Gary Bokelmann, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 8, 2001

Is it time to post the military along U.S. borders? A growing number of critics of immigration policies say it is.

They cite shortcomings in the highly publicized immigration crackdown announced by the Bush administration on Oct. 31. The crackdown, announced in response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks, has drawn new attention to an immigration system that critics contend has been broken for years.

Among them is U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who recently proposed at least considering the use of National Guard members to back up the Border Patrol. In a recent newsletter to constituents and the media, Smith wrote: "Our land borders are too porous and offer an open invitation to anyone who wants to harm us. As a result, our immigration policy will change. Talk of more open borders will subside. Theoretical and utopian views will give way to more realistic and practical approaches.”

Reform Long Overdue

The change in immigration policy called for by Rep. Smith is long overdue, according to long-time immigration policy analysts, such as Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

"If we’re serious about homeland security, we need to understand that the INS is operating on one of the fronts of this war,” said Krikorian. "And this is much more serious than the threat to the homeland in World War II.”

Unfortunately, he says, the immigration crackdown announced last month, including the naming of 46 terrorist groups whose members and supporters are prohibited from obtaining visas, will not make much difference.

"There’s no question that the benefit that will be derived from these changes is very, very small,” Krikorian said, adding that many people in the nation’s top political circles are historically reluctant to take strong steps to tighten border security.

"There are politicians and pundits, and what-have-you, who have this idea that we should not interfere with the illegal immigration of Mexicans or Chinese, in our efforts to keep out Middle Eastern terrorists,” he said. "That’s just not going to work.

"Any border that a Mexican day worker can sneak across is the same border that a Saudi terrorist can sneak across,” he added. "There’s no way to have an immigration enforcement system that keeps out terrorists but lets in ‘regular’ illegal aliens. But that seems to be what people want to strive for, at least at an elite level.”

High-Tech vs. Low-Tech Reforms In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, some members of Congress had begun clamoring for changes in immigration policy. Many of their proposals involve the use of new technology to identify and track foreign citizens who are in the country on tourist, student or business visas. For example, legislation sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., would create a centralized database of all non-citizens who enter the United States. A bill proposed by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would mandate that the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service be given immediate access to the CIA and FBI "lookout” lists of suspected terrorists.

Others go even further, promoting the use of biometric technologies, such as computerized facial recognition and fingerprints, to identify and track foreign visitors.

"That’s all important, and we’re moving in that direction, but that’s the kind of thing that takes time and money,” Krikorian said. Arguing that the situation is too critical to wait for high-tech solutions, his organization recently testified before Congress that more immediate, low-tech reforms should be taken immediately.

"At the borders, something that can be done without instituting a whole new infrastructure, is that at airports and border crossing points we just need to have more extensive staffing,” he said.

"Currently, you’ll routinely have these long, long traffic jams of people waiting to get through, which creates pressure on the inspectors to hurry things up and move things through faster. Well, that can’t happen, and one of the ways you make that less likely to happen is you have full staffing at airports and borders.”

Such improvements could be instituted almost immediately, he noted. "It’s not that hard. You can hire more people without having to start in the fourth grade training them in science or math. This is something that requires training, but... an immigration inspector can be hired and can get started in a matter of weeks.”

A Matter of Management, Not Money

Though INS defenders may argue that beefing-up border protection and entry-point inspection will require added funding, the agency’s critics note that billions of dollars spent so far have failed to produce results.

U.S. Border Control, another immigration lobbying organization, recently noted that in 1994, the Clinton administration announced a new "get tough” policy named Operation Gatekeeper. In the years that followed, the INS budget tripled to $4.6 billion annually, the size of the Border Patrol was doubled, and high-tech surveillance equipment was installed in the two leading areas for illegal border crossings: San Diego and El Paso.

"They spent all of their budget trying to stop illegal alien traffic in a few highly visible areas, but left the rest of the border wide open,” the organization reports in a recent newsletter. "But while the arrest rates around San Diego and El Paso dropped dramatically, those in other areas along the border skyrocketed.”

Troops on the Border?

So why not take advantage of a readily available source of manpower and station reserve or National Guard units along the U.S. borders, as many are now suggesting? Krikorian, for one, believes that would be a mistake.

"I’m afraid that’s used as a shortcut that ultimately is inadequate,” he said. "Having the military perform support functions on the borders is useful, and they do a lot of that anyway. They help the Border Patrol build roads, for instance ... they’ll man radar or other technology in a backup role. And that’s useful and should be expanded. But soldiers actually patrolling the border against illegal immigration? I don’t think that’s useful.”

The problem, Krikorian argues, is that the military simply isn’t trained for such a mission.

"If we adopted a policy of shooting anyone who crosses the border in an illegal place, then the Army would be appropriate,” he said. "But until that happens, there are so many other things that need to be done, and the potential problems are simply too great, and the benefit, I think, is minor.”

A better use of resources, many experts say, is to rigorously monitor those who enter the U.S. on temporary tourist, work or student visas. They note that 13 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers entered the country legally, but at least three had overstayed their visas.

"What we really need is interior enforcement against illegal immigration – turning off the magnet of jobs, and much more aggressive deportation of people who are here illegally but who are not otherwise criminals,” Krikorian said.

In June of last year, a report by the National Commission on Terrorism noted that the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had moved in and out of the country freely, in spite of being named on a State Department warning list as a possible terrorist.

"Today,” the commission wrote with chilling foresight, "there is still no mechanism for ensuring the same thing won’t happen again.”

Next: Ignoring the home front

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Clinton Scandals

Homeland/Civil Defense

Immigration/Borders

War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today