SanFran Chronicle Says Border Fence Increases Illegals
The piece, though, is contradictory and filled with absurd reasoning in its desire to torpedo a larger border fence idea. On one hand the Chronicle claims that the current fence has not stopped immigration and is useless, yet on the other has caused immigrant's to bring their entire families because the fence keeps them inside.
How a fence can fail to keep anyone out, but is successful at keeping them IN makes no logical sense, Chronicle.
"Beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government began building a 14-mile fence on the California-Mexico border as part of what was called "Operation Vanguard." The fence did reduce crossings into California significantly -- but simply pushed would-be migrants eastward."
So the policy failed to keep them out. But, then the Chronicle goes on to say...
"Even more unexpectedly, the border fence increased the numbers of illegal immigrants in the United States. That's because in the past immigrants from Mexico and Central America could easily return to their home countries, either permanently or to visit family members. The new barriers on the border meant that once they arrived in the United States they were more likely to stay here permanently -- and bring their family members to live with them."
Huh? So immigrants know that the fence doesn't stop them from getting in, yet are afraid to leave BECAUSE of that same fence once here? Couldn't the real problem, Chronicle, be that our immigration laws go unenforced and that is why illegal immigrants stay and bring their whole families? They have a lack of fear that they will be caught and deported?
Additionally, in it's effort to castigate the Republicans, the Chronicle tries to cast the argument as if the GOP has NO other plan but to build a fence, imagining that the fence will solve all problems. But, in truth, the fence is but the beginning of the efforts to solve illegal immigration, a mere starting point.
The Chronicle also throws the canard about the Canadian border into the mix as if not building two fences is a failed effort to curb illegal immigration.
"It also doesn't confront the fact that the southern border is 2,100 miles long, which means that even if their fence proposal was fully implemented, two-thirds of the southern border would still be "unprotected," along with most of the 7,000 miles of the U.S.-Canadian border."
Um, Chronicle? We don't HAVE 12 million illegal Canadians crossing the border! Perhaps the Chronicle is unaware of that, though?
Another "point" the Chronicle attempts to score is that of what happens during the building of the fence?
"Fence proponents are also silent on what will happen during the years that it will take to build. The prospect of additional barriers is likely to encourage people thinking of migrating to do so before construction is complete, and could trigger a new surge of border crossings."
So, we should just do nothing at all because for a while we might see some immigrants pass through before the fence is finished? Won't they continue to come regardless of whether the fence is being built or not? Does the Chronicle think that if we announce we won't build the fence, immigrants will suddenly stay home?
What facile nonsense.
So, the Chronicle's points are as follows
-The fence keeps no one out
-The fence keeps too many in
-Once built, the southern fence won't stop all those illegal Canadians that are swamping us
-The GOP thinks the fence will solve every problem -- despite the talk of guest workers and other ideas
-The Fence will increase illegal immigration
-While the fence is being built we will get immigrants
Talk about ridiculous!