Border security: Following a cow path
The timing couldn't have been more apropos.
As four U.S. senators from the so-called “Gang of Eight,” who are working on immigration reform, toured the U.S. border in Nogales, Ariz., last week in full showboat mode, an illegal alien scaled an 18-foot border fence nearby and was arrested in view of the group.
And how many illegals that same day crossed the border without running into U.S. senators?
That didn't concern this group of “fact-finders.” Instead, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., offered this remarkable observation: “One of the things we learned is that a lot of people (who) cross the border are doing it for drug purposes too.” No kidding.
The bipartisan group insists that any pathway to citizenship for more than 11 million illegals in the U.S. must be contingent on measurable advances in border security, The New York Times reports. But exactly how is that defined?
The Obama administration says it has made significant gains on border enforcement. Yet two years after Homeland Security vowed to produce new, more accurate standards to assess the nation's borders, senior Homeland officials recently acknowledged these new measures have not been devised and they don't expect them anytime soon, The Times reports.
So, amid the bluster that an immigration deal is nigh, there's nothing to suggest that the nation is any closer to comprehensive border security.
And without measurable border enforcement, the case for immigration reform follows the same ol' circular cow path that leads nowhere.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Open records: Hold the phone?
- The atom smasher
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Sunday pops
- Snow shovelers needed: A call for volunteers
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes