Krauthammer claims Obama's policies suggest “serious border enforcement is not a high administration priority”

From Krauthammer's August 6 Washington Post column:

But what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so? Take border security. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) reports that President Obama told him about pressure from his political left and its concern that if the border is secured, Republicans will have no incentive to support comprehensive reform (i.e., amnesty). Indeed, Homeland Security's abandonment of the “virtual fence” on the southern border, combined with its lack of interest in completing the real fence that today covers only one-third of the border, gives the distinct impression that serious border enforcement is not a high administration priority absent some Republican quid pro quo on comprehensive reform.

But border enforcement is not something to be manipulated in return for legislative favors. It is, as the administration vociferously argued in court in the Arizona case, the federal executive's constitutional responsibility. Its job is to faithfully execute the laws. Non-execution is a dereliction of duty.

GAO, McCain praised Napolitano's decision to halt funding for faulty, expensive “virtual fence”

GAO report found “significant” defects in the system. The “virtual fence” project, called SBInet, began in 2006 and the Boeing Co. was awarded the contract. Since 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been warning about the risks and weaknesses of the project. GAO stated in March that "[t]he number of new SBInet defects that have been discovered during testing has increased faster than the number that has been fixed" and that “some of the defects found during testing have been significant,” including “the radar circuit breaker frequently tripping when the radar dish rotated beyond its intended limits, COP workstations crashing, and blurry camera images, among others.” GAO further reported:

Along with defects revealed by system testing, Border Patrol operators participating in an April 2009 user assessment identified a number of concerns. During the assessment, operators compared the performance of Block 1 capabilities to those of existing technologies. While Border Patrol agents noted that Block 1 offered functionality above existing technologies, it was not adequate for optimal effectiveness in detecting items of interest along the border. Users also raised concerns about the accuracy of Block 1's radar, the range of its cameras, and the quality of its video.

GAO stated in June that Napolitano's decision to limit funding in SBInet is “consistent with the intent of our recommendations.”

Napolitano diverted Recovery Act funding from virtual fence to “tested, commercially available security technology.” In her March 16 statement, Napolitano said:

Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost effective way possible. The system of sensors and cameras along the Southwest border known as SBInet has been plagued with cost overruns and missed deadlines. Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security will redeploy $50 million of Recovery Act funding originally allocated for the SBInet Block 1 to other tested, commercially available security technology along the Southwest border, including mobile surveillance, thermal imaging devices, ultra-light detection, backscatter units, mobile radios, cameras and laptops for pursuit vehicles, and remote video surveillance system enhancements. Additionally, we are freezing all SBInet funding beyond SBInet Block 1's initial deployment to the Tucson and Ajo regions until the assessment I ordered in January is completed.

McCain was “pleased” with DHS decision “to divert funding away from SBInet.” In a March 16 statement, Sen. John McCain said he was “pleased” with Napolitano's decision to halt funding for the virtual fence: “After spending over $1 billion of taxpayers' dollars on a failed system of sensors and cameras along the Southwest border, known as SBInet, I am pleased that Secretary Napolitano has decided to instead turn to commercially available technology that can be used to immediately secure our border from illegal entries. I have been calling for Congressional oversight and Administrative action on this issue since it became clear that SBInet was a complete failure.”

Border Patrol agents' union: “Technology is a good thing as long as we are spending money on what we know is going to work.” The Arizona Daily Star reported on May 16, “Improving on technology that works is more useful to Border Patrol agents than spending time and money trying to create new, grandiose technology such as the virtual fences, [Brandon] Judd [vice president of Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council] said”:

Up until now, the mobile surveillance systems have been a minor part of the plan, receiving only a fraction of the funds: $9,000 in 2007, $187,000 in 2008 and $130,000 in 2009, Stana said.

The plan was to link the truck units with the SBInet “virtual fence” systems, but that hasn't happened.

The mobile systems are the only technology agents have received from the initiative that actually works, said Brandon Judd, vice president of Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council, the agents' union.

Agents have been using more basic mobile surveillance systems for more than a decade, Judd said. The current systems are an advanced version of the original units.

Improving on technology that works is more useful to Border Patrol agents than spending time and money trying to create new, grandiose technology such as the virtual fences, Judd said.

“Technology is a good thing as long as we are spending money on what we know is going to work,” Judd said. The mobile systems are nothing new, “but what they've done is make them a lot better than they used to be.”

CBS: Boeing “made some rather extravagant promises” about the virtual fence. CBS reported in January:

When Boeing was awarded the initial contract back in 2006, it made some rather extravagant promises, claiming it could complete the project quickly and that virtually no one would be able to sneak across the border undetected.

Asked how this has worked out, Richard Stana, the director of homeland security issues for the Government Accountability Office, said, “Well, it hasn't worked out so far as well as they had hoped.”

And that is putting the best possible face on it. One of Stana's jobs has been to investigate and monitor the project for Congress.

According to Stana, Boeing promised to complete the first 28 miles of the surveillance system in just eight months and wire the entire Mexican border in three years.

“In fact, this was supposed to be all deployed by now, by 2008-2009. The entire Southwest border was to be covered by SBI,” Stana said.

But according to him that hasn't happened and that “we're still in the early stages.”

In fact, after three years and a billion dollars, they are still fiddling with the first 28 miles, with 1,972 to go. And that is just one of the problems.

NY Times: Despite $1 billion price tag, “little to show for it beyond the two testing sites in the Arizona desert and a series of embarrassments.” The New York Times reported on March 16 that "[c]iting a plague of 'cost overruns and missed deadlines,' Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she would cut millions of dollars intended for a high-tech 'virtual fence' along the Mexican border that has produced little more than headaches for the federal government." From the article:

Ms. Napolitano's announcement came two days before a scheduled Congressional hearing on the program. The House Homeland Security Committee is expected to receive the latest in a string of Government Accountability Office reports calling the program into question. That new report says tests designed to evaluate the system are flawed and mismanaged.

[...]

The virtual fence is part of a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort known as the Secure Border Initiative [SBInet] that was announced with fanfare by the Bush administration in November 2005. Besides increasing the number of guards and expanding a border wall, it promised a sophisticated system of cameras, sensors and radar that would zero in on people crossing the border with new speed and clarity and quickly guide agents to them.

By now, according to the original timeline, the system was supposed to be working along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But shortly after Boeing was awarded the contract, red flags went up over its lack of oversight and potential for cost overruns.

Boeing said in a statement on Tuesday that it was “fully committed to delivering border-security technology that successfully assists” the department, but it declined to answer questions about its handling of the project. About $1.1 billion has been spent on the virtual fence, with little to show for it beyond the two testing sites in the Arizona desert and a series of embarrassments, including radar that could not function properly in the rain and wind-blown trees mistaken for border crossers.

Obama has boosted resources for border enforcement

LA Times: Obama admin. “has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and on deportations.” The Los Angeles Times reported on June 15 that Obama “agree[d] to dispatch 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and to seek an extra $500 million for border enforcement. That came after 18 months in which the Obama administration has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and deportations of illegal immigrants, all in an effort to build support for a comprehensive immigration plan.”

There are currently more Border Patrol agents “than ever before in the history of this country.” PolitiFact has noted that “spending on border security has actually risen steadily” since 2007 and that Obama has been “increasing the number of border patrol officers.” Indeed, in a July 22 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael Fisher, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, stated, “Currently we have over 20,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, more than ever before in the history of the country.” A Customs and Border Protection document states that the 2010 budget included $19.4 million for 123 new Border Patrol agents and support staff. The Obama administration's 2011 budget states, “An increase of $44.8M is requested to fund 318 Custom and Border Protection Officers FTEs [Full-Time Equivalent] within the Office of Field Operations and 71 support FTEs for CBP.” From the Arizona Republic:

CBP budget higher under Obama than Bush. Budget data from the Department of Homeland Security show that the funding (adjusted for inflation) for Customs and Border Protection is higher under Obama than during any of Bush's full years in office.

Obama also requested $600 million in emergency funds for border security. McClatchy reported on June 22 that "[t]he Obama administration formally asked Congress Tuesday for $600 million in emergency funds to hire another 1,000 Border Patrol agents, acquire two aerial drones, and enhance security along the Southwest border."

NY Times: ICE “has levied a record $3 million in civil fines” “on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants.” The New York Times reported on July 9: “Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures.” The Times article stated:

Employers say the audits reach more companies than the work-site roundups of the administration of President George W. Bush. The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll-- not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid -- and make it much harder to hire other unauthorized workers as replacements.

The Washington Post also reported that "[t]he pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office." From The Washington Post:

Wash. Post: “Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants.” The Washington Post reported on July 26 that “the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants” and "[t]he Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007."

The number of unauthorized immigrants removed from the U.S. by ICE excluding voluntary returns also hit a record high in fiscal year 2009, according to DHS:

Policy experts and several Republicans agree that border security ultimately requires broader reform of immigration laws

Sen. Lindsey Graham: “If all you did was try to secure the border, then that's a false sense of security.” From a May 24, 2006, press conference:

GRAHAM: Everybody would benefit if we could solve this problem.

Here's what I've learned from people back in South Carolina, a pretty conservative state. Border security is important, but they know by itself it's a false sense of security.

If all you did was try to secure the border, then that's a false sense of security, because illegal immigration is about employment. So you've got to control employment.

And 35 percent of the people who are illegal immigrants didn't cross the border, they came through visa overstays.

So the American people accept a comprehensive solution. The Senate is going to pass one. The president supports one. I think we can get some House members understanding that it has to be comprehensive. [accessed via Nexis]

McCain: Border security “will not alone ensure our control of immigration.” In a June 4, 2007, speech, McCain stated that border security measures “will not alone ensure our control of immigration or enable us to know the identity, whereabouts and purposes of the millions of undocumented workers who are in our country now.” McCain added that people will come over the border “as long as the job market in our growing economy offers opportunities to immigrants” and said of the undocumented immigrants already in the United States: “Getting these people to declare themselves and prove they have come here for a job, pose no security threat and have no criminal record beyond entering the country illegally will enable our security and law enforcement officials to concentrate their resources on those who have come here to threaten our way of life rather than embrace it.” McCain has since changed his position to advocate for a border security-first approach.

Bush: “You cannot fully enforce the border” without fixing overly strict limits on legal immigration. On June 1, 2007, President Bush spoke in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal and stated that providing more channels for legal entry “makes it more likely the border will be enforced”:

BUSH: But I would remind people that you cannot fully enforce the border so long as people are trying to sneak into this country to do jobs Americans aren't doing. You can try, but doesn't it make sense to help the Border Patrol do their job by saying, “If you're going to come and do a job, there is a legal way to do it so you don't have to sneak across in the first place?”

If you're interested in border security, you've got to recognize that giving people a chance to come and work here on a temporary basis makes it more likely the border will be enforced.

Alberto Gonzales: “I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally.” During a July 18, 2006, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, “Obviously, border security is very, very important, but I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally.” From the hearing [accessed via Nexis]:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: More importantly, the president believes very strongly in comprehensive immigration reform. Obviously, border security is very, very important, but I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally. You need to know who they are, where they're at and why they're here.

And so I think this is a problem that will only get worse over time. We need to deal with it, I think, at once. I think the American people expect the Congress and the president to deal with it at once. We know it's a tough issue, but that's what we're here to do, is try to deal with these tough issues

Immigration policy expert: Comprehensive reform “will make the border more manageable.” The Arizona Republic reported: “Susan Ginsburg, senior policy adviser for an international nonprofit known as Borderpol, which works to make international borders safer, said it is a mistake to require border control as a prerequisite for changing U.S. policies because the existing system created a broken border in the first place. 'Comprehensive immigration reform will help because it will make the border more manageable,' she said.”

National Immigration Forum: “We must have comprehensive reform in order to see continued improvement in the control of our borders.” The National Immigration Forum states in a document that "[w]e have achieved about as much control of our border as possible without solving the core problem ... We must have comprehensive immigration reform in order to see continued improvement in the control of our borders." The document further states that the problem of illegal immigration “is the product of today's demand for worker and family visas clashing with an immigration system that has not been updated in 20 years.”

Cato's Griswold: Controlling the border requires “allow[ing] more workers to enter the United States legally.” Dan Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, wrote on April 29 that the current immigration system “created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and day-labor operations” and that "[i]f we want to 'get control' of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform":

Requiring successful enforcement of the current immigration laws before they can be changed is a non sequitur. It's like saying, in 1932, that we can't repeal the nationwide prohibition on alcohol consumption until we've drastically reduced the number of moonshine stills and bootleggers. But Prohibition itself created the conditions for the rise of those underground enterprises, and the repeal of Prohibition was necessary before the government could “get control” of its unintended consequences.

Illegal immigration is the Prohibition debate of our day. By essentially barring the legal entry of low-skilled immigrant workers, our own government has created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and day-labor operations. As long as the government maintains this prohibition, illegal immigration will be widespread, and the cost of reducing it, in tax dollars and compromised civil liberties, will be enormous.

[...]

If we want to “get control” of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. Then we could focus our enforcement resources on a much smaller number of people who for whatever reason are still operating outside the law.