Immigration reform is
back in the center of U.S. politics. But so is border security.
Like a miracle, the
November election resurrected bipartisan consensus for immigration reform. Support
for some type of immigration reform, whether comprehensive or piecemeal, spans
nearly the entire political spectrum in post-election America -- in large part
because of dramatically increasing political participation of Latinos, Asians,
and other immigrant-based communities.
Advocacy for immigration
reform is breaking into various camps – from those only supporting an expansion
of guest-worker programs to those who insist on comprehensive immigration
reform. All camps agree that border security is the necessary foundation for
immigration reform.
When speaking about the
new prospects for immigration reform after his reelection, President Obama made
the now required nod to border security. It’s rare to hear any politician or
reform advocate speak favorably of immigration reform without the apparently
requisite bow to border security.
In U.S. political and
advocacy communities, strong support for massive border security spending (or
increased funding) constitutes a common ground. Virtually all regard border
security as a precondition for immigration reform.
Yet for all the
enthusiastic support for increased border security – whether as nationalist
response, a tactic to achieve immigration reform, or because of
anti-immigration or pro-drug control convictions – there is no common
understanding of what border security actually means.
The Department of
Homeland Security and the U.S. Border Patrol aren’t much help in defining or
assessing border security.
About the closest they
come to defining border security is declaring their commitment to “secure the
border” against the entry of “dangerous people and goods.” This more
militaristic and threat-laden phrasing that pushed aside the pre-9/11 language
of “border control” and about blocking flows of illegal aliens and illegal
drugs.
The ambiguity and
expansiveness of the new border security mission is paralleled by the Border
Patrol’s apparent inability to evaluate the threats and risks to border
security and to assess the degree to which the border is secure.
(to
be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment