A NY Times Surprise: Tougher Border Security Actually Works

  • Bookmark and Share

The New York Times surprised on Wednesday with a front-page article by James McKinley Jr. suggesting that tougher border security in the form of new barriers and more guards was actually reducing illegal immigration along the Mexican border ("Tougher Tactics Deter Migrants At U.S. Border").

"All along the border, there are signs that the measures the Border Patrol and other federal agencies have taken over the last year, from erecting new barriers to posting 6,000 National Guardsmen as armed sentinels, are beginning to slow the flow of illegal immigrants.

"The only available barometer of the decline is how many migrants are caught. In the last four months, the number has dropped 27 percent compared with the same period last year, the biggest drop since a crackdown immediately after 9/11. In two sections around Yuma and near Del Rio, Tex., the numbers have fallen by nearly two-thirds, Homeland Security officials say."

There's more:

"Border Patrol commanders say they see no explanation for the drop-off across the entire 2,000-mile border other than stiffer enforcement deterring migrants. The slackening flow, they argue, belies the conventional wisdom that it is impossible to stem illegal migration. Many veteran officers in the force are now beginning to believe it can be controlled with enough resources.

"The new measures range from simply putting more officers out on patrol to erecting stadium lights, secondary fences and barriers of thick steel poles to stop smugglers from racing across the desert in all-wheel-drive trucks. The Border Patrol has deployed hundreds of new guards to watch rivers, monitor surveillance cameras and guard fences."

McKinley revealed the "bizarre" bureaucracy that made the previous lame attempt at border security so ineffectual:

"The federal government has also begun punishing migrants with prison time from the first time they enter illegally in some areas. For instance, along the 210 miles of border covered by the Del Rio office of the Border Patrol, everyone caught crossing illegally is charged in federal court and, if convicted, sentenced to at least two weeks in prison.

"That is an enormous break with past practice, when most Mexican migrants were simply taken back to the border and let go. People from Central American countries were given a court date and released on their own recognizance. Few ever showed up....A year ago, a flood of immigrants from Central America was also overwhelming the border patrol in Del Rio and Eagle Pass, two small Texas towns on the Rio Grande. The migrants were taking advantage of a lack of detention space, which had led to the policy of giving them a hearing date and letting them remain in the country.

"The result was bizarre: Central Americans would cross the river in droves in broad daylight, run up to Border Patrol agents and line up to be arrested, knowing they would be released and could then continue on their journey. More than 200 a day were arrested in Eagle Pass alone.

"Agents at the processing center, never intended as a jail, were so busy feeding and fingerprinting migrants they had little time for patrolling, said Randy Clark, the agent in charge of Eagle Pass Border Patrol office."

Maybe McKinley can pass along the good news to the Times editorial board, which just this Sunday ran a long, hand-wringing editorial, "They Are America," which claimed the stepped-up border security was both mean and ineffective.

"What little the last Congress did about immigration was focused on appeasing hard-line conservatives by appearing to seal the border. President Bush's new budget continues that approach, seeking 3,000 more Border Patrol officers and another $1 billion for a 700-mile fence, adding to the billions spent to militarize the border since the 1990s. That still isn't enough to build the fence and it hasn't controlled the illegal flow; you need more visas and better workplace enforcement to do that."

Or maybe not.

For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"beginning to slow the f

"beginning to slow the flow of illegal immigrants"  -  that and the fact that they are already ALL Here!

I read the whole story

The whole story seems encouraging. I know some here are going to gloat, "Tumbler was wrong."

But the drop in violations is in small border crossings, not at major border gates like San Diego and El Paso. It's still encouraging, even if it took the National Guard to make a difference. -----Here's something I've been pushing all along, while the others were heaping scorn on me;

This is at the bottom of the news release from Del Rio and Eagle Pass; where they've caught larger numbers of violaters. They're being incarcerated for a stretch;

"One of the migrants was a 51-year-old plumber from Acámbaro, Guanajuato, who asked that his name not be used because he was ashamed of the criminal conviction. He said he was trying to get to San Antonio, Texas, where a friend had promised to get him a job at a water park, making $400 a week, far more than the $150 he earns at home.

"I had no idea until they grabbed us and told us we were going to court," he recalled. "They are using barbaric techniques." But he acknowledged the stint in jail had convinced him not to try again, even if he is unable to pay his son's college tuition.

"No way," he said, shaking his head." ---- Tumbler's been right; no fence alone can drive them away. Jail time would. Now that only leaves about 10 to 12 millions already established here in the U.S. --How to round up & deport them en masse --? It can't be done.

The treatment of those captur

The treatment of those captured by DHS is hardly "Barbaric" by ANYONES standards.

Hollywood vs. the Heartland h

Commented under wrong post - I hate it when I do that...

I`m guessing Mr. McKinley wi

I`m guessing Mr. McKinley will no longer be working for the NY Rag tommorrow.

"Tumbler's been right;

"Tumbler's been right; no fence alone can drive them away."

I'd argue Tumbler was wrong, since no one has been saying fences alone would drive them away. Well, no one but those who are opposed to the fence in the first place.

"Now that only leaves about 10 to 12 millions already established here in the U.S. --How to round up & deport them en masse --? It can't be done."

A strawman argument. Who says it has to be done "en masse"? Again, no one but those who are against deporting them at all.

Reminder:

Don't forget to pay your taxes. 12 million illegal immigrants are counting on you.

yes, right

I've said the fence was no solution. That's not because I'm against deporting anyone. You say strawman? I say they'll be offered amnesty with certain conditions. Because you couldn't deport that many people over years; assuming the American public even demanded it. Around half the country is now well-disposed to granting some form of amnesty. There goes your deportation strawman. I wasn't for deporting all 12 million; why should I be? Because you see fit?

As for: "Don't forget to pay your taxes. 12 million illegal immigrants are counting on you." Who? Do you know of a single one who's "depending on us"--?

illegal aliens and amnesty and polls and consensus

I've never chimed in on this whole amnesty / illegal discussion. But I will now and just say one or two things about it and that's it (mostly because when anyone is so absolutely entrenched in their position I have found it is a waste of time attempting to have any discussion about the issue with them.

1) arrest people who break the law

2) sentence them accordingly

3) grant no amnesty

4) I don't give a rat's 4th point of contact (butt) about what any poll or "consensus" says

5) No one will convince me otherwise

6) I think that is it and that is all I will say

there's a smart fellow

Eric says it plain;

If he had his druthers; and all that.

Does he have the druthers? I think we can arrest lawbreakers. Fine; we really have to.

Sentence them? Yes; in some cases.

Grant no amnesty? Why? It may yet come to a vote. It might pass. It may be now be a fait accompli / You may not have the druthers; so too bad.

No one will try to convince him. (I certainly won't.)

So we end on a friendly and considerate note. No flying off the handles, no bluff and no malicious language. Eric is a better American than most.