of sensors, cameras and other types of electronic monitoring. Of course, this initiative to use "more better technology" is just more of the same from our politicians.
We already have electronic monitoring at our southern border. We have cameras and sensors and other types of monitoring devices and they aren't working. I am not convinced that more of these things will help in any sort of substantial way. We could have every inch of our border covered with security cameras, but what good do all of those cameras do without a) somebody to sit and monitor them and b) someone near enough to where the illegals are crossing to detain them?
If we want to stop the flow at the border we need something more substantial, and you can't get much more substantial than a wall. Back in the 14th century the Ming dynasty in China built a wall to keep out invaders. That wall worked for nearly 200 years, until a Chinese general was convinced to open the gates for an invading army. If an ancient wall in ancient China could work for almost two centuries I see no reason why a modern wall in modern American couldn't do the same.
A wall with a wide gate, of course, but a wall just the same.