Bush’s Lameness and the Need for a Fence Mike Rappaport

James Wilson and Peter Skerry argue in the Wall Street Journal (link requires subscription) for a fence plus some kind of lenient system for illegal immigrants who are already here.  Another supporter for the Krauthammer, Rappaport, compromise. 

Foremost is the public’s demand that the free flow of illegal aliens across the southern border be stopped or drastically curtailed. That will not occur if we assign, for six months, a few thousand National Guardsmen there. This gesture, perhaps useful for symbolic purposes, will not have practical significance: 6,000 people, none with the power to make an arrest, stretched over 2,000 miles of (mostly) unfenced desert, and reduced by the need for sleep and training, means two guardsmen every mile.

Nor is it obvious that hiring more Border Patrol agents will make an immediate difference. A new hire must learn not only the complexities of immigration law but the Spanish language; typically, this takes about a year. More agents are necessary; but without physical barriers that they can reinforce, they will still have to deal with immigrants sneaking across the border, often in remote and dangerous places. Some kind of wall, whether of steel, wire or other hard-to-penetrate materials, is essential. This will cost money, but it will make a difference.

The difference will be both practical and political. Politically, it will reassure Americans that our leaky boundary is now more secure. Once reassured, we suspect that public opinion will be more open to guest-worker programs, increased numbers of visas for desirable immigrants, and the like. Practically, a physical barrier will save lives and reduce movement without, of course, entirely ending it.

I have to agree with Wilson and Skerry that President Bush’s proposal just will not cut it.  I don’t consider myself any kind of hawk on immigration issues — in fact, in an ideal world, I would embrace open borders.  But Bush’s proposal seems to me to be political smoke and mirrors.  How much do you have to swallow to get someone who is willing to fight terrorism?   Sometimes, I feel we are under the Nixon Administration again — not the corruption part, but the cynical, big spending, Republicanism put forward by someone who (his enemies at least) portray as a conservative.