Kris Kobach, anti-immigrant restrictionist lawyer and Kansas Secretary of State, claims to know something about immigration law, but in our Friday night CNN debate he was able to do little more than throw around phrases like “backdoor amnesty” and “illegal aliens”.  The subtext of these words is sinister–that America is under a Latino invasion which threatens our culture, language, and way of life.    Fixing America’s badly broken immigration system is not part of Kobach’s plan.  What he and his ilk want is to put an end to immigration, period.  And since they have no helpful plan for America, restrictionists like Kobach rely on ethnically charged words and phrases—like the ones used by Kobach on CNN.

Not surprisingly Kobach failed to articulate even a single immigration policy solution.  He started off by making the patently false claim that the proposed processing tweak announced by the Administration on Friday is “phase two” of an “amnesty”.  That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  In fact the proposed change will make it possible for the spouses and children of U.S. citizens to apply for a family unity waiver while in the U.S.   It’s a technical adjustment that will keep American families safe and together during administrative processing.

And contrary to what Kobach said, not one letter of the law was changed.  The immigrants it would affect get nothing to which they were not already entitled.  To obtain the family unity waiver, applicants must still meet the strict letter of the law which requires they prove that family separation will cause their American citizen husband or wife extreme hardship.  Currently, these immigrants must spend months, even years, abroad waiting for the bureaucracy to process their waivers.  The proposed change will permit the waiver request to be decided stateside.  It will alleviate bureaucratic delay and reduce processing backlogs at U.S. embassies abroad.  It’s good government pure and simple.

At some level Kobach must have understood he couldn’t seriously argue with a processing fix that promotes legal immigration, keeps American families together, and protects the integrity of our borders.  Realizing he had nothing of substance to add to the debate, Kobach concluded with the phrase “we can all agree”, words used by those who know they not only have lost the argument but are on the wrong side of the issue with the listening audience.  It’s a time tested debate trick designed to fool the viewers into thinking he and I were not that different.

Fortunately we are.

I advocate for an immigration policy that protects American families, keeps the U.S. globally competitive, and restores civil liberties.  Kobach wants to spread the same climate of fear he helped create in states like Arizona and Alabama which have enacted hate filled anti-immigrant laws he helped write.

I’d like to think that Newt Gingrich, the current GOP front runner, has come out squarely in favor of a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Not because I support his presidential candidacy, but because rejection of mass deportation as a solution to America’s broken immigration system raises the level of the national debate about immigration. At least he’s not ginning up the same old sound bites about securing the border and building fences.

But, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, Gingrich’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to fix the broken immigration system. In fact, his idea would lead to the mass deportation of millions of people and the demise of scores of American families.

The cornerstone of Gingrich’s plan is the so-called “citizen review panels” which would consider whether an undocumented immigrant’s personal circumstances merit a reprieve from deportation. Gingrich likens the idea to the draft review boards of the World War II era.

But listening carefully to Gingrich it becomes clear that under his plan very few undocumented immigrants would even qualify to go before the review panels. Only those that have been in the U.S. for more than 25 years would be considered, even if they have compelling equities such as U.S. citizen relatives, a record of paying taxes, good moral character, and a consistent work history.

A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that of the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., only 35% have been in the U.S. 15 years or more—even less have been in the country for more than 25 years. That’s more than 7.8 million people who, according to Gingrich, would be targeted for what he calls “dramatically easier” deportation. It’s not clear what Gingrich means by that ominous phrase, but I imagine it doesn’t include much due process and fairness.

Yet Gingrich’s proposal shines when compared to Mitt Romney’s. Romney suggests that undocumented immigrants, all 12 million of them, should turn themselves in, be given a transition period to get their affairs in order, and self-deport. It’s obvious that Romney hasn’t a clue when it comes to fixing the broken immigration system. Romney bases his proposal on the idea that the undocumented—many of whom have close family ties to America—can simply go home, get in line, and return legally. He obviously doesn’t understand—or worse, doesn’t care—that the broken immigration law includes a myriad of daunting legal obstacles which prevent undocumented immigrants from returning to America and their families for at least a decade or more. His proposal is as ridiculous as it is unworkable.

On the other hand, Romney and Gingrich both argue forcefully for an immigration policy that will attract the best and brightest to America—the innovators, entrepreneurs, and scientists. On this point—although neither would likely admit it—both GOP front runners agree with President Obama. Recalling a time when America opened its doors to highly skilled immigrants to shore up its competitive edge, President Obama has called for innovation, education, and rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. This  necessarily implies an immigration policy that keeps America open for business.

But what neither Gingrich nor Romney seems to get is that high skilled professionals and creative entrepreneurs won’t come to the U.S. if we do not fashion an immigration policy that restores and protects due process. Just ask the scores of business people and scientists who have been stymied by an overly restrictive immigration bureaucracy or targeted for special registration and prolonged security checks over the past decade. (Note: you may need to contact them via email or Skype because many have immigrated to other, more welcoming, countries).

The subtext of the current immigration debate is that undocumented immigrants won’t do what they should to gain lawful immigration status. This assumes that compliance with the immigration law is as easy as filling out a passport application at a local  post office. What none of the candidates seem to understand is that under the current law there is simply no way for most unauthorized immigrants to comply, as much as they might want to, whether they remain the U.S. or go back to their native countries.

Nevertheless, Gingrich’s proposal, as deeply flawed as it is, recognizes that wholesale removal of 12 million is not a solution.  And, if nothing else, that position is a welcome addition to a Republican immigration debate that has thus far been limited to little more than sound bites about border security, boots on the ground, and fences.

Remember Pete Wilson? JD Hayworth? Tom Tancredo?

That’s what I thought.

These guys are a few of the politicians whose anti-immigrant agenda played a big part in the demise of their political fortunes.  And the list continues to grow.  Just ask former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s SB1070, the “show me your papers” law, who was thrown out of office last month by his own constituents.

So it comes as no big surprise that some of the most conservative voters in the country—Iowa caucus-goers—are, according to a report in NPR, “open to policies that help foreign-born young people educated in the U.S. to enter the workforce, as well as those that help companies hire seasonal and permanent employees for vacant jobs Americans are not filling.”  They also strongly support increasing opportunities for highly-skilled legal immigrants and entrepreneurs to come to the United States.

When you look at these numbers you begin to understand why GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich declared his support for a more humane immigration policy—one which includes a pathway to lawful compliance for the millions of undocumented foreign nationals in the US.

Unlike Mitt Romney, his chief rival for the nomination who continues to pander to the restrictionist fringe, Gingrich’s remarks on immigration have been deftly aimed at the centerist—dare I say more reasonable—Republican voters.  Gingrich understands that America’s economic and social future depends on an immigration policy which attracts the best and brightest to America’s shores and which includes a common sense, humane approach to bringing the scores of undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the sunshine of American life.  In a GOP primary that has offered little more than inane blabber about “amnesty”, “fences”, and “boots on the ground”, Gingrich offers a refreshing perspective.   Though his proposal is still very flawed, he is challenging his party and Republican voters to consider solutions to the nation’s immigration problems rather than pat sound bites.

How then does this explain the Rick Perry’s fall in the polls? Didn’t his moderate approach to immigration, including his support for instate tuition for undocumented immigrants, severely damage his presidential campaign?

No, not so much.

The collapse of Perry’s candidacy has more to do with his debate gaffes and other missteps, not his stance on immigration. Simply put, Perry lost his front runner status because he was not ready for prime time, not because of any one particular issue.

The Iowa poll shows that Americans—liberal, moderate, and conservative—overwhelmingly support a common sense approach to immigration.  This is consistent scores of other studies conducted by pollsters over the years.  American voters long for a modernized immigration system that will create jobs for American workers, protect American families, and restore American due process and fairness.

Politicians who choose to ignore this do so at their own peril.

Written by: Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

What it “is” is becoming more clear. We pro-immigration advocates have a lot of work to do.

Our country has had an ongoing policy war over immigration since its inception. This history includes both positive and negative periods, each influenced by the day’s politics, economics, and the varying attitudes this “nation of immigrants” has harbored towards its more recent immigrants.

For some, the current debate is helplessly and hopelessly fixated at the border. Candidates for public office talk of “front door” and “back door” immigration policies without acknowledging they are both attached to the same “house.” Our country has failed to fundamentally address the immigration needs of our economy, yet many of our leaders have embraced the flawed logic that walling ourselves in from the world and adopting and vigorously enforcing draconian laws at the federal and state levels will end unauthorized immigration. These efforts have not only failed to spur federal legislative action, they have paralyzed those with the legitimate responsibility and ability from acting. For example, since 2007, Congress has twice failed to pass the DREAM Act by only a handful of votes.

Among those seeking our country’s highest office in 2012, there is little serious discussion about reasonable immigration policy solutions. The current administration has failed to affect significant, positive reforms, legislatively or administratively, has steadfastly advanced programs like Secure Communities and indiscriminately ramped up enforcement. Republican contenders have failed to effectively defend or advance positive solutions. In the words of former political strategist for George W. Bush and ABC News political consultant, Matthew Dowd, “You can’t have a thoughtful conversation about it in the Republican Party right now. You’re either [former U.S. Rep. and anti-immigration advocate] Tom Tancredo, or you’re for sanctuary cities.” The failure of Republican debate participants to speak out against a proposed policy of electrocuting human beings reflects that tragic, political reality.

We as AILA members are all participants in the current chapter of our country’s immigration history. The good news is that we have several shining examples of the kinds of work that can and should be done to change the storyline.

• AILA leader Laura Lichter recently served on a prominent, ICE Advisory Task force.
• DC-area member Paromita Shah, Associate Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, has been engaged at a high-level in opposing Secure Communities.
• A group of 13 members: Debbie Smith, Vikram Badrinath, Stephen Manning, Russell Abrutyn, Cynthia Aziz, Aaron Tarin, Kimberly Herrera, Rebecca Sharpless, Farrin Anello, Socheat Chea, Eli Echols, Mark Barr, and Andres Benach, have worked tirelessly on amicus briefs in opposition to state laws in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina.
• 135 AILA members in 31 states have volunteered to represent young adults through the AD2 program.  A group of 9 senior AILA members, organized by Mo Goldman, serve as mentors to the group.
• Iowa member Lori Chesser has served as a leader in the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, which has brought together a broad coalition in support of positive immigration policies.

The opportunities to make a difference are out there and the resources to help write the rest of the present chapter are at our fingertips. AILA offers a variety of great tools to advocate for better policies. Additionally, the Immigration Policy Center develops and maintains a wealth of information and critical analyses of the misinformation driving today’s bad policy decisions. Changing the tone and tenor of today’s debate requires reaching out to our communities, making meaningful connections, and helping educate those in the media and others about facts to counter the tide of fear.

We all have things we must do to pay the bills, but it simply makes me sick to read stories like those coming from Alabama, and it incenses me to hear the top leaders of a major political party recklessly use the bigoted words “illegals” and “anchor babies.” The time to act is now.

Please do.

Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

October 18, 2011: A day that will live in U.S. immigration infamy.  ICE proudly boasts the news that in Fiscal Year 2011 the U.S. deported a record number of individuals (396,906). On PBS Frontline: Lost in Detention, Maria Hinojosa exposes the deplorable immigration detention conditions and widespread abuse, along with how President Obama’s policies and Secure Communities have been an unmitigated failure.  Meanwhile on CNN, we watch the Republican presidential candidates play a game of “who will build the biggest border fence” and debate who did or did not hire undocumented immigrants (for the record, Perry won that argument).  But, all this doesn’t matter to Cesar Adan Hernandez Montoya.  Cesar doesn’t have time to focus on debates or television.  He has to worry about himself and his family.  He has been held for 60 days in detention without bond.  Time is ticking for Cesar and his future in the U.S. Cesar has a dream to go to college and be a role model and mentor to young kids in his community.  For now that dream is on hold.

Hope and Change!  Hope and Change!  Change.  Well, one out of two isn’t bad, right?  And it hasn’t really been change for the better.  The Department of Homeland Security has continued the record number of deportations in an effort to meet that magic number of 400,000 deportations per year.  Remember, if they don’t come close to their numbers they may lose the appropriations from Congress.  According to ICE, nearly 55 percent of those removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.  This means that nearly 45 percent of those removed were non-criminals like Cesar, who committed only civil immigration or other minor violations.  So why should we care about Cesar and other non-criminals facing removal?  They’re just a number right?  If President Obama shows that he’s tough on enforcement perhaps that will convince the Republicans to join him in passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Back to CNN to see what the Republican candidates think about our current get-tough policy:

“I say we build a border fence along the entire border!”

“I say we build a double border wall along the entire border!”

“Well, I say we build an electrified fence along the entire border and…I’m just joking!”  The crowd at the debate laughs along with Mr. Cain.  Apparently electrocuting Mexicans is humorous.

Hope is lost and what we are witnessing is change for the worse.

Hope is lost? But what about that memo that John Morton published on June 17, 2011?  The memo that called for a greater exercise of prosecutorial discretion, along with providing detailed criteria for ICE agents and attorneys to determine whether deportation cases are a low priority.  And how about that letter from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that called for the review of 300,000 pending cases?  Apparently the ICE office in Michigan may have overlooked or ignored that memo and policy change.  Apparently they aren’t the only ones.  When asked about review for low priority cases, most immigration attorneys are receiving a similar response, “we are awaiting guidance” on how to proceed.  Although Secretary Napolitano’s announcement was made public in August, it appears that no procedures or protocols have been provided to the ICE rank and file.

On PBS Frontline, Cecilia Munoz, an adviser to President Obama on immigration, blames our current crisis on a broken system of laws.  She states that the president is enforcing the law of the land.  She says that the solution to this problem is immigration reform.  Yes, that would be the solution Ms. Munoz if both political parties could work together.  However, the reality is that they are not working together and you have the power to shape policy and ensure that your enforcement priorities are being followed by the people on the ground.  You can stop deporting 180,000 non-criminal individuals.  You can make a difference in the lives of many and keep families together.  You can make that simple call that could save Cesar from being deported to a country he hardly knows.

October 19, 2011: A rally was held for Cesar in front of ICE Headquarters in Detroit.  Soon we will find out if Cesar is going to remain in the U.S. to fulfill his dreams or become another number included in the FY 2012 year-end removals.  Perhaps his impending removal will be halted and we will see the start of a new day and life for Cesar.  A day that won’t be as infamous as yesterday.  A day that will bring him hope and change.

Last January, Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona during a public meeting with constituents. In the wake of the shooting, the media began a national dialogue about how violent political rhetoric can spark actual violence.

After reading about GOP front-runner Herman Cain’s immigration “policy,” I think it’s time we have that discussion again. In a campaign speech last weekend in Tennessee, Cain proposed an electric fence running the length of the U.S. Mexico border with a voltage strong enough to kill anyone who attempts to cross. “It’s going to be 20 feet high,” he said. “It’s going to have barbed wire on the top. It’s going to be electrified. And there’s going to be a sign on the other side saying ‘It will kill you – Warning.’” Cain also proposed positioning military troops along the border “with real guns and real bullets.” According to press reports, the audience cheered loudly.

Cain’s remarks, and the audience’s cheers, are a pretty accurate illustration of how vitriolic and hate-filled our country’s immigration debate has become. Essentially, Cain is calling for the death penalty for illegal border crossing. Illegal crossing, for first time offenders, is only a misdemeanor under federal law.

Unfortunately, we’ve heard worse. Like Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck Jr.’s comments that “If shooting . . . immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a solution to our illegal immigration problem.” And Representative Mo Brooks’ (R. AL) comment that he would do “anything short of shooting” illegal immigrants to keep them out of the country. And Alabama State Senator Scott Beason’s comment that it’s time to “empty the clip” when dealing with illegal immigration.

In the days following the attack against Representative Giffords, Sarah Palin was criticized for using similar gun rhetoric like “don’t retreat…reload,” in her campaign materials. While the American public ultimately disagreed on whether violent rhetoric incited the attack against Giffords, there was at least some discussion of the idea that language has consequences.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that violent anti-immigrant rhetoric has life-threatening consequences for immigrants – both legal and illegal, since vigilantes don’t often ask to see papers. The FBI reported that hate crimes against Latinos and Latinas increased by forty percent between 2003 and 2007, the period when political candidates became especially vocal about anti-immigration platforms.

An article in yesterday’s Huffington Post points out some of the most egregious examples. It describes the attack against Alex and Jose Cauich, Mexican nationals who were assaulted outside a bar in San Francisco while their attackers yelled “run like you ran across the border.”

The article also points out that non-immigrants of Mexican descent are being targeted, too. Juan Varela, nine year-old Brisenia Flores and her father were all murdered by anti-immigrant extremists, and all three were American-born U.S. citizens.

The sentiment is spreading to schools, and last week, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez reported seeing an increase of anti-immigrant bullying in Alabama schools.

Border protection and immigration reform are hot-button issues, and I’m sure we’ll hear much more from the campaign trial. But there’s a difference between policies (and politicians) that treat immigrants as problems and policies that treat them as people. GOP candidate Rick Perry, made this point when he called for an “intellectually appropriate discussion about immigration reform.” Perry, who has been the governor of a border state for more than a decade, has proposed a technological approach, using border cameras and Predator drones to send information to local law enforcement.

We need solutions like those Perry has proposed, and we certainly need reform. But most of all, we need a civil dialogue. If the tone of debate continues to devolve into gun rhetoric, death threats, and calls for violence, these speeches may warrant the same warning sign as Cain’s electric fence.

By T. Douglas Stump, AILA First Vice President

To: Rick Perry (and any other Republican Candidate that wants to win in 2012)
Re: Proudly Support Immigration Reform Because It Will Put Americans Back To Work

As an immigration advocate and proud conservative who resides in Oklahoma City, a place that even Sarah Palin would agree is smack in the middle of  the “Real America,” I offer the following unsolicited memo to Gov. Rick Perry (the current front runner), and any other Republican candidate who wants to get elected in 2012.

Right or wrong there is an undeniable perception out there that conservative doctrine, particularly as espoused by the Republican Party, is anti-immigration. And, unfortunately, there is good reason for that.  Just listen to the Republican Candidates when they debate the issue. Either they display shocking cluelessness or articulate their immigration positions with an alarming pandering to the extreme right. If I were to summarize the two most recent Republican debates, in particular the CNN Tea Party Debate, it would be limited to blabber about fences and boots on the ground.  Unfortunately, there has been almost no thoughtful discussion about solutions to the broken immigration system.

In fact, to the contrary, the Republican candidates seem to view a record on immigration as a serious political liability. They are using the immigration issue to attack front runner Governor Rick Perry in an attempt to derail his candidacy by vilifying him for his previous support of a temporary worker program and granting in-state tuition to certain undocumented students. Perry’s critics lament his position that we should secure our borders before burdening all U.S. employers with a problem laden E-Verify system. This strategy of rebuking our own for supporting reasonable immigration reform is short-sighted, economically foolish, and potentially disastrous for the future of the G.O.P.  President George W. Bush captured 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the White House and in 2012 that number will undoubtedly need to be higher for Republican success.

The upcoming  election will be about putting Americans back to work.  And because of that, the conventional political wisdom will be that now is not the time to fix the immigration system, including  creating a pathway to lawful compliance for the 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

It might be easy to package that logic into a sound bite, but it’s not true. All credible studies show—from conservative, centrist, and more liberal think tanks alike—that immigration reform will boost our GDP by millions of dollars, increase America’s revenue, and, most importantly, put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work.

And this is hardly a revolutionary idea. No less a conservative than Ronald Reagan understood that America’s economic strength depends, in no small way, on an outward looking immigration policy that rewards the independent, hard working spirit that made this nation the greatest on earth. In his farewell to the nation, Reagan described his vision of America as the “shining city on the hill,” where “the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Reducing an issue as tough and complex as immigration reform to a sound bite about border security or boots on the ground carries grave political danger for the future of the G.O.P. The past several national elections have clearly demonstrated that Latino voters have become a force to be reckoned with. And while immigration reform is hardly the only issue important to Latino voters, a candidate who disparages undocumented workers does so at his or her peril.

In short, I strongly recommend the Republican presidential hopefuls follow Gov. Perry’s example and take a hard look at the immigration issue. Articulated correctly, and with vision, it is a ticket to political success because a functional, fair, and safe immigration policy will not only put Americans back to work, but it’s the right thing to do. As for Rick Perry, my advice to him is that he wear his immigration record as a badge of honor, not something to hide from.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) is in a position to do great things for America.   For the good of our country,  he can rise above the partisan rancor that paralyzes Washington,  roll up his sleeves, get to work, and fashion an immigration overhaul that will protect American workers, help keep U.S. businesses competitive in a global economy, reunite families, and restore due process.

Or not.

Unfortunately Smith has chosen the latter.  Rather than seize the moment and perhaps write his name into the history books as a statesman, Smith has introduced the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” a bill that offers a lot of red meat to the anti-immigrant restrictionists but is devoid of a single solution.  I’m not exactly sure what the bill’s title means, but it shortens nicely to HALT!—a command which conjures up the terrifying image of a trigger happy SS officer ordering a fleeing prisoner to…well…HALT!

Smith introduced HALT! as a reaction to the prosecutorial discretion memo issued by ICE Director John Morton last month.  HALT! seeks to prevent the Obama Administration—the bill is actually written to sunset  precisely at the end of the  President’s first term—from focusing immigration enforcement resources on those who would do the country harm: violent offenders and terrorists.  If enacted into law, HALT! would eliminate vital protections Congress legislated for victims of domestic violence; suspend the President’s power to designate Temporary Protected Status for countries like Haiti  and the Sudan  where  environmental  and  human disasters have wreaked havoc.  The bill would even prevent the government from granting a temporary visit to those injured in war, such as a child bomb victim in Iraq urgently in need of medical care like prosthetic limbs.

In fact, HALT! would actually make it more difficult to keep America safe because it forces ICE to go after every low-priority individual instead of pursuing those who threaten our communities and homeland security.  In sharp contrast, Morton’s prosecutorial discretion memo provides the field with an architecture for smart enforcement.

Thankfully HALT has no chance of becoming law.  Even Smith knows that.  But it’s disgraceful that he uses his position as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee to promote anti-immigrant talking points rather than sound immigration policy.

Written by:  Kathleen Campbell Walker

Sitting here in El Paso where I can actually view the border fence and one of our ports of entry from my office window,   I am disappointed to see the typical report about the placement of National Guard troops at the border during an election season.   We are not sure where the troops will be deployed yet, but both Congressman Reyes and Ciro Rodriguez are quoted in the El Paso Times today in support of the effort based on the dual nature of this request (training and enforcement support).     Both Representatives are expressing concerns about the parameters of the mission for the soldiers, and both have asked for more attention to border security related staffing issues for many years.  Apparently, the National Guard will again be directed to provide help in a support role with law enforcement agencies “that patrol” the border and the National Guard also  is to receive training as a part of this deployment to help them overseas later.   We have no idea if the National Guard will be helping an overtaxed and underfunded CBP at our ports in addition to the Border Patrol between our ports.  Governor Perry and Senator Cornyn are quoted in the same article indicating that such efforts are not enough.  Gov. Perry apparently wants to send 1,000 soldiers exclusively to the U.S. Mexico border.  What will be the mandate to such troops as to engagement?  In 1997, an 18 year old goat herder named Esequiel Hernandez was killed by Marines in Redford, Texas assisting in drug surveillance.   We need to be clear on the use of deadly force authority and clear on the actual risk levels at the border.  

Where is the agreed definition of what constitutes achievment of the goal of  “border security?”    How can just the placement of boots on ground be the solution?    We seem to keep taking actions without an overall plan.  Are we restarting Operation Jump Start from the Bush Administation that put 6,000 troops on the border?  What did Congress  and the Adminstration find was the result of such deployment?

What are the actual staffing levels of CBP officers and Border Patrol needed to accomplish “border security?”   What I see are seriously  insufficient staffing levels and benefits for overtaxed CBP officers.    A National Guard deployment does nothing to address this point, if the guard is posted only with the Border Patrol.  Certainly, Cong. Reyes, as a former border patrol officer, has been pushing for years on bills to improve this situation among other legislators, but the cure proposed is more than just enforcement. 

If the goal of all of this effort and expenditure is to do our best to reduce illegal immigration to the U.S., then why are we so drawn like moths to a flame of illusory one shot security cures.   In states strapped for cash and for that matter a federal government basically on the dole, don’t we need to be as careful as possible to get the most bang for our buck with security dollars.  There is a Washington Post article, which was published today entitled “Arizona immigration law will boost crime in U.S. cities, police chiefs say.”  As numerous reports from law enforcement organizations have stated in the past, laws requiring local law enforcement to determine immigration status result in people not reporting crime.   Are we using public dollars under this law to really achieve security?  (This type of law enforcement effort  is separate from checking jails for those incarcerated, who are not lawfully in the U.S.)  

So do we just tolerate illegal immigration?  The answer is no, but recognize that addressing the issue of illegal immigration takes extreme  political courage to do the right thing.   President Obama’s administration is continuing Operation Streamline to support border enforcement efforts with 1325 and 1326 actions under 8 USC even though the federal courts are not sufficiently staffed.  In addition, ICE is detaining more numbers than in the past and employers are being subject to more scrutiny from the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Division and by ICE with I-9 audits and inspection.  The cure to the illegal immigration conundrum have been debated for long enough.   Leadership must see beyond the election year and make our immigration system function in our favor, which includes making it easier to employ those who will help our nation’s economy and future and implement a realistic border security plan integrating intelligence and foreign relations efforts.

  I agree with the conclusion of the Council of Foreign Relations 2009 Immigration Task Force report:

The Task Force finds that these measures  (enforcement over past several years) represent determined, expansive efforts to control America’s borders and enforce U.S. immigration laws.  No amount of enforcement can eliminate the underlying problem, which is that aggressively enforcing a broken regime does not fix it. Unless the United States has a more sensible and efficient system for admitting legal migrants who come to take advantage of work opportunities, no reasonable level of enforcement is likely to be enough to resolve the illegal immigration problem. ….

Yesterday the U.S. Transportation and Security Administration issued new regulations that passengers from 14 countries would receive a “full body pat-down and physical inspection of property” before they can board a plane headed to the U.S. http://bit.ly/64r5cQ. The countries include Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, which are considered “state sponsors of terrorism” as well as those from “countries of interest”—including Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Do you feel safer today?

Maybe it’s time the U.S. took a lesson from the Israeli airport security playbook. Anyone who has ever traveled in and out of that country, whose airport, passengers, and planes have long been a prized target for terrorists, knows that serious security is not the result of knee jerk reactive measures, but of careful study and planning. Last week, the Toronto Star published an article about the effectiveness of Israeli airport security which has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. http://bit.ly/8npJs7.
According the Star, the Israeli system focuses on behavior, not race, age, or other physical attributes. “To us, it doesn’t matter if he’s black, white, young or old” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy who has worked with the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world. According to Sela the Israelis focus on behavior, not appearance. Airport security officers look for nervousness or other signs of “distress” in travelers, who are required to pass through several seemingly benign levels of security when arriving at the airport. First, security officers greet the travelers at a roadside check at the entrance to the airport. Once they’ve parked passengers enter the airport terminal after passing guards outside who are trained to observe odd behavior. Once in the terminal, passengers are greeted by a trained interviewer who takes the traveler’s passport and ticket, and asks a series of questions such as, “Who has packed your luggage? Has it left your side?” After check-in the passengers then pass through the “hard” levels of security; scanners and screeners. Then they are off to the secure area of the terminal to shop, grab a snack, or relax in the lounge before they board their flight. The entire process from parking to gate takes about 25 minutes.

The difference is that the Israelis focus on behavior, not appearance or objects. “First, it’s fast — there’s almost no line” says Sela. That’s because they’re not looking for liquids, they’re not looking at your shoes. They’re not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you. Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes … and that’s how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys.”

Compare this to the new TSA regulations which apparently will require the full-body pat down of an accomplished Pakistani physician who has worked and taught at a renown medical institution in the U.S. for many years, or a 95 year old Nigerian woman in a wheel chair (including physical inspection of the wheel chair), but not a 23 year old from, say, Australia, New Zealand, or even the U.S. Does this really make sense? If nothing else, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, a gulf war veteran, taught us that terrorists who would harm the U.S. are not limited to any particular nationality, ethnicity, or religion.

After 9/11 the U.S. has treated all visitors—including tourists, professional workers, and green card holders—as suspects, rather than guests. In the process we have dissuaded many talented foreign nationals from coming here. I fear the new TSA regulations, which appear to focus on objective criteria rather than suspicious behavior, will do little to increase security but instead discourage the best and brightest from coming to America to contribute to our social fabric.

The foiled Christmas Day attack was certainly a wake-up call. We need a more effective system to protect our citizens and airports. But those charged with our homeland security need to focus on building a system that really works, or, as the Star describes it, “a system that that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.”