When you think about
Donald’s proposal to build a wall along the length of the entire continental
border between the U.S. and Mexico – all 1,989 miles (3,201 km) of it – you get
this gut feeling that to some extent, that wall has to be a deterrent to undocumented
crossers. Yet, the hard numbers, even the nature of those who continue to
cross, however, are showing that people crossing the border are not the problem
they used to be.
“As the Department of
Homeland Security continues to pour money into border security, evidence is
emerging that illegal immigration flows have fallen to their lowest level in at
least two decades. The nation’s population of illegal immigrants, which more
than tripled, to 12.2 million, between 1990 and 2007, has dropped by about 1 million,
according to demographers at the Pew Research Center.
“A key — but largely
overlooked — sign of these ebbing flows is the changing makeup of the
undocumented population. Until recent years, illegal immigrants tended to be
young men streaming across the Southern border in pursuit of work. But
demographic data show that the typical illegal immigrant now is much more
likely someone who is 35 or older and has lived in the United States for a
decade or more.” Washington Post, 6/27/15. Not exactly the criminal and rapists
the Donald fears.
Today, the biggest
problems are illegal U.S.-sourced guns flowing south and illegal cartel drugs
moving north. Maybe a wall would be a good thing for both sides, huh? Okay, we
know it won’t cost a mere $8 billion, more like three times that amount, but
isn’t that worth it? At least it will be job-creating infrastructure
construction, right?
Given the resources of
the mega-wealthy cartels, experts at sophisticated tunneling, able to fund
bribes on both sides of the border, knowledgeable on how to smuggle drugs and
guns through seeming legitimate border-crossing vehicles, ships and planes and
now mass-producing drug-carrying submarines that can dive increasingly deeper
under ocean waves, maybe they’d welcome an excuse to raise drug prices. With so
many options, cartels could still flow drugs into the U.S., but the wall might
slow down under-financed competitors, possibly creating a wonderful (to them
anyway) and hefty increase in prices and hence their profit margins.
You’d think we could ask
farmers, ranchers and others who own border property in the United States what
they think. And those folks are pretty clearly not made up of those
tree-hugging liberals! You know, I think someone just did. The New York Times
(July 23rd), for example. The cover page in the NY Times Magazine sections
reads: “Migrants and Smugglers Won’t Be Stopped by Trump’s Wall, Ranchers Say.
Ranchers near the Mexican border see smugglers and sometimes find bodies, but
they favor a different approach to illegal immigration to Donald Trump’s wall…
“If pixie dust sprinkled
into the dry earth could make all the eye-crossing obstacles disappear,
beginning with the multibillion-dollar cost, would a concrete divide
constructed to Donald J. Trump’s aesthetics (‘beautiful,’ with ‘a big beautiful
door’) and ever-changing specifications (25 feet high! 35 feet high!! 55 feet
high!!!) serve its intended purpose?
“The answer heard time
and again from [John Ladd, an Arizona rancher who owns 16,000 border acres] and
others along the border is a weary no. ‘The wall?’ says Larry Dietrich, a local
rancher. ‘I mean, it’s silly.’
“But what if this
beautiful wall — and ‘wall’ is the term used in the Republican Party platform —
had a foundation deep enough to discourage tunneling? What if the beautiful
concrete panels were designed to thwart climbing over or plowing through? And
what if it stretched for hundreds of miles, its beauty interrupted only by
rugged, virtually impassable terrain?... ‘It isn’t going to work,’ Mr. Ladd
says.
“Ed Ashurst, 65, an
outspoken rancher who manages land about 20 miles from the border, is more
assertive, but he needs to address something else first. ‘I’ll be straight up
with you,’ he says with a scowl. ‘If Hillary Clinton gets elected, I’m moving
to Australia.’
“Time will tell whether
the Arizona rancher is forced to blend into the Outback, but his assessment of
Mr. Trump’s plan is just as succinct. ‘To say you’re going to build a wall from
Brownsville to San Diego?’ he says. ‘That is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever
heard. And it’s not going to change anything.’” Those conservative landowners
do want greater border control. They fear for their own lives as well-armed
cartel caravans cross their lands with a “dare me” chip on their shoulders.
What do the locals who live with border threats day after day want and what are
we currently doing?
“The solution favored
among ranchers is infused with a fatalism that nothing will change — government
being government, and the cartels always one step ahead — so why bother. But
here it goes:
“Intensive,
round-the-clock patrols along the border are required for a fence or wall to
work; otherwise, those determined to cross will always find a way. But, they
argue, if you have boots on the ground, you will have no need for anything so
beautiful as the Great Wall of Trump.
“It is easy, from a
distance, to dismiss the ranchers along the border as right-wing Chicken
Littles whose complaints hint of racism. Too easy, in fact.
“Ranchers will say they
saw people with backpacks trekking across their property last week, last night,
early this morning. Some will say they have grudging agreements of access with
drug cartels, as long as trespassers stay far from their homes. Dogs bark,
motion lights flicker, things go missing…
“[The] overall number of
migrants has plummeted in the last 15 years or so. Here, in what the Border
Patrol categorizes as the Tucson sector — about 90,000 square miles, with 262
miles of border — there were 63,397 arrests in the 2015 fiscal year, compared
with 10 times that in the 2001 fiscal year.
“Paul Beeson, the
patrol’s chief agent for the Tucson sector, attributes the drop to an increase
in officers and tactical equipment, an improvement in the Mexican economy, and
the fencing erected along the border about a decade ago.
“But Mr. Ladd and other
ranchers say there has been an unsettling swap: fewer migrants, but many more
drug traffickers… Mr. Beeson acknowledges the change in demographics, and the
challenge in facing an adversary with comparable intelligence and surveillance
abilities. ‘They don’t have to move their product today,’ he says of the
cartels. ‘They can move it tomorrow. They can sit and watch, and they do that.
Watching us. Watching us watching them.’
“But he says the Border
Patrol continues to bolster its ‘tactical infrastructure’ — higher resolution
cameras, for example, and an increased use of drones. ‘It’s unacceptable to us
that folks along the border should be experiencing this type of activity,’ Mr.
Beeson says. ‘We’re doing all we can.’” NY Times. Tactical infrastructure, eh?
Not a ceeement wall? Hey if we make them pay it, and then they raise drug
prices as a result to make us pay for it, who wins? I mean addicts who pay
those higher prices will need to get the required extra cash… somewhere!
I’m
Peter Dekom, and even lots of Trump voters don’t expect a victorious Donald
actually to build that wasteful and clearly ineffective edifice, a tribute to
the gullibility of slogan-believing voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment