Immigration IV – National Security
Perhaps it would be nice if we could let foreigners exercise their natural liberty. But in an era of terrorism, America needs to keep its citizens safe from violent Islamist extremists. If we open up our borders, we risk another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse.
This is the deeply irrelevant national security argument. It fails almost any conceivable test as a justification for the immigration legislative status quo (or most feasible restrictive alternatives to it).
The 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the country legally, mostly on temporary visas. If immigration restrictions do not prevent terrorist attacks, then the need to prevent terrorist attacks cannot be a legitimate reason for restricting immigration.
The main immigration restrictions have nothing to do with national security. Instead, current law functions something like a lottery. A fraction of applicants to various categories of residency are admitted by an arbitrary bureaucratic review, or through an actual lottery. These quotas make life miserable for immigrants waiting to live or work in the United States, but they do nothing to prevent actual terrorists from entering the country on temporary or student visas.
In any event, American immigration is predominantly a Latin American phenomenon. Whatever prejudices Americans have about Mexicans, they are rarely suspected of wanting to wage Jihad or establish a new caliphate on American soil. Hysterical Islamophobia is not a reason to keep out Christian Latinos (or Indian Hindus, or Asian Buddhists).
The government would be morally justified in screening out specific people that it reasonably suspected of ties to terrorist organizations. I believe that even this is probably a fool’s errand. The government is not an all-seeing oracle. It is clumsy, inefficient, and operates without any proper incentives. This is one reason why, for example, it is unable to enforce our current immigration restrictions. Conservatives usually understand the impotence of government when it isn’t being used to oppress a disadvantaged minority group. How horrifically intrusive would a government need to be in order to track reliably the potential terrorist activities of the world’s more than 6 billion people? It would have a scope similar to the nightmare state from George Orwell’s 1984.
National security might be an argument for banning any foreigner from ever visiting or immigrating to America. It would be a fairly unhinged argument, but at least a logically coherent one. It might be an argument for screening immigrants for terrorist suspects in a timely fashion. But it isn’t a reason to subject low-skilled Mexicans to a 131 year wait list for an immigrant visa – effectively denying them legal entry to America.
At What Point Do We Take Iran Seriously?
Our own rj produced a fantastic piece a few days ago titled, “Obama’s National Security is NO LONGER FUNNY“.? And it reminded me of a piece I had written back in June, “At What Point Do We Take North Korea Seriously?”
rj clearly lays out the ground work for this same question asked in the direction of Iran.? We have clearly been lied to at this point.? And it should not take us finding our inner Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together.? Iran now has two enrichment centers, and they are test firing long and short range missiles at the same time that they tell us their uranium enrichment will be used for nuclear power.? First of all, why does one of the most energy rich nations on the planet need nuclear energy?? Second of all, why in the world are we buying into this.
Let me remind you of some quotes coming from Khamenei and Ahmadinejad:
January 2001: Iran?s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ?It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.?
October 26, 2005: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ?Israel must be wiped off the map?We shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.?
April 14, 2006: Ahmadinejad, ?Like it or not, the Zionist regime is headed for annihilation.?
June 2, 2008: Ahmadinejad, ?Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.?
June 4, 2008: Ahmadinejad, ?Get ready for a world minus the U.S.?
Have we already forgotten our recent history in Iraq?? Through 14 UN Resolutions we let Iraq slide for over 10 years before we did something about that regime.? This one, is far far more serious.? Ahmadinejad promises wiping out Israel, they are enriching Uranium, and they are test firing short and long range missiles.? Our strategy?? Do away with plans to provide nations in proximity a missile shield and promise “severe” verbal punishment.
It seems that those of us who are concerned are preaching to the choir at this point simply waiting for the smoking gun to actually turn out to be a mushroom cloud.? As rj points out, when the enemies of liberty and freedom and your nation are praising and congratulating your president, you no longer have a leader at the helm, you have a puppet who can only appease based on the strings the maestro pulls.
-nick
Step Up the Support or Start Running North
In the past few years, U.S. leaders ignored the growing grumble of drug related violence in Mexico because they were too focused on the stability of Middle Eastern states.? Foreign policy goals must be prioritized logically, in order of which states have the closest regional proximity and strongest economic ties.? The U.S. – Mexican border expands nearly 2,000 miles and the economic relationship between the two states is beyond vital; Mexico is the United States third largest trading partner.? Prioritization of Middle Eastern oil resources has left the United States vulnerable to serious problems festering over the border.? Mexican problems become American problems when cartels are operating out of our cities, spreading violence to small towns and large metropolis areas alike.? I outlined this clearly in an August?op-ed in The Washington Times, which appar
ently fell on deaf ears.? Now what do we do?
The working relationship is difficult to approach because the U.S. and Mexico have a long standing and productive alliance, one that has warranted their country to be considered part of NORTHCOM instead of SOUTHCOM in the eyes of the U.S. military.? This distinction gives Mexico a visual superiority over Latin American states because of the mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship which must be maintained at all costs.? Some have raised the notion of mobilizing the National Guard to the border, something that many of the border-state Governors support (not surprisingly, because it is a huge increase in their power).? While adding the National Guard to the border could help in the event of a very serious emergency, militarizing the Mexican border has serious diplomatic side effects that make it a very unattractive option.
Illegal immigration and narco-trafficking is a law enforcement issue and must be dealt with by CBP and ICE, both of which are doing an increasingly effective job at it over the past 7 years.? We can quell the problem by continually supporting both of those agencies while acknowledging the American end of the problem: demand for drugs and the supplying of weapons.? The shared responsibility that Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged has been missing in the past and is necessary for progress in the U.S.-Mexican relationship.? Addressing the problem on our end will be more effective in the long run than pretending to have the capability of securing such an expansive border completely and crushing the supply of drugs from Mexico.
We must support the Mexican government so that they can fight it on their end.? The challenge in combating the cartels with the legitimate Mexican government is that cartel members have infiltrated most levels of the very forces which exist to fight them.? Simply throwing money at the problem with the Merida Initiative will not fix it.? We must support trusted and dedicated leaders to rebuild Mexico and its leadership strategically, while showing their citizens and loyal sovereign leaders the respect they deserve.
-annie
