Why a border surge?


Los Angeles Times

The U.S. immigration system is broken and in need of comprehensive reform. But the border-surge amendment proposed last week by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and John Hoeven, R-N.D., and agreed to Monday — which would double the size of the Border Patrol and mandate an additional 700 miles of border fencing — is misguided and would be a great waste of taxpayer dollars.

Congress is right to be concerned about avoiding the mistakes of the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, which provided legal status to several million people but did virtually nothing to reduce illegal migration. But it also has to consider what has happened since then.

Over the past 10 years, the United States has spent billions to double the size of the Border Patrol to 21,000 agents. Fencing has been installed along virtually every single section of border where it makes sense to do so, primarily in urbanized areas along the Mexican border. These things have helped. The border is more secure today than it has ever been, and the goal of a 90 percent or greater apprehension rate, championed by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and others, is within reach.

The next task, therefore, shouldn’t be to further tighten the border, which has diminishing returns at this point. Instead, the goal should be to cut off the “job magnet” that draws almost all illegal immigrants to the United States.

Removing incentives to cross the border illegally will require ratcheting up sanctions (criminal and administrative) for U.S. employers hiring people not authorized to work here, sparing those employers who use E-Verify and hire only individuals cleared to work legally. This would, of course, require some additional resources to improve E-Verify and to enforce employer sanctions, but it would take nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars required to hire 20,000 more Border Patrol agents and build hundreds of miles of fencing.

Based on my experience, most employers will comply with the law if there is the potential for jail time for corporate executives coupled with heavy corporate fines for illegal hiring.

That has been the nation’s experience with antitrust and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, to use just two examples of how tougher penalties combined with effective enforcement have resulted in widespread compliance by U.S. companies. We should take the same approach to put an end to the practice of hiring undocumented workers.

Adopting this course of action will not only reduce the numbers of illegal migrants attempting to enter the United States, it will also lead to a higher apprehension rate of those still attempting to cross the border. This is simple mathematics: With fewer people pouring in, law enforcers will be able to concentrate more effort on each illegal entry that is attempted. The apprehension rate will thus go up without increases in resources, providing both the best and least expensive means for achieving a 90-percent apprehension rate and more tightly controlling the borders.

This is not to say that Congress should authorize no additional investments in border security. In particular, there is a need to upgrade and expand detection capabilities at the border. Not only can greater detection lead to a greater apprehension rate, it also can increase border agents’ ability to accurately measure illegal crossings (and thus credibly determine the apprehension rate). It would also permit the use of a CompStat-style management approach, which would evaluate statistical data to effectively and quickly deploy Border Patrol agents to areas seeing spikes in attempted crossings.

The Senate is clearly trying to make immigration reform more politically palatable by focusing on enforcement. That is an understandable goal. But the so-called border surge proposal would simply throw a phenomenal amount of money at border enforcement without achieving control of the border. There are cheaper and more effective ways of achieving that goal.

It seems that the Senate has chosen its path forward. But there’s still hope that members of the House will understand that cutting off the employment magnet would be by far the most cost-effective way to achieve border control, deter overstays and move the current illegal population to legal status more quickly. Now that would be a true “grand bargain.”

Robert C. Bonner headed the Drug Enforcement Administration from 1990 to 1993 and served as a commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2001 to 2005.

©2013 Los Angeles Times

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald



    Smartphones can help fight AIDS

    Coming in third may mean a bronze medal at the Olympics, but in Florida, data shows that three is not a cause for celebration. The Sunshine State ranks third in the nation for the cumulative number of AIDS cases, and it’s the third worst state for physician shortages.



    Border crisis overshadows trade progress

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry made headlines recently by ordering 1,000 National Guard troops to the border. This bravado comes at a price: $12 million a month. Perry plans to send the bill the federal government. That’s one way to finance your presidential campaign ads.

 <span class="cutline_leadin">ON THE EDGE:</span> An Israeli reserve tank stands near the Israeli-Gaza border as frantic efforts were underway on the diplomatic front to end the fighting at the start of the Eid al-Fitr holiday.


    This is a fight Israel did not seek

    The current conflict in Gaza was not of Israel’s choosing. Israelis, like all civilized humans, are shocked and saddened by the loss of innocent life and the destruction of war. While Israel had done everything possible to avoid large-scale armed confrontation, the immediate and lethal threat to the lives of its civilian population left the government with no choice but to defend its citizens.

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category