Skip this site's navigation and go to its main content


Receive Updates From Heritage

Receive Updates From Heritage

The Heritage Foundation
Leadership for America

Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About The Heritage Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.


Fighting the Battle of Border Security on Both Fronts

Posted July 7th, 2008 at 1:57pm in Protect America 1 Print This Post Print This Post

The US has pledged $400 million to Mexico to help in the fight against drug and weapons smuggling and put a stop to an issue that often plagues the US-Mexican border at its source. However, in a recent Houston Chronicle article, Texas Sheriffs are criticizing the Merida Initiative because it is spending money in Mexico rather than the US. Neither strategy is right on its own; rather the US government should be tackling the problem from both sides.

Heritage expert, Dr James Carafano is calling for just that—spending on both sides of the border. In both a Heritage Executive Memorandum and Backgrounder, he and Dr. David Mahlhausen cite the security needs on the American side of the border. The two stated that “Congress and the Administration should plan to allocate about $400 million per year over three years…” They further called for much of this money to be allocated to the states and localities to fund local law enforcement who are the ones who have the best intelligence and knowledge of the specific areas around the border. Local law enforcement’s community policing efforts have positive effects on border security by “deter[ring] the types of crime that are associated with illegal trafficking along the border.” The Merida Initiative is a good security step, however funding does not need to be focused solely on one side of the battle; rather we can attack it from both sides of the border.

Tags: , , ,

One Response to “Fighting the Battle of Border Security on Both Fronts”

  1. Darvin Dowdy, Houston, TX on at said:

    Mexico has had decades to solve its own problems. Yet they’ve refused to do so. There is absolutely zero reasons why Mexico should not have a strong economy and a prosperous middle class. That strong middle class providing a constant tax/revenue base for the government. Some of the richest people in the world live in Mexico. Some of the poorest/most destitute people in the world live in Mexico. The middle class (as compared to the U.S.) is almost non-existent.
    It is a chaotic mess in Mexico and much of it is spilling over to our side.
    That $400. million should go toward finishing off the Duncan Hunter Fence and the I-9 enforcement program.
    Speaking of the Houston Chronicle, almost on a weekly basis now (or more frequent) we’re treated to stories in the left leaning rag about our citizens being run down and killed by some drunken illegal. Or similar. This past week it was one of our valiant HPD Officers mowed down and killed by an illegal alien. The powers-that-be fail to realize one thing. We grieve over the unnecessary deaths of our fellow citizens. Even though we never met them. And after that grief period, the grief turns into anger. And we don’t forget those who lost their lives and those who are responsible due to their lack of action. Darvin Dowdy

Leave a Comment

In order to leave a comment, you must supply information for all of the required fields below (which are indicated by bold text).

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.