QUESTIONS:

1. Does firm regulations, reformed "catch and release" policy, and tighter security provide safety against terrorist entering our borders illegal?
   
2. Should this policy have been implemented long before September 11th?
   
3. Does this place undo hardship on the southern border and the workers that live south of the border?

Assuming I understand your question correctly, the whole point behind securing the border is to place a "hardship" on those attempting to cross it illegally. As for the workers who live south of the border who want to come in to work, we can always change the laws to accomodate them. But we cannot be having people come in illegally. The borders must be secured. An unsecured border leaves us vulnerable to not only terrorists (as you've pointed out), but to all manner of garden-variety criminals. There's no valid reason for leaving it the way it is, either pre- or post-9/11.

Does firm regulations, reformed "catch and release" policy, and tighter security provide safety against terrorist entering our borders illegal?

This sounds like a redo of the unfinished Homeland Security and Immigration: Are we doing enough? thread. It’s Chertoff’s turn to take a crack at the illegal aliens clogging the legal system. I do think Bush’s asylum idea for illegal aliens already in the country exacerbated the problem, but before Congress writes a blank check we should ask if DHS expanding expedited removal for port of entries in August 2004 had the desired effect of reducing the number of illegal entries into the country. And, if expedited removal was successful, did it abridge the rights of asylum seekers and refugee claimants.



From today’s transcript:


I can’t support a streamlining “catch and return” process that circumvents the Immigration and Nationality Act granting asylum to legitimate applicants. Specifically where it states:



To answer the debate question, it would be highly unusual of us to ‘return’ terrorists caught trying to cross the border back to their countries. From Chertoff’s prepared statement to the Judiciary Committee, it appears border patrol agents are doing an excellent job returning illegal aliens with criminal records back to their countries. I would support an increased budget for more border patrol agents, holding facilities, and logistical support. “Catch and return” is a fiscal adaptation to increased demands on illegal immigration personnel couched in national security.

1. Does firm regulations, reformed "catch and release" policy, and tighter security provide safety against terrorist entering our borders illegal?
I don't see Chertoff's comments being very "new" in our immigration crisis. He's correct, in that we return most illegal immigrants of Mexican origin, but those of non-Mexican origin are tougher logistically to deport.

2. Should this policy have been implemented long before September 11th?
Immigation policy has always been a patchwork of politics, labor, and resources (or lack thereof). This question is a bit of a begging of the obvious, of course we should have had tougher deportation policies prior to 9-11.

As for Lesly's question regarding asylum and refugee claimants, it seems like Chertoff is narrowing the context of expedited removal to non-asylum claimants. However, given our current administration's track record on due process for non-citizens (and some citizens) in the War on Terror, perhaps that question should be specifically posed to the DHS director.

3. Does this place undo hardship on the southern border and the workers that live south of the border?
Of course it does. It drains resources that should be used for people who actually have a legal right to be here. The health care and education system in particular are hardest hit by this. The problem is, the political climate in Washington makes implementing a reasonable solution on immigration policy near impossible. It requires hard choices and ample resources. We we get instead is pomp and circumstance from DHS officials until something else shows up on the radar screen.

Doc

Does firm regulations, reformed "catch and release" policy, and tighter security provide safety against terrorist entering our borders illegal?
It's really an ill-targeted half measure.

I wouldn't applaud FEMA for trying to dry New Orleans with a sponge and this is about as effective.

Firstly I see absolutely no point in deporting Mexican illegals when the border is as porous as it is.

It only hurts those who genuinely want a better life for themselves while allowing terrorists to hop the next run in.

A actual solution would be the seal the border to illegal immigration and then document all illegals currently present in the states without fear of deportation.

Those who cooperate and are not deemed a security risk should be allowed to stay.

That fixes the real problem of security without needles waste of money deporting random illegal immigrants.

I agree. Although the rhetoric sounds good, Chertoff's problem is that deporting illegals means nothing when the border is wide open. They'll just come right back. The appropriate order would be to first seal the border, then to deport the illegals. And I agree that those illegals who have been established in this country as hard workers, should be allowed to stay (or more correctly, they should be allowed to apply for citizenship). The others should be deported. BUT the border needs to be fixed FIRST.

I don't think so.

1. Does firm regulations, reformed "catch and release" policy, and tighter security provide safety against terrorist entering our borders illegal?

This is a hot topic for me. I find our border policy to be a joke, and I don't see tightening it as the proper solution. I think doing so will only cause more displeasure with the U.S. Furthermore, it will do nothing to stop terrorists from entering our borders. It's impossible to have free trade (CAFTA and NAFTA) and still have secure borders. Terrorists, those well-funded and well-planned, aren't going to chance being caught at the border. It's a fear tactic brought on by those who want you to believe a terrorist attack is imminent. Have we ever had a terrorist attack committed by illegal aliens? I can't recall--9/11 was done by legally-admitted Al-Qaeda members. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. And yes, I'm well aware that these terrorists' visas had expired. But once inside our borders, it's difficult to track them.

Given our wonderful government's response to Katrina, it certainly doesn't make me feel that the borders can be well-regulated. To me, it will be a giant failure, like how the war on terror will ultimately be. You can't win by spending billions on protection. We need to address why terrorists want to hurt us and fix that.

2. Should this policy have been implemented long before September 11th?

I'm not entirely sure it would have made much of a difference.

3. Does this place undo hardship on the southern border and the workers that live south of the border?

It takes a lot of time, money, and governmental approval for an immigrant to emigrate. The poorest, who are more likely to desire coming to America, can't afford to follow the rules. Like most everything in our country, our border policy is most detrimental towards those who need the most help.

If other countries are "displeased" at our doing what virtually all other countries do (including Mexico, which deploys its army on its southern border and is far less indulgent towards illegal entrants than we are), then I daresay that they have a little growing up to do.


Except, people have been caught at the border with connections to Middle Eastern terror outfits. Terrorists are going to try to get into this country any way they can.

And last I checked, trade is generally not conducted along those sections of the border that are not authorized points of entry, so securing those sections shouldn't have an effect on trade.


If there's one thing 9/11 should have taught even casual observers it's that we can't defend against terrorism on the basis of what terrorists have done in the past. Their whole avocation demands that they keep us guessing as to how they'll strike next. So what we need to do is look for all the ways they can realistically attack, including low-tech ways like simply walking across an unguarded section of the border. Certainly securing the border isn't all we should do. The INS (or whatever it's calling itself these days) and many other agencies are in serious need of a shakeup. This is one area that the 9/11 Commission badly failed to address.


Please think about what you're saying. Building a fence and guarding a border is nothing like dealing with a hurricane. And the Border Patrol actually does quite a good job given the abysmally few resources they have to work with. The politicians like to make it appear that getting the border secured is too intractable a problem, but the reality is, they've never made anything more than a laughable effort at doing it. The expense of building a good fence and beefing up the Border Patrol would be minimal compared to the size of the federal budget. There's no excuse not to do it.


We can't win by spending money on protection alone. But common sense still dictates that it be part of an overall strategy. Whatever method we ultimately end up employing for striking at the heart of the problem, what can not be denied is that it will take time for it to succeed. In the meantime, we're vulnerable. And it makes no sense to leave your backdoor unlocked just because your assailants came in through the front door the last time.

This is the basic sentiment for my own position. I am a big advocate of free and fair trade and I don't feel human capital is less of a needed resource than any other or one that needs to be more restricted or guarded against.

I advocate more open borders and I believe such a system would be easier to maintain and regulate. And I feel that 9-11 only further highlighted this need not hindered it.

I believe the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Most people cross our borders to participate in our economy and trade their skills and their labour.

I agree. Our policy of closed borders and free trade is basically saying, "No, don't come here, we'll send you our jobs. Just stay where you are." I prefer the complete opposite--free trade should be stopped and our borders should be opened. Free trade does nothing except cause a reduction in quality jobs in America. Sure, we have low unemployment rates, but simply because good, high-paying jobs have been outsourced and replaced with low dead-end jobs. I know this personally since I am stuck. For all the hubbub about our booming economy, ask any joe shmoe if they could quit their job and search for a new one. The only thing keeping me in my go-nowhere job is the fear of not having any job at all.

Might I remind everyone that our country was founded on the idea of open borders. It isn't like we had to pass through restrictions placed by the American Indians. Of course, we did then proceed to kill them and take their land. So maybe we simply fear history repeating itself?

As for Blackstone's comments, other countries do have similar border policies. But since when do we try to be like every other country? I seem to recall that we went to war recently without so much as a care that most other countries disagreed with our actions. And how exactly does a fence keep terrorists out? It's a fence. I've climbed so many fences in my life, I find it hard to believe that this will stop a terrorist. The logistics of securing our borders is phenomal and will ultimately distract us from how the terrorists will more likely attack.

Is it really worth the psychological harm this will cause on our society? More people die every year from car accidents, disease, non-terrorist-related murders, and the like than any terrorist attack in the history of our country. Compare the devastation brought on by the Southeast Asia tsunami to 9/11. I don't want to minimize how horrible 9/11 was, but there are so many things that we need to worry about. We had notification that 9/11 was going to occur and did nothing to stop it. Why should we expect anything different in the future? It's exhausting to the psyche of our nation to live in a state of perpetual fear. I, for one, am not going to live like that.

You've changed the focus of the discussion. Just to bring it back on track, you said that securing our borders would make other countries unhappy with us. My point is that they'd have little basis for being unhappy with us for doing what they do themselves. It has nothing to do with whether or not we should imitate them for the sake of imitating them.


You've climbed fences that are double-layered, with barbed wire at the top and coiled razorwire in between the layers and guards patrolling the other side of the fence? The fact is, when the Israelis started building a fence along the border with the West Bank, terrorist attacks on the Israeli mainland began to drop drastically. Fencing combined with guarding does do an effective job.

If you're looking for a strategy that's 100% guaranteed to prevent a terrorist attack from ever occurring, you're not going to find one. The idea is to reduce the likelihood as much as possible, and a good fence is one very important component of such a strategy.


Neither do I intend to live in fear of them. But I do intend to promote commonsensical policies that minimize the possibility. If you don't intend to live in fear, then this fence shouldn't bother you one way or the other. I doubt there are many other Americans who would feel psychologically harmed by this. It's certainly one of the least obtrusive security measures we could take. It makes no imposition on the lives of citizens, unlike other measures such as intensified air passenger screenings, ID cards, baggage checks on subways, new procedures for opening and maintaining bank accounts, etc.

IMO the only way to stop terrorists from entering the US from our southern border is to completely block the border (preferably with the military) so that NO illegal alien can cross.

This should have been done before 9/11. To allow 10s of thousands of illegal aliens to cross freely into this country is ridiculous.

Doing this will place a “hardship” on those who have been taking advantage of the illegal labor – and it’s about time. The jobs should go to LEGAL aliens and American citizens not criminals. The sooner this stupidity stops the better.