President Bush's speech to the nation last night was certainly courageous and an attempt to show leadership. Unfortunately, his words were, in my opinion, extremely ambiguous and did not address the entire issue.
First and foremost, I would like to point out that there are already thousands of National Guard troops that have been activated and sent to the border to assist in counter drug activities and interdiction. With that, the President has said he will send "up to 6000 National Guard troops" to the Southern Border. With troops already there, the claim can be made that troops are there without sending one more individual to the border, but instead simply expanding the duties of those individuals already there. If this is the case, both the counter drug mission and the counter migratory mission will suffer, as resources will be stretched to their limits.
In addition, the President promised to increase the number of Border Patrol agents over the next several years to eventually relieve the need for the National Guard. This is also nothing new. Upon passing the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress agreed to double the number of Border Patrol Agents form approximately 8,000 to 16,000 within 5 years. Last night, President Bush revealed that he has increased the number of Border Patrol Agents form 9,000 to 12,000, and hopes to replace the 6,000 National Guardsmen and women with 6,000 new Border Patrol agents within 2 years. You do the math. Nothing new here.
Furthermore, the President went on to say he is not a proponent of amnesty. He then continued to describe a program that would allow those in the United States illegally a path to citizenship. So, in essence, he contradicted himself. It doesn't matter if they have to wait in line behind everyone else, they will be allowed to stay here and work legally. The definition of amnesty is a general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses. If our government allows these individuals any sort of benefit, instead of restricting their access to benefits and slowly weeding them out for violating our laws, then they are being granted amnesty.
What concerned me most about the speech was the concentration on the Southern Border. Granted, in fiscal year 2004, the Border Patrol apprehended 1,139,282 individuals along the Southwest Border, as compared to only 21,113 on the Northern Border. As such, as of April 2005, 9,633 Border Patrol agents were assigned to the Southern Border, while only 1,031 were assigned to the Northern border. However, in this era of heightened security, migrants of special interest are of paramount concern. Most of these migrants are encountered along the Northern border, as displayed in recent arrests by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement. Granted, the majority of flow of illegal migrants comes from the south. However, we cannot ignore the vast Northern border and the dangers that loom there.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
They are pouring into our country at an alarming rate. They drive on our roads, buy up all our gas for their giant vans, buy and drink all our beer and spend all their money in our Florida resorts. They do all this and wont lift a hand to mow a lawn, work in the back of a restaurant or pick even a single vegetable. Our health care system cant deliver all their babies and it cant keep up with their severe cases of sunburn.
What are we going to do?
Bush has it all wrong, he is trying to close the wrong border!
SAY NO TO AAAYUP ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Liberals have nothing and are just sore LOSERS!!!
Bruce: If you read the link, Canadians aren't the main concern crossing the Northern border.
I guess what neither of you understand is that the immigration problem hasn't gotten any better, it has gotten worse. And to attempt to appease the public by reviewing programs that are already in place does not resolve the issue. It is a much bigger question than undocumented workers-It is a question of security.
I believe the Minute Men are observing the Northern Border as well:
www.minutemanhq.com
Well put.
Joke aside, it is a serious matter concerning potential terroists. After all, the Millenium Plot that was foiled ended up coming from the Great White North near Seattle. That was a real threat avoided by careful planning.
My personal ideology aside, I think that if we want safe borders, we need to have half of our National Guard at the Canadia border and the other half near Mexico. That would be wise, not this putting all our counter-terrorism forces in one area at the expense of national security.
Slipping into my ideology now, I really think the President is listening to the wrong "voices." He needs to listen to the voice of reason instead of the voices of his cabinet. He's just trying to maniuplate the fears of his voters. After all, his poll numbers just tanked and he needs to whip up that good ol' boy fear so his numbers can go up.
Excellent questions. To begin, Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to do all they can with their mere 6,000 or so agents. In light of their obvious lack of manpower, they concentrate on prgrams designed to deport criminal aliens. That includes aliens from all countries. As far as Middle Eastern and Northern African countries, yes, they still apply for and obtain visas. Programs have been developed, such as the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which gathers information on individuals from "special interest" countries and requires them to report to local immigraiton offices to report their entry, status, and depatrure. Unfortunately, that program has encountered alot of resistance since the division between Customs and Border Protection (airports/seaports/land borders) and Immigraiton and Customs Enforcement (interior enforcement). CBP does not want to do the leg work for ICE on this issue, as they are the ones tasked with registering these individuals upon arrival, which is, admittedly, very time consuming.
The problem is too great to expect ICE to be able to round up all those who have entered and have eiter overstayed their authorized stay, or those who have entered illegally. For instance, there is still no system, nor law that requires all visitors to register upon departure. The NSEERS program was a start, but it proved too time consuming (can't hold up those airlines...). As such, many individuals who visit and depart and forget to turn in their I-94 (visitor's permit) may appear to have overstayed when, if fact, they haven't. Bottom line-it is difficult at best to weed out the violators who have indeed overstayed their welcome.
Many state and local law enforcement departments have been trained and deputized to enforce immigration laws. Unfortunately, many of those same departments resist doing so because they don't want their officers doing immigraiton work all the time, especially in areas with high populations of immigrants. This is a multifaceted issue with no easy and quick solution.
We need to put a choke hold on the benefits for illegals. This will force them to leave on their own. No work, no benefits, what's the point of being here? In addition, we need a system that captures entry and exit of all visitors ot our country. Until that happens, it will be impossible to track all visitors. We also need ot hire more ICE agents, more Border Patrol, and more CBP officers. DHS has done a horrible job in reorganizing these agencies, and it's high time someone took a close look and figured out how to fix the problems.
I agree that we must also focus on our northern border. Canada is our friend -- like Mexico -- as well, right? Also, it seems interesting that while many illegal immigrants come from Mexico, many potentially dangerous come from Canada. Both borders present risks.
Is that a joke?
Like the Government is going to read it and say "Ya know what guys, Candida Bohnne-Eittreim, over at Gather.com just wrote a highly critical piece about the DHS. I think we need to take her expert advice and take a hard look and re-examine whether in fact this department is even necessary"
In my best Robin Leach voice.............."I'M laughing, and I don't know why"
Now that would be original.
I'M still laughing at the sound of my one hand clapping.
Michaele,
Thx!!!
There are no easy answers to many of the questions that are plaguing our nation today, but there will be no solutions unless we start valuing the idea of honest debate.
The name calling and partisan hackery is not only getting old, it is getting in the way of progress.
I see a lot of good points and good ideas here, and then someone comes in and half reads and name calls..and it feels like being set back.
William...I wish I could put my thoughts down as well as you do. Candy, Zenith, Cynthia..and almost everyone else..you also make some great points.
Bruce. I love the Swiftian way you look at many of these things. Humor sometimes gets the point across a lot easier than anger. Keep making us think AND laugh.
Thank oyu for your comment. I couldn't agree more, and apologize if my passion for this topic came across as an attack on Canadians or any foreign national. This is not about legal, legitimate visitors to our country. This is abotu those who would enter to cause us harm. The Border Patrol and National Guard will be patrolling the areas where people cross illegally, not so much at the designated ports of entry. The firearms carried by CBP Officers is for their own protection and safety. 98 Border Patrol agents have died in the line of duty. Let's not forget that, besides the majority of border crossers that have a legitimate purpose for entering the U.S., there are those few that are trafficking weapons, drugs, and people. There are terrorists. There are international fugitives fo justice who may be armed and dangerous. So, our officers must be equipt to deal with these individuals. The dogs are used as tools to detect contraband and people being smuggled. They are not attack dogs, although some may appear to be. I hope you do understand that we welcome our neighbors and visitors with open arms. It's the bad guys we want to deter.