• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Holding Border Security Hostage in the Name of Amnesty

    One might expect that if the President of the United States had the ability to secure the southern border and stop the flow of illegal immigrants, he would do everything in his power to make it happen. A recent YouTube video of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) reveals otherwise. In the video, Kyl describes a one-on-one encounter he had with President Barack Obama about the Administration’s plans for the southern border. According to Kyl, President Obama said, “If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

    If this is true, it seems that the White House strategy is to hold the security of the border hostage until it gets what it wants — amnesty for the 11 million illegal immigrants inside the United States.

    The Obama Administration is choosing not to secure the border at the entirely wrong time.  Not only has drug cartel violence become increasingly worse — where cartels have launched an all out war on Mexican law enforcement — but there have been spill over effects inside the United States, including the recent death of an Arizona rancher.  Smuggling of drugs, cash and people is on the rise — and illegal immigration (while down in numbers) continues to be a problem.

    Lately, it seems like the Obama Administration cannot gets its message straight when it comes to the security of the border.  You have Secretary Janet Napolitano testifying before a Senate panel that the border is “as secure now as it ever has been” — and that security is a reason to move forward with amnesty.  This seems contradictory to the announcement by the White House that President Obama would be deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border.  Sending precious military resources down to the region isn’t indicative of a border that is extremely secure.  If the border woes were in fact suitable for military attention, sending 1,200 troops to the border is too small of a number to make a real difference — making the move more symbolic (or likely political) than anything — and an effort to gain traction for amnesty. It seems that the Obama Administration will do anything to convince the American public that the border is secure (or not secure enough) for amnesty. Couple this with efforts to demonize the Arizona law and use opposition to make the case (yet again) for amnesty, and the White House seems all-out desperate.

    The real story on the U.S./Mexican border is that it isn’t yet secure despite a number of large scale investments. These investments were, however, a good first start.  The deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles and detection equipment, among other technologies, as well as efforts to better engage state and local law enforcement at the border would help plug the gaps that drug cartels, smugglers and illegal border-crossers exploit.  While there is not a silver bullet solution to border security, there are a number of small changes that could make major gains in terms of easing border woes. Democrats in Congress, however, have released an amnesty-based immigration plan that would scrap a key technology, SBInet, which will deploy a system of cameras, radars and sensors to help secure the border in remote areas.  The Administration, for its part, has done little to fight for the SBInet program’s continued deployment.

    Using border security as a bargaining chip in the amnesty debate makes absolutely no sense. Even if the border were deemed secure today, the day after amnesty was granted, there would be a flood of people crossing the border — movement that would undoubtedly overwhelm the security measures in place.  Besides securing the border, a real solution for dealing with cartels and illegal immigration is to work with Mexico on security matters as well as economic and civil society reforms, maintain robust workplace and immigration enforcement inside the United States, while developing more efficient avenues for workers in the United States to grow the economy and create jobs.

    The White House has shown that it will do whatever it takes to shove amnesty through Congress, even if it takes the security of the border with it.


    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    23 Responses to Holding Border Security Hostage in the Name of Amnesty

    1. Skip, Phoenix Arizon says:

      Is it any surprise? Of course Obama is stalling on the border issues. He is looking to gain the Hispanic vote for the Democratic Party! So Mr. Obama should beware – many of us in Arizona will not forget the political game he is playing with our family's safety and security. 2012 will give us the opportunity to play political games with his future!

    2. Bridget, Dana Point says:

      Should be "get"

      "Lately, it seems like the Obama Administration cannot gets its message straight when it comes to the security of the border. "

    3. Jacob (Georgia) says:

      Actually this administration has increased the number of deportations by 5% over 2008. Deportations are at an all time high. They are talking about increasing fees and beauracracy for the legal channels of immigration. As the legal channels for immigration narrow the black market illegal market will increase. They are forcing more people to illegal channels while attempting to send more back. Check out Reason.Org they have several good immigration articles about how anti immigration(both legal and illegal) Obama is as well as good free market solutions to illegal immigration. I don't think they have a clear plan about anything. I don't think he is holding border control hostage. He obviously has no real plan. Weeks ago he said immigration would have to wait. Then the dems protested and moved it forward on their own. He has no plan. His plan is rehash of the Bush policy attempted already. We need a stream lined system of immigration. A system that allows easier access to and from our country while screening those entering and leaving. Lets not forget what the Statue of Liberty has inscribed on it

      "Give me your tired, your poor,

      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

      We need a system that allows for this to happen while keeping our predators at bay. A simple immigration system = greatly reduced illegal immigration. The honest man trying to survive will have an avenue. The people taking the illegal avenues will be easier to spot and stop. Keep out drugs and violence.

    4. Mary Lou Johnson, Sh says:

      Seems to me that the president's willful refusal to protect the border amounts to treasonous behavior.

    5. Willie12345 says:

      Obama is getting even with the RED states. This is Chicago style politics at it's worst. Too bad Texas has lost it's spine and won't use the same type of law as Arizona. How many neighborhoods in Arizona need to suffer because of Obama and his crew?

    6. Steve, Idaho says:

      No surprise there, like Skip stated, this is all about those 11 million potential democratic votes that will be brought in with amnesty. More to the point though. It is interesting that this is coming out now, during the Gulf crisis, and having General McChrystal talking about Obama behind his back.

    7. MikeG, Manassas, VA says:

      This has been an area of speculation for some time. Most of us long ago believed that Obama would do anything to grant amnesty to the (12?) 25 million illegals in this country, with the express purpose being to garner a huge, new voting block for the democrats. Obama's intent is to "spread the wealth," and if you believe that means only from an American who has to an American who hasn't, you are mistaken; he wants this country to become more like the third world, and less like the exceptional country it is. He has demonstrated his opinion on our country's wealth and leadership role in the world more than once, expressing embarrassment and regret to his third world friends and enemies of the U.S. about our superior status and attitude. Obama is a socialist, with marxist ideals. His rape of American liberties, and his attacks on our Constitution and Bill of Rights should be obvious to everyone by now; he needs to be shown the door in January, 2013.

    8. Laura Roberson, Alab says:

      Mr. Obama seems to like posturing and playing at president, unfortunately creating havoc with the lives of U.S. citizens in the process. In Nov, I hope that many of us will send a message to Congress that can't be ignored. He has lost what respect he had after his election overseas ( I voted McCain, by the way), cost over 4 million jobs at home, has a military that doesn't respect or believe him and now this…..how much more will taxpayers put up with before calling for his resignation/impeachment???? Our great-grandchildren will still be paying for the mistakes/laws he's trying to push through now.

    9. Pete Stanley says:

      I currently live in Mexico and I say let the same requirements be held to allow Mexicans to come live in the USA that they require of me.

      1. Proof of not criminal action

      2. Proof of no communicatal diseases

      3. Proof of income that exceeds the minimum wage.

      4. Not allowed to work with out a permit

      5. Must renew visa every year for $135

      6. can only bring a car with a special permit

      7. Must carry visa papers with them at all times

      8. Expect to be harrased by police who are allowed to profile you at will.

      so make it the same requirements and let them come live in the usa.

    10. randy sa,tx says:

      it very hypocritical that we call our country a "christian nation" but will not lend a helping hand for people that are trying to feed their family,friend and themselves.Christinanity only applies if your white and not brown.

    11. Paul, Virginia says:

      I've called several talk radio shows to explain how illegal immigration cld have been 90% curtailed. I'm not getting thru. In 1935 the Social Security Act was introduced. The act mandated that anyone working in the U.S. must have a valid social security card (number). This mandate has been completly ignored for the last 20 years. All a person has to do to complete an I-9 form is to "verbally" offer a S.S. number. The I-9 form is filed away by the employer and no one ever checks its validity. When the employer files its federal taxes, the S.S. Administration knows the number is false because they have no record of issuing the specific # to the name of the employee who is illegal. The S.S. Admin ignores this. So, someone who is obviously here illegally is allowed to work with a false S.S. #. If the S.S. Admin wld enforce the law, illegal immigrants cld not be hired. If there are no jobs, 90% of illegal immigration wld be stopped. There is no need for "comprehensive immigration reform", the law to protect the country from illegal immigration has been on the books since 1935. The government does not have the will or courage to enforce its own laws re immigration. What law will the government ignore next? I do have a plan to deal with the 12+ million illegals who are here now. I wld very much like to talk to someone at The Heritage Foundation re this. Pls let me know if that is possible.

    12. randy sa,tx says:

      where is my post?

    13. randy sa,tx says:

      where is my post

    14. randy sa,tx says:

      it very hypocritical that we call our country a "christian nation" but will not lend a helping hand for people that are trying to feed their family,friend and themselves.Christinanity only applies if your white and not brown.

    15. randy sa,tx says:

      why does it takes so long to moderate my comment?

    16. randy sa,tx says:

      it very hypocritical that we call our country a "christian nation" but will not lend a helping hand for people that are trying to feed their family,friend and themselves.Christinanity only applies if your white and not brown.

    17. randy sa,tx says:

      again am i invited to express my view?

    18. randy sa,tx says:

      it very hypocritical that we call our country a "christian nation" but will not lend a helping hand for people that are trying to feed their family,friend and themselves.Christinanity only applies to certian humans and not Aliens.

    19. randy sa,tx says:

      what is happening to my post?

    20. randy sa,tx says:

      it very hypocritical that we call our country a "christian nation" but will not lend a helping hand for people that are trying to feed their family,friend and themselves.Christinanity only applies if your white.

    21. randy sa,tx says:

      Why is the heritage foundation not letting me participate in this blog? Please let me know if the heritage foundation doesnt want me to visit there site anymore.this will be to 5th time that my blog is not posted.

    22. Pingback: HOPE We Can Seal The Border, CHANGE That To NOT! - Civitas Review Online

    23. Dan R., New Jersey says:

      To begin with, I am an attorney and supporter of The Heritage Foundation. While thinking about Arizona's attempts to control its (and our) border, and its apparent conflict with the federal government's stance, I was wondering if a Takings Clause violation under the Fifth Amendment might be a viable claim in border states’ laws and litigation defense. Specifically, I am referring to the depreciation in border properties’ values that illegal immigration and border violence cause.

      Properties on the border are depreciating greatly because they are, for all intents and purposes, being physically "invaded" on a regular basis. It seems that areas of Arizona are no longer safe, let alone achieving their full market potential, due to the border problems. While border states, such as Arizona, may try to protect their citizens and their property from such depreciation, the federal government is, in effect, directing them to abstain from doing so and suing them after the fact. In fact, by building a border wall in some regions (but not all), the government has basically funneled illegal immigrants to areas where the wall does not exist. So federal action has directly caused the aggravation of the problem. Thus, the federal government is forcing state citizens to accept the depreciation of their properties' value without just compensation, a violation of the Takings Clause. Private citizens (whether individually or as a class) may have a claim based on a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights (if it was a State violation, it would be applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment). Thus, Arizona tried to protect its citizens and their property. The federal government stepped in and said Arizona could not do so. Therefore, Arizona's citizens might have a claim directly against the government.

    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.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×