Immigration: Border Security

by hilzoy

I don't know a lot about immigration. However, in advance of the President's speech, I thought I'd set out what views I have. This post will deal with border security; a later one will deal with other issues.

Absent extraordinary circumstances (like humanitarian catastrophes), every country has the right to set its own immigration policy and enforce it. I think that whatever changes need to be made in our immigration policy should be made by law, rather than (e.g.) by deciding not to enforce laws we already have. Thus, I am all in favor of doing what's necessary in order to ensure that our borders are not porous.

That said, I think that the idea of sending the National Guard to do this job is ludicrous. What on earth makes anyone think that the National Guard would be particularly good at this? And why would anyone want to send the guard just now, when it's already overstretched from the war in Iraq? Many National Guard troops are in Iraq, and it hardly seems fair to send those who are here -- troops who in many cases have recently returned from war -- off to the border. Besides, many of the units that did not deploy to Iraq were stripped of their equipment so that those who were deployed would have what they needed, and units that have deployed have left much of their equipment in Iraq:

"State-based units are short on critical equipment because guardsmen about to return from overseas assignments such as in Iraq and Afghanistan are handing off their rifles, radios and vehicles to incoming units. State officials say shortages at home of Guard equipment, such as Humvees, mean they must rely on backup assistance from neighboring states once hurricane season begins June 1. (...)

The lack of equipment is not a new phenomenon, said Jack Harrison, spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, the administrative arm of the service. Even before the terrorist attacks of 2001, non-deployed Guard units had only about 70 percent of the equipment they needed, he said.

But fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken an even greater toll. Last year, Guard units not on active duty had only about 34 percent of their equipment. That number has since fallen to about 26 percent, although much of the shortages have been in equipment better-suited for combat, rather than hurricane response, Harrison said. (...)

A report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year shows major gaps in equipment that could be used to respond to a hurricane or other disasters. In May 2005, Guard units here had only about 8 percent of the tractor trailers they were allotted and none of the Humvees with added armor, according to the GAO report."

I think the idea of sending the guard is a ridiculous stunt. I'm with Josh Marshall on this one:

"But all I can make of this plan to help guard the border with soldiers is that it's one more example that there is simply no gambit too craven or silly for this president not to resort to it.

My reading and reporting attention hasn't been focused on the immigration debate. But am I wrong to think that the president simply couldn't square the circle between the corporate cheap-labor forces who fund his campaigns and the cultural conservatives who supply his voters? Growing out of that failure, this 'militarize the border' hokum is the policy announcement equalivent of crawling under his desk and screaming "Help!""

One more thing: I was watching CNN yesterday, and Bill Frist was asked why we should send the National Guard rather than increasing the number of border patrol agents. He said:

"We need to increase the number of border security agents. We've done that, and we're going to continue to do that. But right now, for the short term, for all that to take effect, we have to have support, and it's a federal responsibility, and the National Guard are the people to do it."

On the same show, Stephen Hadley described the use of the National Guard as "a bit of a stop-gap as the Border Patrol build up their capacity to deal with this challenge." I think we should do what we need to do to secure the border as soon as possible. But I don't see why we need to use the National Guard as a "stopgap". It's not as though there is a short-term crisis on the border, a crisis so urgent that it would be worth taking men and women who have just returned from Iraq, and whose equipment is antiquated if it exists at all, and send them off to do a job they are not trained to do. Moreover, if there is a crisis that's this urgent, I have to ask why the Bush administration is only now getting around to dealing with it. They have, after all, been in office for over five years now, and if the security of our borders is in fact at a crisis point, that surely reflects their own bad planning.

Comments

[spartikus]

Will the National Guard please report to the Prop Department on soundstage 6.....

[Fledermaus]

There is also the problem of Bush responding to every problem with the military. As an initial plan, I might add. Saddam? Military. Iran? Military. Bird Flu? Military quarantine. Border patrols? Military. Katrina? Military.

But at least his NG border plan will provide opportunities for a bunch of nice photo-ops. Time to drag that codpiece back out of the closet.

[kenB]

But it *is* a short-term crisis -- the Republicans are in grave danger of losing control of Congress in just a few short months!

[bleh]

The cheesy political Kabuki (is that too mixed a metaphor?) goes without saying. And kenB provides a good answer to those who worry about an indefinite commitment.

But unfortunately, I do have to take issue with the substance of the post. Because the NG have no authority to make arrests anyway, they'd only be backing up the BP. And they'd do that mostly by just sitting and watching. In other words, the necessary equipment consists of transportation, binoculars, a radio, some means of eating and drinking, and probably some kind of sun shade. They get stationed like fire rangers, at high points and in problem areas, and they call in the cavalry whenever they think it's necessary.

So, from the point of view of the logistics of the mission, it doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.

[spencer]

In December Bush signed legislation to expand the number of border patrol agents by 10,000. but in his Feb budget we learned he had only funded 210 or them.
Now, he is calling out the National Guard.

Soulds like a "flip-flop" to me.

[hilzoy]

bleh: Yeah, but some of the things they're short on are trucks.

[Gary Farber]

"What on earth makes anyone think that the National Guard would be particularly good at this?"

But the Department of Agriculture is tied up giving speeches!

[Gary Farber]

Oh, and semi-off-topic, but I think you'll appreciate the barefaced nature of this lie, Hilzoy:

As for the argument that the cuts mainly benefited affluent Americans, Rove said the tax changes have "shifted more of the burden onto the wealthy."

Impressive, innit?

[hilzoy]

Gary: they never cease to amaze.

[Steve]

The photo-op presidency rolls on. At least this time they're not pulling firefighters off Katrina cleanup duty to walk around with the President all day.

[bleh]

Well, the whole proposition is silly anyway. I think the equipment necessary to set up and occasionally relieve and re-supply a string of watch-posts would be minimal, presuming it was really a problem they wanted to deal with, and they were happy to leave NG troops in the middle of the desert for a week or two at a time. ("Brokeback Border" anyone?) The Forest Service does just fine with equipment that's a drop in the ocean compared to, e.g., the NG and Reserve fleets.

But as pretty much everyone recognizes, this is just short-term theater. They may CALL for 5,000 troops, but few enough of those will ever be deployed anywhere, and the media will lose interest in a tiny fraction of the time that would be necessary to get something like this set up and running.

About the only equipment they'll actually need will be the shiny new ATVs and 5/4-ton trucks they'll set up for another codpiece moment. (Not to mention, of course, all the equipment and fuel necessary to transport the imperial retinue to the latest photo-op.)

It would be nice if we could spend some of that money on, oh, schools, say, or ESL education.

[Pooh]

Well, yes, the burden falls more on the wealthy, but only to the extent that the wealthy have become even more wealthy. Neat.

[liberal japonicus]

but only to the extent that the wealthy have become even more wealthy.

This reminds me of when I taught at an English language summer camp for the children of rather wealthy Spanish families and I overheard one of kids talking to the other and the conversation went something like this

spoiled rich kid 1: This year, I had to pack myself!
spoiled rich kid 2: Really?
SPRK 1: Yeah, I had to tell the maid I wanted which clothes I wanted. Can you believe it?

Being wealthy can be a crushing burden.

[Haree]

Very interesting site and beautiful design !! Thank.

[Slartibartfast]

Hey, trackback spam. How original.

I think I've come down on the side of enforcing existing laws before, and enforcing them (in particular) by cracking down on employment. I think as long as it's easy for illegals to obtain employment, it's going to be a daunting task to stem the flood. Slow it down to a trickle and you can stop up the leaks at the border.