If our goal is to have an immigration system that almost all rational intending immigrants choose to go through rather than around, then we need to do more than just focus on fencing and boots on the ground at our Southern border.  Today’s lead editorial in the New York Times makes this point superbly.

Immigration policy has mostly been directed by opponents of legal immigration for the last two decades.  They have helped bottle up legal immigration channels so that they can then shout bloody murder at the resulting illegalities in the labor market.  They direct all the focus on the fence –”The Great Wall of Chihuahua,” which the Supreme Court says can be built with no consideration for any laws, foreign or domestic — and on the Border Patrol force than cannot recruit, train, and deploy agents at nearly the rate the do-little Congress has authorized.  Add substandard detention conditions, massive and record-setting round-ups, and truncated or non-existent due process for those swept up, and you have our current approach to controlling and regulating immigration.

But how effective is it?

The National Guard is leaving the border at the end of the month. And even though the border states want them to stay, the Bush administration is declaring victory. That’s how good things are down there.

 

Too bad, though, that the results that restrictionists predict from victory — an end to illegal immigration, the expulsion of illegal immigrants, the restoration of jobs to American workers, the protection of American culture and language from a Hispanic invasion — are not coming anytime soon. That’s because fixing immigration has very little to do with any of the hustle and bustle along the 2,000-mile line from San Diego to Brownsville, Tex.

According to research by the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego (summarized here) more than 90% of intending immigrants from Mexico get through the gauntlet at the border somehow.

Maybe establishing law and order in our immigration system is more complicated than just focusing on the border, enforcement, and deportation alone.

This is not to argue for giving up on enforcement. The real victory will come when a repaired, well-patrolled border coincides with a repaired, well-run immigration system that requires undocumented workers to come forward and be legalized, has expanded avenues for legal workers, including would-be citizens, and cracks down on illegal hiring as staunchly as it protects workers’ rights.

 

There is a long list of things to do to make the immigration system correspond to American values and economic realities, and the country is doing just about none of them. We’re paying a huge price to pay for an ineffective fence and some symbolic victories on the border. — “False Victory at the Border,” New York Times editorial, July 5, 2008

Well said, Grey Lady.

We are witnessing an unprecedented period best described as enforcement on steroids without reform.  The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, which follows government law enforcement data closely, indicates that by several measures we are in a new era of unleashing the Department of Homeland Security and the courts in the war on immigrants. 

TRAC reports that immigration-related convictions were up 96.3% in February 2008 compared to the same month in 2007 (see “Immigration Convictions for February 2008”) and that the U.S. set a new record for immigration-related prosecutions in March 2008 (see “Surge in Immigration Prosecutions Continues”).

[A]ccording to timely data from the Justice Department. The total of 9,350 such prosecutions was up by almost 50% from the previous month and 73% from the previous year.

The dramatic changes in the number of defendants charged with immigration-related charges are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United states Attorneys…

The spurt in the prosecutions of individuals charged with various immigration crimes is the result of “Operation Streamline.” Under this recently intensified administration policy, according to news reports and interviews with federal public defenders, the government has charged a rapidly growing number of undocumented aliens with various federal criminal charges in selected districts along the Mexican border. “Operation Streamline” began as a pilot project in December 2005 in Del Rio, Texas. – “Surge in Immigration Prosecutions Continues,” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

The editorial writers at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday addressed this new enforcement era with an editorial headlined “Abhorring a vacuum: The absence of comprehensive immigration reform from Congress is resulting in a crackdown — a repudiation of who we are as a nation.”

A recent New York Times article described how authorities throughout the country are using existing laws to round up illegal immigrants, with deportation as the end game. This is a nuclear, enforcement-only approach that disintegrates families and local economies.

Workplace raids occurred last month in Postville, Iowa, at Agriprocessors Inc., the nation’s largest kosher slaughterhouse. They resulted in 260 illegal immigrants sentenced to five months in prison on charges related to federal identity theft laws.

In Florida’s Santa Rosa County, the sheriff had businesses searched for illegal immigrants, making arrests on charges of violating state identity theft laws.

One consequence of this is precisely what immigration foes want: more apprehensions, more deportations and a pall of fear cast over the immigrant community and those who would join them. Other consequences, however, include a repudiation of who we are as a nation of immigrants and swimming against a global tide that makes labor as fluid as goods. – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, “Abhorring a vacuum,” June 16, 2008

Lots of dead immigrants in the news this week.  From Arizona, we are reminded by the Arizona Republic’s editorial board that the season of migrants dying in the desert is fully upon us.  Since the beginning of the fiscal year six-months ago, 61 immigrants are known to have perished attempting to cross the desert in the Tucson border sector.

Years ago, The Republic editorial page began writing about summer death counts in the hope of shaming Congress into reforming immigration policies that contribute to those deaths. Washington wasn’t paying much attention.

In recent years, the issue of illegal immigration reached hot-button status. Attention jumped right over those dead bodies. It leaped past the human dimension. Instead of being seen as people who are caught in a broken system, migrants are now portrayed as villains who are unworthy of sympathy.

That’s where Arizona is today. Anger has the upper hand. Rage is louder than reason.

But Arizona risks its humanity if it can’t refocus on what immigration policies are doing to real people.

Husbands.

Wives.

Sons and daughters.

– “Our Lethal Policies,” Arizona Republic editorial, June 2, 2008

In recent months, news of another migrant dying to get in here has been met with ho-hum indifference, or worse, out right glee from some in Arizona.  Responding to a Tucson Citizen story on a body discovered in the desert last summer, commenter “Chip B.” offered this cheerful response:

Better dead in the desert than here in our cities spreading their vermin, raping our women and consuming health care. – A comment on the story, “Remains found in desert may be illegal migrant,” Tucson Citizen, July 13, 2007.

Chip’s likeminded brother “roy w.” had a similar response to a story last summer on a proposed increase in border patrol and National Guard resources in the Tucson border sector:

Spend the money on 100 ex-Marine snipers with long rifles and scopes, turn 10 cabezas into red mush; the word goes out and people stop coming.

Savvy? Get these people out of this country before the American people start shooting them! — A comment on the story, “New bill calls for adding 14,000 border agents,” Tucson Citizen, August 3, 2007

And later the same month, “roy w.”’s death threats became a bit more specific:

God help the Pima County politicians, and businessmen, who brought this plague upon us, in the name of greed, profit and “humanitarianism”. We will hang them from lamp posts, and stick their severed heads on the Tucson City Walls. — A comment on “Border Patrol rescues 5, including 4-year-old girl,” Associated Press, August 29, 2007.

Lou Dobbs and Rep. Tom Tancredo must be proud of the rhetorical space they have opened in the public square for such thinking…if you can call it that.

But immigrants are not merely dying to get here because of our out-of-date and overly restrictive legal immigration system; they are dying in federal custody as well.  The stories about immigrants dying in detention first uncovered by the Washington Post, New York Times, and CBS News, (and ImmPolitic) are now being echoed across the nation.  Veteran immigration reporter Sandra Hernandez of L.A.’s legal-focused newspaper The Daily Journal, wrote a good summation of the health care for immigrants in detention issue for this Sunday’s Los Angeles Times.

More than 70 immigrant detainees have died in custody since 2004, at least 13 of them in California, more than in any other state, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The reason may shock you. Unlike federal and state prisons, immigrant detention centers, many of which are run by private contractors, are not legally mandated to abide by any healthcare standards when it comes to treating sick immigrants. Civil and immigrant rights groups have filed suit in New York to force federal officials to issue such rules, but the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction in the matter, has yet to produce them. In the absence of legally binding standards, detained immigrants…have no legal way to complain about the lax healthcare they receive at the facilities where they are held. They cannot appeal the denial of care or sue in federal court to obtain it. – “A lethal limbo for migrants,” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2008.

Michael Martinez, national correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, also wrote Sunday about immigrants dying in detention.

Francisco Castaneda had been in a federal immigrant detention center because he was an illegal immigrant with a drug conviction. During his 10-month stay, his signs of cancer went untreated until the facility made him a free, but sick, man. He died a year later.

“If they do a crime, they should do their time, but take care of them,” said a tearful Yanira Castaneda, 35, whose family in the Los Angeles area is continuing her brother’s lawsuit against the government. “I think my brother could have been saved.” – “More immigrant detentions, more deaths,” Chicago Tribune, June 1, 2008.

So far, the response from the Department of Homeland Security has been unapologetic.  On Wednesday, June 4 at 2:00 p.m., Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, will hold a hearing on “Problems with Immigration Detainee Medical Care.”  We may learn more, and we may be further sickened by what we hear.  What we are not likely to hear from the Department or its leaders is an apology or a clear sense of accountability.

A few items of interest today that we wanted to flag.  First, Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, a coalition managed by Sojourners, has posted a 5:30 minute video on YouTube about the Postville, Iowa raids, the impact on the community, the role churches are playing, what the workers experienced, and how horrible the working conditions really are.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.ccir&item=CCIR_main

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) has a story today that goes deeper into the hiring practices and working conditions of Agriprocessors, the business that was raided, with interviews with several former workers.

“They were constantly pushing us and forcing us to work faster,” Yolanda said through a translator. “They were very abusive, screaming a lot.”

Yolanda’s sister Maria, 32, said she resisted the sexual advances of a Guatemalan supervisor who tried to force himself on her in a car. In the days that followed, Maria, who describes herself as a diligent worker, was accused of coming late to work and was denied overtime pay.  […]

Maria eventually complained and the supervisor was fired. But other workers appeared to keep quiet about alleged mistreatment out of fear they would be turned over to the authorities.

“There was such fear in that community that they were afraid to go talk to anybody,” said Kevin Williamson, the international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. – “As Agriprocessors scrambles to keep  plant open, former workers speak out,” by Ben Harris, JTA, May 21, 2008

Yesterday, a press conference in Washington with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus featured Sister Kathy Thill of Waterloo who offered her moving perspective on the Postville raid.  Here is a snippet of the Des Moines Register’s story:

The Catholic nun has assisted immigrant families there following the detainment of 389 workers at the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant.

She is a member of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas who works with Latino families in Iowa.

“I am also a United States citizen who grew up believing that this is a democratic country in which the dignity of all people is respected and their rights protected,” she said Tuesday at a news conference here, surrounded by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“This is not the country I experienced this past week.”

Thill, several times choking up with emotion, told of the shock and distress of immigrants who gathered at St. Bridget’s Catholic Church the day of the raid.

“Hundreds of families were torn apart by this raid,” she said….”The humanitarian impact of this raid is obvious to anyone in Postville,” Thill said. “The economic impact will soon be evident.” – “Immigrants feel distress, shock, nun says,” by Jane Norman, Des Moines Register, May 21, 2008

The press conference followed a hearing on immigration and workplace raids in the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections chaired by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).  The Des Moines Register and Workforce Management magazine each wrote stories worth a read.

Also yesterday, the Senate acted late in the evening to strip out the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act (EARA), which would give U.S. growers greater access to legal migrant workers.  The measure, sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Larry Craig (R-ID), is essentially a scaled down version of the bipartisan AgJOBS bill crafted through lengthy negotiations between labor and business.  The amendment to the Senate War Supplemental Appropriations Bill was endorsed by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week on a 17-12 bipartisan vote, but was removed procedurally last night.

But not before an excellent Wall Street Journal editorial was published explaining EARA and supporting its inclusion in the spending bill.

The hotter this issue became in recent years, the more Congress dithered. That has had real consequences, as the agriculture labor shortage manifested itself repeatedly across the industry. Back in 2006, we saw pear crops in Northern California rot because migrant laborers couldn’t be found in sufficient numbers. Last year, a single county in western Michigan lost a million pounds of asparagus. But the more insidious problem is that the labor shortage is impacting what is planted in the first place. Or not planted.

Some growers scale back on their harvesting; a crew moves through an orchard just once to pick the best fruit, instead of moving through the land multiple times to pick nearly everything. Other growers decide to switch from producing high-value, nonsubsidized fruits and vegetables to producing low-value, highly subsidized row crops merely because the latter is less labor intensive. Still other growers are moving production offshore, reasoning that if they can’t find the labor stateside, they’ll go where labor is more plentiful. – “Farm Help Wanted,” Wall Street Journal editorial, May 21, 2008 (pay site)

Finally, the New York Times editorial blog (“The Board”) has a bit more on the outrageous story out of Texas that the Border Patrol intends to maintain immigration checkpoints even during an evacuation due to a natural disaster.

The word was out that the Border Patrol would be checking citizenship at evacuation centers, screening out illegal immigrants before evacuees boarded buses. Who cares if it’s a hurricane — it would still be “business as usual” for the Border Patrol, the agency’s local spokesman said.

Wow. That’s hard-core. Even in a country that is becoming inured to the relentless pursuit and harassment of undocumented immigrants, it is mind-boggling to consider what the spokesman, Dan Doty, was suggesting:

Winds may be howling, floodwaters rising and rescuers in McAllen and Brownsville scrambling to get 100,000 to 150,000 sick, elderly, poor and disabled people to safety as quickly as possible — but if Grandma doesn’t have her papers, she isn’t getting on the bus.  – “Hurricanes, Citizenship, and the Makings of an Unnatural Disaster, May 20, 2008

 As Lou Dobbs would say, “Incredible!,” but since this is a story about the folly of the deportation-only approach to immigration, Lou probably won’t be saying anything of the kind anytime soon.

Our hearts and minds remain fixated on the health of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).  With shenanigans like this going on, we need you back, Ted, ASAP.

Looking at today’s clips, we came across a few stories that everyone should check out.  First up is the Los Angeles Times editorial on the recent revelations about immigrants in detention (see recent ImmPolitic posts here, here, and here).  The Times editorial said, in part:

ICE maintains that few people actually die in detention centers, and that may be true, but it doesn’t account for people such as Castaneda, who die after leaving custody. And then, ICE isn’t exactly forthcoming on the subject. When Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) asked the agency for a list of the dead, it told her no. She obtained one from the New York Times. Lofgren has introduced HR 5950, the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act, a bill that would require Homeland Security to establish mandatory standards for basic healthcare in all detention centers. It also would require the department to report deaths to the inspectors general of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice within 48 hours….Mandating humanity shouldn’t be necessary, and Homeland Security could do this on its own, but it won’t, so this bill is needed. Our treatment of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, shouldn’t include watching them die. – “Immigrants detained to death,” Los Angeles Times editorial, May 20, 2008.

A response to the Washington Post and New York Times stories on immigrant and asylee deaths in detention by Julie Myers, assistant secretary of DHS for ICE, appeared in today’s Washington Post.

Must read number 2 (and 3) comes from the Houston Chronicle.  Local columnist Lisa Falkenberg calls our attention to a recent announcement from the Department of Homeland Security that in the case of an emergency evacuation for a natural disaster in Texas, the Border Patrol will use checkpoints to check the immigration status of every evacuee. 

Take a moment to recall the chaos.

The claustrophobic caravan of cars, trucks and SUVs creeping along a highway evacuation route-turned-prison with hundreds of thousands — by some estimates, millions — of men, women and children trapped in the steamy confines.

Recall the overheating engines, gas tanks bled dry, pumps tapped out. I’m still haunted by the image of one woman who carried the limp body of a toddler in her arms as she ran from car to car in search of water.

Now take those memories of the 2005 evacuation before Hurricane Rita and add another obstacle: a Border Patrol checkpoint at which each and every car would be stopped, drivers questioned, suspicious vehicles searched while those behind languish in the logjam.

That’s the plan, announced last week by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in the event of a hurricane evacuation of the Rio Grande Valley. – “Evacuation hurdles are a threat to all,” Houston Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg, May 20, 2008.

Sometimes America’s enforcement zeal to deal with the reality that we do not have adequate legal immigration channels is silly, as when House Republicans attached an anti-illegal immigration rider to a Native American Housing Bill.  Sometimes it is just a huge overreach, as with the “No work list” addressed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial below.  This one sounds down right deadly.  Qué negocio!!  What craziness!!

Must read number 3 also comes from the Houston Chronicle, which ran a story today about a new Texas study that asks the question: “If we got rid of all immigrants in the country that are here illegally, what would be the damage to our economy?”  The answer, according to the Perryman Group, is that the economy would lose $1.8 trillion in annual spending.

These are just some of the findings from a study done by the Perryman Group, a Waco-based economic analysis firm, whose work was commissioned by Americans for Immigration Reform, a group spearheaded by the Greater Houston Partnership.

Houston’s business community is trying to revive the politically charged immigration reform debate that has stalled in Congress. It plans to raise $12 million by December to fund a campaign for reform and thus far it says it has raised about 10 percent of that goal in pledges.

The government has recently increased enforcement, with raids at work sites and plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But getting rid of all undocumented immigrants would hurt, not help the economy, Charles Foster, an immigration attorney and chairman of Americans for Immigration Reform, said Monday.

“If you do that, you would have serious economic upset,” Foster said.

He said immigration reform needs to give employers a method of hiring immigrants legally.

“We need comprehensive reform that looks at our needs and addresses those needs,” said Ray Perryman, president of the Perryman Group, which examined data for 500 sectors of the economy, Census Bureau surveys and other data to arrive at its conclusions. – “Price put at $1.8 trillion,” by Jenalia Moreno, Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2008.

Finally, we missed a gem of an editorial last week in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which joined the chorus of those looking at various proposals to mandate national use of the experimental government database known as E-Verify and saying, like many Members of Congress, “Wait a second; It does what??!!??”

One House bill would expand nationwide a pilot program, E-Verify, having employers use the Social Security database to verify legal status. It supposes bringing more than 7 million employers online over four years, requiring a one-time verification of an estimated 160 million existing workers and all new hires at a rate of 50 million to 55 million a year.

Unfortunately, this bill also supposes that an agency currently underfunded, understaffed and trying to deal with a crushing backlog in claims is suddenly going to become an effective arm of immigration enforcement.

Three words: Not gonna happen. Not without exorbitant costs to the federal budget and not without undermining a Social Security Administration that is facing the retirement of 77 million Baby Boomers.

Oh yes, the database also has a reported error rate of 4.1% that will ensnare workers who are here legally. In all likelihood, businesses will cut these employees loose rather than patiently wait for resolution. – “Permission to work, sir,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, May 16, 2008.

The Associated Press reports that the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol’s El Paso sector thinks the key to curbing illegal immigration is to allow for legal immigration.

Chief Patrol Agent Victor Manjarrez Jr. said that without comprehensive immigration reform, border agents continue to split their attention between “economic migrants,” criminals and potential terrorists.

 

“Most of these people are economic migrants but we have to deal with them between the ports of entry because we have not, in terms of a legislative fix, determined what we do with these people,” Manjarrez said.

 

“I think it’s pretty obvious that the country has a need for economic migrants. To what degree, I don’t know. That’s for the country to decide and for the politicians to decide.”

Editorial pages are alight with the news that the Department of Homeland Security will exercise a provision of border security legislation which allows it to waive all laws and treaties – national, state, local, and international – in order to build the border fence walling off Mexico.  Nowhere is the denunciation of the waiver law and the fence itself more prominent than in the President’s home state of Texas.  But other states, some far from the border, are getting in on the act.  Even papers with extremely conservative editorial pages are speaking out against the fence, laughing at the fence, or saying it isn’t going to help much in the absence of immigration reform.  Here are some examples:

Arizona Republic: Rep. Raul Grijalva’s response to Michael Chertoff’s decision to waive the legal process to build the border fence: “With the stroke of his pen, he overturns 36 laws - some of which have been protecting our resources and our health for more than a century - in an area stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.” He’s right. The fence, which won’t stop illegal immigration, is a high-cost PR stunt that makes defense contractors salivate. – “The border fence is a PR stunt, not impediment to migration, April 2, 2008

Austin American-Statesman: Constructing a fence with its open-ended costs - the price of initial construction plus eternal upkeep - is no substitute for adopting true immigration reform, but then elected officials happy with show over substance must figure it’s close enough for government work. Congress has been unable to muster the will to adopt immigration reform, despite repeated posturing over the severity of the problem. It’s a severe problem, all right, just not severe enough for Congress to find a solution. – “Border fence stretching boundaries of federal arrogance,” April 4, 2008

Boston Globe: The southern border fence intended to keep out illegal immigrants is no longer just wasteful and stupid. Now it is harmful as well. – “Immigration: A bad policy gets worse,” April 7, 2008

Colorado Springs Gazette: Immigrants will pour into this country, with or without a fence, and it has little to do with their own wants and needs. They’ll come here because we pay them to. Period. When we no longer need them - and no longer pay them to fix roofs and pick grapes - they’ll stay home. A fence is no match against economic demand and human will. The fence will hold out immigrants like a dam of chewed gum would hold back Lake Pontchartrain.  The symbolic fence will embarrass the United States, because we pay immigrants far more than minimum wage to work here. It’s like a pricey ski village erecting a fence, giving the finger to workers who travel from trailer parks to run the ski lifts.  Smart conservatives will view the fence as a simplistic symbol of animosity. They’ll embrace the fact that immigrant workers, in a free market, are assets. They provide labor and therefore prosperity. – “Immigrant Wall: Shrine Of Shame,” April 3, 2008

Dallas Morning News: Anyone looking at a map of the fence, especially in Texas, can see that most of the border will remain open. And the land chosen for the federal right-of-way is provoking additional skepticism. The fence will divide the University of Texas campus in Brownsville, for example, but it bypasses border property owned by individuals with close White House ties. – “Border fence’s partial solution,” April 4, 2008

El Paso Times: It’s bad enough that the Bush administration, through its surrogate, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, has chosen to circumvent United States law in its obsessive drive to have 670 miles of border fencing in place by the end of the year.  But on top of that, Chertoff waived a law that required a final report on the impact the fence would have on the U.S.-Mexico border environment. That means even if the feds find that there would be some catastrophic impact from the border fence, they wouldn’t be required to tell anyone.  That is both absurd and dangerous. – “Trampling the law: Chertoff waves waivers at border residents,” April 4, 2008

Houston Chronicle: The waiver was initially promoted by congressional supporters as a limited exception designed to give federal officials flexibility in speeding the completion of a segment of fencing across environmentally sensitive wetlands near San Diego. Unfortunately, as with so many other instances in which the Bush administration has asserted the right to ignore laws it found inconvenient, the waiver now is being used as an all-purpose bludgeon to flatten dozens of environmental and property rights statutes. – “Bulldozing the laws,” April 4, 2008

Lompoc Record (CA): Here’s what it means to be the 800-pound gorilla in the room:  Last Tuesday - April Fool’s Day - U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff announced the federal government would be flexing its considerable musculature to waive the rules with regard to protecting the environment, so the government could complete its 670-mile anti-immigrant fence along the U.S./Mexico border… So, our federal government decides to thumb its nose at local rules and laws, essentially telling states and private property owners that, no, they really don’t have any rights when it comes to government expediency. – “Big Brother in full flex,” April 6, 2008

Lufkin Daily News (TX): The government’s willingness to run roughshod over its own laws in order to address a panic stirred more by hyperbolic demagogues than by facts is another example of the ways that Americans are allowing hard-fought gains in everything from personal privacy to environmental protection to be eroded by fear. – “Above the Law? Border fence builders riding the waivers,” April 4, 2008

New York Times: Will this stop or slow illegal immigration? No. Long experience has shown that billions of barricade-building dollars will simply shift some of the flow to more remote parts of the 2,000-mile southern border. And no amount of border fence will keep out the 40 percent of illegal immigrants who enter legally then stay too long. – “Michael Chertoff’s Insult,” April 3, 2008

San Antonio Express-News: Border security is important, but it is hard to imagine a fence shutting out those wanting to enter our country, terrorists or immigrants.  Whatever the efficacy of the fence itself, the structure shouldn’t trump concerns about the environment or the historical integrity of the region. Border mayors, however, should not be surprised by the latest move; federal officials have shown a monumental arrogance toward the pleas of border communities. – “Border fence waivers show feds’ arrogance,” April 4, 2008

San Diego Union-Tribune: To recap, we’re doing all this to defend our territorial sovereignty and illustrate that rules are to be followed. So naturally, the first chance it gets, the government tramples the sovereignty of individuals who oppose fencing on their property and brushes aside the rules.  – “Simple solutions,” April 3, 2008

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: The spokesman for the Sierra Club in Texas responded that the waivers “pulled the carpet out from under the community participation.” We can’t help but feel that that was precisely the point of these waivers: Back off, America. This land ain’t your land. – “U.S.-Mexico Border: Building it anyway,” April 6, 2008

Tucson Citizen: Archaeological treasures, ancient Indian graves, clean drinking water and fragile lands clearly don’t matter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Such sensitive, federally protected features of our borderlands must not delay completion of a 700-mile border fence, he insisted Tuesday. Chertoff’s decision to waive 36 federal laws is an outrage, as is his callous disregard of entire communities in southern Arizona and elsewhere along the border. Congress gave him permission in 2005 to waive federal laws, and Congress now needs to revoke that atrociously flawed authority. – “The futile fence,” April 4, 2008

Waco Tribune: If Congress fixed the nation’s broken-down immigration service so foreign workers matched with U.S. employers could enter the United States legally and employers could be punished for breaking hiring laws, there would be no need for partial fences or an order to ignore the antiquities act, the farmland protection act, the clean water act, the noise control act and a host of laws…Let’s hope the upcoming presidential election puts a stop to the border fence fiasco. – “Waivers for border fence unjustified,” April 7, 2008

Watertown Daily Times (NY): The waivers allow construction to go ahead before the assessments are completed. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the agency will continue to seek public input on the potential impact of the construction. By then, though, irreparable damage may be done for a project that has met intense opposition and the value of which remains questionable. – “Fence waivers,” April 4, 2008

Winston-Salem Journal (NC): But the issue of this fence goes beyond environmental concerns. The University of Texas at Brownsville will have the fence cut through campus. Landowners in the area say the fence will intrude on their private property and interfere with their access to water for their herds.  Chertoff is wrong to be pushing through these waivers at this time, which is not to say that the fence is not needed. Security along the southern border is needed, but so is common sense and a willingness to work with people. – “Silly fence,” April 4, 2008

Yuma Sun (AZ): It is an old story. Congress doesn’t mind making other citizens comply with its rules, as long as the government itself can get a pass. It shows a basic disrespect for the rights of the people… Dare we hope lawmakers will see their own dishonesty and also free Americans of the environmental quagmire? Nope. What is good for them isn’t good for us. The arrogance is palpable. – “Skirting of rules shows hypocrisy of government,” April 4, 2008