During his speech Monday night, President G.W. Bush acknowledged in a breathtaking understatement that, “We do not have full control of the border.” If this were the beginning of his first term, and he had expressed a determination to correct the failed policies of a predecessor, that statement might imply no dereliction of duty in his administration. As things stand, it represents an acknowledgement that under his administration the federal government has failed to fulfill one of its clearest and most vital responsibilities. Many Americans are wondering why.
The question raises serious doubts as to the credibility, not only of the present administration, but of the national political elite of both parties. The president and others suggest that we must urgently address the crisis of the millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally. But this crisis is the direct result of years of willful neglect by political leaders who have sought their own political advantage and profit for their financial backers, at the expense of America’s vital interest.
This they have done during a period of war against the insidious threat of terror, when the danger to our national security could hardly have been more explicit. We have the right to be more than a little doubtful about the credibility of politicians who tell us that we must urgently dash forward to resolve a problem greatly aggravated by their own willful incompetence.
Right now, their lack of credibility is the issue. Rushing National Guard troops to the border is just the kind of temporary palliative that would suit the purposes of politicians seeking to manipulate public perception. They think that a gullible public will buy this as a substitute for the serious institutional and legal changes that are necessary to secure the border. With security concerns momentarily placated, they move forward with their real goal, a guest-worker cum amnesty program that assures a supply of cheap labor for some corporate interests, while providing new opportunities for illegal entrants to mask their unlawful status. When public attention shifts elsewhere, the National Guard’s role (designed to be ineffective to begin with) is phased out, and the border is left more wide open than before.
We would be less inclined to believe in this scenario if President Bush hadn’t dismissed pursuit of effective border security measures under the rubric of “militarizing” the border. G.W. Bush is a wartime president. His administration hasn’t been even a little hesitant to use the imperatives of national security to justify steps that overshadow the legal rights and activities of American citizens. Yet when it comes to the activities of the network that sustains illegal immigration, he daintily seeks to avoid “militarization.” In wartime, the military is usually mobilized to defend the country. It’s more than odd that a wartime president – and a Republican at that – would use a phrase that attaches a faint odor of opprobrium to the business of defending our borders.
The truth is that the changed realities of the situation along our southern border demand a new institutional response. We need a National Border Guard, organized like the Coast Guard, as an element of our armed forces. They should be trained in both lethal and non-lethal methods, and appropriately equipped as a rapid-deployment force against the variety of threats, both possible (like terrorist infiltration) and common (like drug trafficking and illegal entry) along the border. The Border Guard should be supplemented by a Citizen Auxiliary, organized, trained and equipped to act as spotters (like the citizens of Great Britain who kept lookout along that nation’s coastline during World War II). They would work along a fenced perimeter, in coordination with electronic surveillance, to supply information to Border Guard outposts that would handle the deployment of appropriately prepared rapid-response teams.
By dismissing such comprehensive measures as “militarization,” the president implies we can deal with a dramatically altered situation by incrementally expanding old approaches that he acknowledges to be a failure. This suggestion has no credibility, and it only serves to aggravate the suspicion that the real agenda is not to secure the border, but to secure certain political and financial advantages for some people at the expense of the people as a whole. If we are concerned with the common good, we cannot and will not be satisfied until comprehensive measures are in place to establish lasting and effective control of the border.
Finally, it was unfair and disingenuous of the president to suggest that people like me – who favor this essential priority – envisage indiscriminate and mass deportation as the proper way to address the situation of the illegal immigrants who have already been in the United States for some years. We are not averse to opening a proper path to citizenship for any who truly wish to be Americans (a wish signified, among other things, by eagerly learning the common language that allows our diverse population to communicate). But if we take steps in this direction without first securing the border and establishing a regime of vigorous enforcement for our immigration laws, any move to open this path will rightly be regarded around the world as a signal that we lack the political will to maintain and defend our border and our national identity. To insist, as the president has, on a “balanced and simultaneous approach,” gives the appearance of moderation, but really continues the policies of extreme and willful neglect that have produced this crisis.
Given their track record, we have no reason to trust the administration or the political elites of either party when it comes to border security. Their first priority should be to restore our trust. If they refuse to respect that priority, it can only be because they no longer regard the American people as their proper constituents. But if, on an issue so vital to our national identity they do not represent us, whom do they represent? If they do not serve us, whom do they serve?
The border security crisis serves to reveal a deeper one, which has at its heart this question: If the elites produced by both the existing political parties are no longer willing to defend the nation’s borders, how can we trust them to defend its life?
If for the sake of special interests and political ambition, they abandon the invisible line that defines our national territory, what of the intangible principles that define our liberty and the sovereignty of our people? President Bush and the Senate elite may think they are dealing with a crisis about immigration, but in fact it is a crisis of confidence, and it’s all about them.
