Las Vegas Sun

May 6, 2015

Currently: 84° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


Why a border surge?

The U.S. immigration system is broken and in need of comprehensive reform. But the border surge amendment proposed by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and John Hoeven, R-N.D., and agreed to last week — 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 U.S. 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 nearly 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 also would 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.

It seems that the Senate has chosen its path. 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 over-stays 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. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 1 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Absolutely agree with the author. People immigrate here both legally and illegally for work and the hope of a better life for themselves and their families.

    Enforce legally working here with E-Verify, and place extreme fines upon those employers who attempt to circumvent the system. Repeated offenses will reap prison time at a work camp, not an executive country club.

    Penalties should also involve the illegal immigrant offender not having the opportunity to seek legal residency nor citizenship. Deportment and or prison time should be exacted upon those who refuse to comply with the USA law.

    Thank you. Blessings and Peace,