Opinion Page: Build the Fence

The Border Fence, AKA Mr. Krauthammer's Security Blanket.

This ignores the fact that many (if not most) illegals are not "Border Jumpers"/Coyotes, whatever, but are instead people who come on legitimate visas or visa waivers but then over-stay that visa. This also assumes that a fence is somehow impenetrable. Thousands were able to escape from East Berlin despite the fact that "Border" was much easier to control and maintain than a thousands mile-long fence. If drug cartels and human smugglers are not only able to defeat our present security with tunnels and even by employing our own security personnel, I see NO reason that a fence can have any impact on illegal immigration. Instead, if the Mexican government had effective law and order in the North (instead of being run by drug gangs) and if there was economic promise in Mexico or political freedom in Cuba/China/Iran the market for living in the Land of the Free will be somewhat less "in demand".

Sent by Andrew Martin | 2:23 PM | 6-18-2007

What does Mr. Kauthammer (or other guests) make of the assertion from a recent TIME magazine article regarding the effect of tightening the border AND having the guest worker program? "If the Senate plan does tighten the border and expand the guest-worker program...then the money that once went to human smugglers at the border will simply be redirected to criminal gangs inside Mexico who prey on guest-worker-recruiting process" (p43). Sure, there may be fewer coyotes preying on the poor of Mexico and coming over the border, but can the US really escape any repsonsibility for the strife by externalizing it to a corruptible "Y" visa recruitment process within Mexico- all this especially in the face of the utter failure to Mexico's economy that is NAFTA?

Sent by ted frisbie | 2:38 PM | 6-18-2007

Given land borders totalling over 4000 miles long and similar length of water borders, a fence is more symbolic than practical. Little has been done to secure the borders by the current administration because of business considerations. The current proposed fence would be a financial boon to well connected Bush supporters but nearly useless as a deterant.

Sent by Dennis Tresslar | 2:38 PM | 6-18-2007

I understand the problem in the South West portion of the US. In the North East our biggest problem with illegals are students who drop out of school and stay, or people who arrive on tourist visas, and stay. I see nothing in the bill about sending people home when their visa expires.

People will stop crossing the border when businesses stop giving them jobs. I know far to many people who are out of work because their companies are now hiring illegals, I fired a contractor who worked on my home because he could not prove to me his crew was made up of legal workers.

Sent by J Dumas | 2:45 PM | 6-18-2007

Mr, Krauthammer do you think the wall between Mexico and the U.s. should be built on the border or that the U.s. should use this as a means to confiscate some land as Israel has done with Palestinian land and build it on Mexican land?

Sent by Kathleen | 2:47 PM | 6-18-2007

My grandparents came to this country from Europe during WWI on the hope of getting in through Ellis Island. They didn't have a visa or any paper work. I don't know how many of the people whose families migranted here during the 1800s or early 1900s did.

Sent by Darlene | 2:52 PM | 6-18-2007

Regardless of the illegal worker or immigration issue, enforcing a border on both our Northern and Southern fronts might be an actual step in the attempt to keep terrorists or other threats from literally walking into our country. If Mexican illegals can walk in what might keep a terrorist from doing the same? Similarly, if someone with a flagged passport can pass through the Canadian border, how can we expect to keep any entry safe?

Sent by Daniel | 2:53 PM | 6-18-2007

Folks beating the "make America Strong" are missing the point that they are looking to spend, IN ESTIMATED COSTS, almost as much money as illegal immigrants cost us to keep them out. Considering the $14 million estimate for the San Diego fence is now at $74 million, I'm a bit skeptical that their solution will be viable or realistic.

I looked through a lot of reports and stats and came up with the following:

http://www.spewgilist.com/portal/Spewgiblogs/tabid/114/EntryID/113/Default.aspx

Which details the estimated cost of all illegal immigration, based on US government reports and then indicates how much we are planning to spend to stop illegal immigration from Mexico.

It's just plain silly because my calculations, based on US figures is that we will spend $56 billion MORE than the cost of Mexican illegal immigration over the next 25 years.

Sent by Jonathan Moore | 2:55 PM | 6-18-2007

If it were only possible I'd like to see every working illegal immigrant stop working until grocery stores began emptying of food, restaurants, hotels and motels closing, crops rotting in fields and so on. Then we'd solve the immigrant problem pronto.

Sent by Michael | 2:57 PM | 6-18-2007

I'm concerned about the impact a true border fence would have on wildlife. Many animals need to migrate and many need access to the Rio Grande. I don't know that adequate passage for wildlife can be built into a fence, or if environmental costs are considered much at all in this case.

Sent by Joe Pfahl | 2:58 PM | 6-18-2007

Waiting for my comment about whether Kratuhammer wants the fence built on land on the Mexican side or the U.s. Krauthammer mentioned the Istaeli wall. Does he think the U.s. should confiscate some of Mexico's land the way Israel is doing with Palestinian land via the wall?

I will let people know whether you so called "liberal" folks as Npr put this questionn comment on your blog!

Sent by Kathleen | 2:59 PM | 6-18-2007

One frequently made point is that there will always be an incentive for illegal immigration so long as employers continue to provide jobs. It's rarely given its due, but hearing it today made me realize something: Why don't we have a stigmatizing term for these employers?

"Illegal immigrant" is hardly a flattering term, and it perceived by some to be insulting enough that they use other phrases, like "undocumented worker" to do away with it. While these people are migrants and are breaking the law (and thus meet the semantic requirements to be called 'illegal immigrants'), using this term to describe them serves only to characterize them as having some kind of criminal, villainous nature

Why don't we call their employers "illegal employers," "criminal mangers," or, "immigration exploiters?"

I think the answer lies in a cultural or racial bias. Individuals who so vehemently stand against "illegal immigration" don't truly view it as an issue solely in the realm of economics. Rather, they actually disapprove of the people from outside of the United States.

If this isn't the case and they see it only as a matter of economics or national security, they ought to be equally outraged at American employers who facilitate what they consider such a criminal act. Following their logic, if our porous borders harm the economy and even threaten security, they ought to consider these employers as participating in a kind of treason.

But there's no outrage. For the most intense opponents of illegal immigration, it's not about security or the economy. It's about the kind of colors and accents they want in the United States.

Sent by Samuel Mustain | 3:03 PM | 6-18-2007

I am 26yrs Old and have no real in-Demand skills. That being said I have tried to do the work that is given to Illegal Aliens. Because of my Color, White, I've been denied work many times forcing me to go back home and go to school to get a job. Maybe you might think that there are jobs that americans don't want to do. I'm telling you that those employers are being descrimitory. Unless you are Hispanic and know Spannish, you cannot get any type of job that pays low and demands alot of physical activity. I know because I've tried here in San Antonio, TX.

Sent by Daniel | 3:07 PM | 6-18-2007

To me there are sooo many factors that promote/invite "illegal imigration", I list two below:
1. I do believe that empoyers should be primary enforcers of there emoployment staff. If employers did not "knowingly" give jobs to illegal imigrants the flow would slow down. Along with the employers trying to exploit cheap labor, I do believe there is a shortage of a willing workforce, which brings me to the second issue.
2.Unfortunately our own welfare system has created the ability of our own citizens to refuse work that involves manual labor... if we did not give free money and support people to set around and NOT work...once they started getting hungry they would be forced to get work doing whatever they need to survive...this is the situation that the immigrants are in.

Sent by Kevin | 3:16 PM | 6-18-2007

I love this program. Thanks very much, Neal, for airing many critical current issues of the day.

I must say I have long resented the remark that Americans will not "do the types of jobs" imigrants are willing to do. I have worked physically demanding jobs and have been invirograted by them. I have also appreciated the benefits of maintaining a healthy, strong body while doing those jobs. There are many of us who enjoy physical labor and are willing to do the work when WE ARE PAID TO DO IT!

Yes, prices may go up due to increased wages paid for physical labor, but why not? Why should Americans not pay the price for good and plentiful food in our markets, just as others in the world do?

Another note: If CEOs were earning appropriate incomes in this country, prices for food and other products would likely reduce in price as wages for those who do the work increase to respectable levels.

Sent by Sandra June | 3:21 PM | 6-18-2007

On the issue of punishing employers who hire illegals - yes! Exactly, they deserve punishment for breaking the law.

Mr. Krauthammer said it was the job of the government to patrol and enforce but to say that US employers should be allowed to employ illegals without punishment is plain wrong. The employer is breaking the law just as the illegal is.

And on the comment that illegals do the work that "Americans don't want to do" -I say this: if employers HAD to employ legal citizens and pay them a proper wage, more Americans would take those jobs.

You cannot expect citizens who do not get welfare, free health insurance and other "perks" that many illegals receive to be able to work for only $5-7 per hour.

It comes down to this: if you have to hire Americans and pay them a decent living wage, there are plenty of legal workers who will take those jobs. But if you can hire illegals without penalty and pay them below the living wage, in most cases only illegals will be able to take such work.

Don't paint Americans as lazy or greedy - I think those who deserve such slanderous remarks are the illegal, law-breaking (albeit hard-working) folks who enter this country without permission, bilk our government programs for all they can and lower the wages that employers are willing to pay.

It's all a vicious cycle and it could all end with logical, ENFORCED legislation that will secure our borders, welcome legal immigrants and offer better jobs to those already here, legally.

Sent by Michelle Wainwright | 3:24 PM | 6-18-2007

I agree with employer enforcement, but how is an employer supposed to verify citizenship or legal status? Is there a systematic way to do this? It's my understanding that most forms of ID for guest workers are easy to counterfeit.

And what does CEO compensation have to with food prices Sandra?

Sent by Rob Holmes | 4:06 PM | 6-18-2007

I was disappointed in today's discussion of border control issues and building a fence, that no mention was made of the effects of a fence on wildlife. The Rio Grande river is the border in Texas and a number of endangered species travel between Texas and Mexico heavily using that raparian corridor. One of the most valuable wildlife refuges in the National system, Santa Ana will be impacted significantly as will other national and state parks in Texas, NM, and AZ. A fence is criminally expensive, and will negatively impact wildlife and do little to limit the criminal element that will go to any lengths to get around any physical barrior. I would suggest using that $ to work with Mexico to do more with the guest worker program, and enhancing the Mexican economy.

Sent by Gay Gilbert | 8:22 PM | 6-18-2007

This was a puzzling segment; completely biased with no opportunity for serious counter argument. Despite Krauthammer's protestations, of course the wall is primarily racist; it is also as many others point out, a way to distract the conversation from the causes of mass migrations (such as the diversion of corn to ethanol, NAFTA, etc), the need for America to have an expanding population in order to grow economically (for better or ill), the industries that would be crippled without immigrants, the role of Haliburton and the Bush Administration in bringing in aliens to the Gulf Coast as a way of avoiding hiring locals at a a fair wage, etc. Finally, as usual when talking policy in a way that ignores the reality for individuals, the fate of families who have lived on both sides of the border, since before there was a border, are ignored. And this is just a start, but not in the brief biased commentary we heard.

Sent by Jeff Chusid | 3:02 PM | 6-19-2007

Jeff:
Just wanted to jump in on that first line...

"This was a puzzling segment; completely biased with no opportunity for serious counter argument."

I handle most of the Opinion Page segments, and they are just that: opinions from the op-ed pages. It's a chance to hear an interesting, and hopefully intelligent, take on the news of the day, and to let callers (and bloggers and emailers) weigh-in. Not a "commentary," it's a conversation and you're always invited to add your own two cents. On any given day, a guest will have a biased opinion (wouldn't be much of an Opinion Page without it), which we will challenge in the course of the show, and so will listeners. And, over many weeks of the segment, you'll hear from all sorts of perspectives... left, right, central, and otherwise. *shameless plug alert* So, tune in every Monday and check it out... and by all means, weigh-in when you disagree!

Sent by Scott Cameron, TOTN | 3:25 PM | 6-19-2007

Of course a fence by itself would not be enough. We need to place 20000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border. We need a secure ID card and a database so an employer can avoid hiring a person who is here illegally.

Sent by John Hicks | 1:33 PM | 6-28-2007