Even the WSJ admits: The Meaningless Mantra of 'Border Security'

[pampango]

It's become the most overused—and least understood—concept in the struggle over what to do about our broken immigration system.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270810940585150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Does a secure border mean one in which no one is able to cross between the legal entry ports? The most secure border in modern history was probably the Cold War border between East and West Germany. To keep their people from leaving—logistically much easier than keeping others from entering—the East Germans built more than 700 watchtowers, sprinkled more than a million antipersonnel mines, created a deep no-man's zone of barbed wire and electric fencing, and deployed nearly 50 guards per square mile with shoot-to-kill orders. Even so about 1,000 people each year somehow managed to find a way across.

Perhaps a secure border is simply one in which enforcement capabilities are bolstering deterrence and dissuading more and more people from attempting illegal crossings. By that standard, the border is more secure than it has ever been at any time in American history. The one number the Border Patrol collects with absolute confidence is the apprehensions it makes each year of illegal border crossers. The smaller that number, the better, because it shows a decline in those attempting illegal crossings.

The debate over border security is further complicated because much of what is troubling the residents of Arizona and other border states is a result of the federal government's success in securing the border, not its failure. Doubling the size of the Border Patrol in just the last five years has made it harder to cross illegally. As a result, many more would-be border crossers have turned to smuggling gangs, who have brought with them the trappings of organized crime (safe houses, kidnappings, violence to settle internal conflicts) that have left border residents feeling less secure even as the number of illegal border crossings has plummeted.

Finally, measuring border security is difficult because many of the policies that affect border security are not carried out on the border. Tougher workplace enforcement to prevent hiring of unauthorized workers would dissuade many from attempting illegal crossings. More visas for foreign workers could persuade some to follow legal routes to the U.S. rather than risking the illegal ones. The logic of comprehensive immigration reform has long been that doing these other things as well makes a secure border easier to achieve—a logic that "border security first" unfortunately turns on its head.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened to “secure the border before we talk about any type of comprehensive reform? Wonder if McCain and seemingly every other republican politician have received the new memo that comprehensive reform is a part of border security. Or does this reveal that “secure the border first” strategy (given the impossibility of achieving this completely) is just a partisan scam to win votes (they hope) and avoid talking about comprehensive reform?

[tularetom]

1. "Border security" to some, implies shooting the people who try to cross

And the thought of this makes some Americans all tingly inside.

Those who feel this way are known as the republican base.

Another dog whistle phrase.

[GoneOffShore]

2. Sometimes one does find sense in the WSJ

Sneaks past the filter.

Of course this will be glossed over.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Of course the WSJ likes open borders.

It's good for stock prices.

[pampango]

6. Perhaps it does (though not in this article). European (and some American) progressives like them.

If the WSJ is in favor of open borders, it sure isn't having much luck bringing along republican politicians, the base and tea baggers. I don't know of a single repub politician who will even talk openly about comprehensive reform, much less possibly vote for it. As for the base and tea baggers, well, to say "Open borders" to them is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

In this article the WSJ is arguing that comprehensive immigration reform can help achieve a "secure border", not an open one.

"The logic of comprehensive immigration reform has long been that doing these other things as well makes a secure border easier to achieve."

So if you want to show that if you want to prove they actually support open borders, you'll have to look elsewhere.

[Scuba]

3. New Border Security Plan: No jobs or other reasons to come here.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Populist_Prole]

7. WSJ just likes cheap labor

I can see right through their phony mangnamity.

[pampango]

8. Yeah, but then it would support "border security first/only" like McCain and every other republican.

Every repub in the Senate and House (and seemingly every one in the states as well) is sticking to the "secure the border first" mantra and won't touch comprehensive reform. They know this prolongs the status quo for as long as possible and keeps a large number of easily exploitable workers around which is just what they want.

The Progressive Caucus, organized labor and practically every other progressive organization support comprehensive reform (including, among others, border security and a path to citizenship) precisely because they support higher wages for workers. If the WSJ can talk itself into agreeing with a policy supported by these organizations and opposed by every republican in congress, we can enjoy the dissension in their ranks and put it to good use.