As Border Challenges Persist, Let’s Not Confuse the Real Threats

Exaggerated claims of terrorists arriving clouds the real debate we need to have about immigration policy.

By
46

Words matter. Especially when it comes to defining national security threats. 

In October 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its inaugural Homeland Threat Assessment, a comprehensive document that identifies the major security threats facing the United States. 

The assessment listed “illegal immigration” as one of seven major threats facing the U.S., placing it alongside cyber attacks by foreign adversaries, foreign and domestic terrorists, and transnational criminal organizations. By listing illegal immigration as a major threat, DHS asserted that illegal immigration has the “potential to harm life, information operations, the environment, and/or property.”

But DHS failed to provide facts to back up this assertion and instead focused on why increased migration flows, like what we see currently at the U.S. southern border, happen. The agency did not make the case that migration actually leads to harm.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
46
By
Comments (46)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    We've always been a country of immigrants and if we don't start having a lot more children right now we're definitely going to need all the immigrants that are willing to come here. We can talk about Social Security reform until the cows go home but neither party is going to do anything even sensible means testing ever

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    So true! Great article! NO chance of congress doing this any time soon unfortunately

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    The Cartels are terrorist enough.

    I would not be opposed to treating them that way.

    Collapse
  4. Michael Hart

    The author wants us not to focus on narrow issues in the immigration question like threat of terrorists (or criminals?) coming through with the flood of young men. I would add to that the narrow focus on making humane housing of hundreds of thousands of homeless people entering our country illegally (making the Mariel Boat Lift look like a cruise ship visit). (The Reps think they can throw that back at the Dems. Take that!) These are not unimportant, but, they take focus away from a comprehensive solution. The author's warning would be more credible if her summary of the comprehensive were more clear and robust. Here is the Migration Policy Institute's summary of the intent of the tragically failed Reagan-era comprehensive immigration reform. "IRCA is generally known for three key components, which the bill’s sponsors fondly referred to as a “three-legged stool.” The three legs of the stool were: tougher border enforcement, penalties for employers who hired unauthorized immigrants, and legalization for unauthorized immigrants who had been in the U.S. for five years or more. Supporters of the bill saw all three components as being critically important to solving the problem of illegal immigration." We now have E-verify as the second leg thanks to Michael Chertoff hopping on it after the GW Bush comprehensive immigration reform failed.

    Jeh Johnson, now an advisor to MPI, once said of the amnesty charade, "We can't have catch and release." He wanted the the consent decree prohibiting detention of children beyond 30 days to be overruled by legislation allowing detention of whole families. The Trump monster separated families, but, the point is that they both wanted to discourage people from coming and not continue the asylum charade.

    I just subscribed to The Dispatch because I desperately like to see smart, effective conservatism reflecting the majority opinion of Americans of all ethnicity and creed. But, smart is not mere even-handedness. It requires moral clarity.

    Collapse
    1. Michael Hart

      Jeh Johnson was Obama's Michael Chertoff.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Belt

    As I keep saying, when it comes to immigration, and most of government in general: Something desperately needs to be done; nothing will be done.

    Collapse
  6. David R

    FWIW, my biggest concern with immigration policy is that
    1) it should be set by law, not executive fiat
    2) anyone that is definitely, 100% allowed to come here legally should not have any unnecessary hurdles to doing so

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rochejaquelein

    A long time ago I worked in the federal building in the state capital of a large Republican border state. A judge with chambers there would point out from time to time the large open air hiring space in a parking lot within a brisk walk of both the Federal building and the State Capitol. A variety of local construction and other employers would pull up in pickup trucks and pick their day laborers. The labor pool was, by almost all accounts, heavily if not entirely undocumented.

    The fact it went on openly generated a great deal of resentment among certain people, some of whom weren't knee jerk nativists and instead focused on how they felt the 1986 amnesty compromise had been rendered meaningless because of the failure to enforce. The obvious counterpoint, even then, was that economics made even the politicians who spouted loud restrictionist rhetoric drive past it it quietly. There was a building boom at the time and large swathes of the business community (including small businesses and independent contractors, not just the wicked big corporations Cotton and Tucker like to demonize for this) depended on it. The solution of the GOP at the time was complaining about things sporadically and occasionally pandering to nativists but not doing anything practical in areas they controlled.

    Many of the people who stood in that parking lot twenty years or so ago have established themselves in the United States, have kids and are taxpaying members of the community. They came here at a time when the message the United States was sending was very confused, and were treated with a wink and nod by authorities even in Red States. They built their lives in reliance on that. Contrary to public belief, it is extraordinarily difficult to acquire a green card or citizenship having come in as an illegal, and the normal path to a green card is far more painful than most imagine. I've been exposed to a couple of immigration matters over the years, and however you think immigration law works its harsher than you believe.

    As an instinctually pro-immigration person proud of multiple hyphens in my American status, I don't think I'm alone in both being willing to accept an broad overhaul of our system to get rid of ridiculous anomalies like the lottery (which started out as an 80s program specifically designed for Irish immigrants) and belatedly provide what the 1986 compromise was supposed to -- a robust way to monitor immigration status for employment and border security that will deter both illegal entry and visa overstays better than the ludicrous wall project. Modern tech and biometrics make things possible now that weren't in 1986.

    The flipside is that we also need to be fair and decent to those who came over in the last thirty years or so when American business had the welcome mat open. Mitt Romeny's "self-deportation" was ludicrous wish-casting, but at least it didn't have the callous disregard for long term non-criminal taxpayers who have lived here for years if not decades as the modern MAGA demagogues. I know and have known undocumented immigrants who are better Americans than many of those that demonize them, and mass deportation or taking away their ability to work in anything other than a clandestine labor black market outside of a proposed universal e-verify is a non starter for me.

    The deal that would defuse this situation has been pretty clear for a long time, and its always been shot down by the nativist wing of the GOP. Modernize a system fundamentally unchanged since the 80s and make it more flexible for justifiable *short term* needs of business and have a broadly merit based system for future legal immigration as several other developed countries do. No border scheme will ever be perfect, but modernized programs to track visa holders and a robust program that allows for employment verification would help more that the idiotic wall. In return, an amnesty and clear path to citizenship for those in the country who can demonstrate being here for a lengthy period. The question of amnesty and refugee requests is a little bit trickier, but we can probably clarify our rules in a way that is humane but clearer and deters purely economic claims once the larger framework is in place.

    Unfortunately, all of this would require politicians acting in good faith and an electorate who understands the system. The Republican party has been pandering to actual nativists and bigots and using scare rhetoric and simplistic distortions for years now. The turn towards being the party of Stephen Miller and the power of the Know-Nothing faction in Republican primaries makes it hard to see how we will get any reasonable solution. When I'm in a cynical mood, I suspect the Republican establishment no longer *wants* real immigration reform, as the current broken system allows them to keep a pool of bigots fanatically loyal while providing enough real issues to periodically mobilize other voters with scare stories (and never mind that the root of the problem lies in issues they refuse to fix).

    Collapse
    1. Michael Hart

      Can we stop calling Trump supporters racists, unless you have evidence? It plays into the racial hysteria which now infects our institutions which defines racism as the mere existence of any racially disparate social condition. You might call it institutional anti-racism. (Pretty good. I just thought of that.)

      Collapse
      1. Gabej1989

        I actually don’t see where he did. He said “the Republican party has been pandering to nativists and bigots”, which is absolutely true!

        Collapse
        1. Michael Hart

          Republicans are pandering to supporters of a man who debases discourse by arrogance and insult. Hence Mr French's concern about how conservative Christian's have been debased. Stuff like wanting immigration law enforced and saying that so-called racial sensitivity training is itself racist is not nativism or bigotry. It's true. I think this attitude among people who think Trump should be replaced by more articulate and gracious people should go away. It's just trading insults.

          Collapse
    2. Michael Hart

      All may want to read "Losing Control How a Left-Right Coalition Blocked Immigration Reform and Provoked the Backlash that elected Trump" I haven't but it's widely recommended from Center for Immigration Studies to academia.
      One review of it: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/07/15/regaining-control/?utm-access=newsletter&utm_source=TAI+Today&utm_campaign=1ab6a5673a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_26_05_56_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6322a81c35-1ab6a5673a-121021497&mc_cid=1ab6a5673a&mc_eid=f48a72967d

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rochejaquelein

        As Gabe was kind enough to point out, I didn't use the term "racist". This was intentional, as I agree the term "racist" has been devalued by overuse and because nativist xenophobia can differ from classic racism -- the ugliest end of the UKIP right in Britain loathes Polish EU migrants almost as much as Caribbean ones, and reserves its worst venom for muslims. That doesn't mean knee jerk xenophobia isn't wrong.

        Prior to 2016, I used to argue frequently with people who wanted to write off the GOP base as racists or bigots, and had lots of nuanced arguments about the distinctions between 19th and early 20th century immigration and now, and how, e.g., a reasonably open minded person might fear the rise of Spanish as a viable second language in the era of cable in a way Italian in the age of the telegraph never could be. I still think that people can harbor the type of policy reservations expressed by, say, Reihan Salam, without having an iota of bigotry. I don't think, however, that you can be an enthusiastic red hat wearing flag flying donating supporter of Donald Trump without being at least indifferent as to the expression of raw unfiltered 19th century mindless nativism - he started his campaign with it, Stephen Miller and company constantly proclaimed it and his campaigns deliberately stressed it. The rabid rally crowds and the MAGA contingent on social media and in interviews have also consistently and loudly demonstrated visceral contempt for immigrants and positively reveled in cruelty towards them -- we all saw this. Their arguments, insofar as they exist, are exactly the same arguments made in the 19th century in the failed attempt to keep out mass Catholic immigration and to shut the door on Jews fleeing communist and nazi tyranny.

        In short, I have plenty of evidence that I was wrong in the past and a large percentage, if not the majority, of the Republican base (or what's left after people like me left the party) is motivated by naked, unsophisticated and uninformed nativism. I don't think its an accident that the strongholds of the new MAGA infected GOP are in the areas of the South, Appalachia and the midwest that were nativist and isolationist in the past and fought long and hard to keep out the Irish, Italians and slavs and then to neuter them politically. These people changed much less than I thought, and I hear crystal clear echoes of the ugliness rural Protestant Pennsylvania extended to my grandmother every time I hear a Selena Zito diner interviewee drawing the old distinctions between "real Americans" and "them".

        I found your referring us to a book you admit you haven't read and a review that doesn't delve into the points you may have been trying to make somewhat odd. I'd point out that the Center for Immigration Studies is viewed by most objective observers as, at best, a single topic shop that exists to push a restrictionist or eliminationist line and provide data (to the extent available -- if its not they will just assert) to support the predetermined party line. They aren't a research institute looking at the issue objectively, don't really pretend to be and have funders who would be outraged if they did (the article you link hints at this). At worst, well, its Breitbart with a Masters degree. I'm most familiar with the work of Mark Krikorian from years of NR, and he always struck me as an immigration equivalent of the radical left lawyer William Kunstler -- a skilled practitioner and quick mind only capable of, or interested in, one side and happy to spin reality to fit his ideological framework. I'd check out Salam's book before you read CIS party line talking papers.

        Collapse
        1. Michael Hart

          I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I agree that "racism" has been made meaningless by overuse and in particular by defining it as any racially disparate condition rather than in terms of motive or opinion. 'Bigotry' better says that. The book Losing Control is published by CIS. The reviewer is a prof at Boston College with a lot of experience in immigration. He's been associated with CIS and Brookings.

          I'm sure that there are a lot of people who sound like bigots and who need leaders to help them to restate their opinions more humanely. I think we should appeal to the best possible version of people's ideas. Sounds dopey I know. Let me offer one example. Ann Coulter being interviewed by Margaret Hoover on the new Firing Line, which probably nobody watches because she's too polite. But in that environment she said something like, I've got nothing against immigrants, I just think they should admitted at a rate that allows them to assimilate. Of course in a world in which people now say that assimilation is racist and that saying the racial achievement gap is cultural is racist, that's not much, but, it's more civil than the unvarnished Ann Coulter.

          You're right in that there are a lot of people whose apparent bigotry needs channeling. I hope the Reps bottom out to the point we'll see more leaders than followers. Romney missed his opportunity for greatness because he couldn't tell people that the ACA was in fact a conservative solution to affordability (followed by Ryan's guttlessness on the subject) and that self-deportation by enforcing E-verify required a large amnesty. Now we're going to get amnesty from the unconditionally empathic crowd (cynically envisioning more Dem voters)

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Marty

      Oh, bravo. Thoughtful, comprehensive and well-written. My hat is off to you.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    And now, the Conservative perspective...

    ***

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

    That is the founding statement of our country and the words in that statement were carefully chosen by our founders. The country they were founding was to be different than any other country in human history: it would be founded in **timeless principles of the nature of Man** and not some king or plot of land.

    Our Founding principles state that **every person on Earth** deserves their Rights, and those Rights are endowed not by some state or some politicians, but rather by their very nature as human beings.

    As such, as a nation we recognize that *all people* have Rights, even those living in slave countries like China. That we do not have the military capabilities to free those people is incidental: if we did, we would.

    It also means that every person under our dominion is afforded Rights regardless of what some other (morally inferior) government might say about their status as persons.

    "America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'" -- Ronald Reagan, 11/7/88

    *This* is the proper basis of the immigration discussion in the USA.

    As to our specific policies, it is true that we are limited by practicality: we cannot free everybody on the planet **even though we are morally charged with doing so**. We try our best and weigh the Rights of the people within our borders. We have to face up to costs and other practical issues and look at the trade-offs.

    But as a nation, immigrants *are* America and always will be: they emphasize our country's most core founding principle and call out the only lasting attribute that makes America exceptional.

    Collapse
    1. Scroop Moth

      Bravo!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Marty

        Ditto!

        Collapse
  9. JohnM

    The boarder between Mexico and the US represents the greatest disparity of wealth in the world. Somehow this country needs to help the desperate northern triangle of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador out of their failed state condition. This means stopping the flow of drugs and guns, fighting corruption and bringing jobs to those countries. It's a heavy lift and will require the cooperation of all the OAS states. In the meantime, countries have boarders for a reason and we need to take care of ours.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Oxygen Sink

    Why, oh why, do we need to "expand legal pathways for citizenship"?
    And while the stories of living conditions for so many in Central and South America is heartbreaking, why does it follow that our response should be to allow these people into our country?
    I utterly despise Donald Trump. However, how is it that Republicans STILL don't understand that the issue which catapulted him to the front of the pack in 2016, and the issue which set him apart from every other candidate in the 2016 primaries, was his hawkish stance on immigration?
    For all that Trump repulsed me, he was dead right about his judicial picks, dead right about his reforms of the tax code,... and dead right about objecting to the flow of illegal immigration.
    We have every right to control who comes into our country, and we have every right to be utterly self-interested about that. I'm quite aware of the Ellis Island period of American history, but in 2021 there is no benefit - and lots of harm - in allowing waves of poor, uneducated immigrants from corrupt societies into our country.
    For many, many reasons, until Republicans grow a spine about immigration, the party will continue ceding political control in this country to the Left.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      You keep saying, "illegal immigration" when you just mean, "immigration".

      As for the benefits of immigrants, without immigrants, our population growth goes negative. With negative population growth, we will enter population implosions like that of some Asian and European countries and its terrible spiral downward, economically.

      But here's the real question: why do immigrants offend you so much? What did they do *to you*? Do you live in a border town? Do you see a lot of them every day and you want to see fewer?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Oxygen Sink

        Illegal immigration infuriates me because, well, it's SO widespread and SO brazen. However, yes, immigration as a whole - illegal & legal - needs to be re-examined.
        Negative population trends? Yes, its an issue, but we need to look at why so many young adults are postponing having children and, ultimately, having fewer kids. (Lots of things there that can & should be addressed, but not in this thread.)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Okay, great. For now on just say, "immigration" because lots of (rather shady) commenters use "illegal immigration" as a straw man. Virtually everybody, including people who would like to see more immigration, are against illegal immigration.

          But clearly the idea of people coming to our country from elsewhere infuriates you. The question is why.

          Collapse
    2. Scroop Moth

      We’d be prudent to expand legal pathways because our birth rate is about 1.7 and immigration is a huge component of our economic growth and prosperity. The quantity of immigration that has arrived has benefited our country.

      It’s also a moral gift. We all want to be good. Welcoming desperate strangers gives us that opportunity. And they’re not such strangers. Spanish is almost like English. They are Catholics and Pentecostals, and their ancestors wandered to and fro across these lands for 10,000 years.

      Trump and his supporters object to the flow of legal immigration. Complaints about irregularity are a cover for reducing lawful entry.





      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Oxygen Sink

        Hmmmm...
        Allowing millions of uneducated, unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants cannot possibly possibly contribute to economic growth & prosperity, especially in our current, high-tech economy. Immigrants such as these simply tax our social services, while typically producing negligible off-setting tax revenue - they are an expense, not a benefit.
        A moral gift? How about we worry about our existing citizens first? Until the day before yesterday many leftists (looking at you, Bernie Sanders), recognized that increased immigration is a sop to businesses and exerts downward pressure on wages, especially for workers scraping by at and near minimum wage.
        And, Trump using illegal immigration stances as a cover for reducing legal immigration? Would that he had been tougher on legal immigration! Our immigration laws are insane. I'm all for bringing in doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. What we all too often bring in legally are dishwashers, short order cooks, and gardeners - if these immigrants are employable at all. Why, why, why???

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Please tell me none of your ancestors were blue collar workers. The shame...

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Oxygen Sink

            Here's what gets me when pro-immigration folk invoke "our ancestors": until roughly the mid-1960s, immigrants who came to this country faced sink or swim situations. If they didn't work they didn't eat. With today's welfare state, however, the poor & uneducated are a much bigger drag on govt spending, and, thus, the economy.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        I'm afraid I have to agree with the notion that as a country we "... have every right to control who comes into our country, and we have every right to be utterly self-interested about that.". You cite the benefit of immigration and that is in our self-interest. While we can accommodate some asylum seekers and immigrants seeking a better life we cannot accept them all or pretend that we can. Desperation does not qualify one for citizenship. If it were so we could easily double the population of the country.

        We need to design a bi-partisan policy that reflects the goals of immigration policy in the interests of the United States.. not someone else's interest. At the moment it's a mess and I'd be reluctant to provide open-ended "moral gifts" - it just encourages a bigger mess.

        Collapse
Load More