How Safe Are Our Borders?

Recently, I read that increased security is actually making it tougher for Immigration police to catch illegals, in that, since the major entry points are so well-covered, illegals are now smuggled through areas which are difficult to traverse (such as desert). This was in the most recent Smithsonian magazine, which isn't available online yet.

Sadly, an insignificant portion of the megatons of goods imported into this country receives any scrutiny at all. The major foucs, of US Customs is, and for a generation has been, drugs. No American city is free of drugs, and despite headline drug busts and thrilling helicopter footage of doomed smugglers transfixed in mid ocean by electronically locked-on spotlights, there are neighborhoods in some cities wherein the drug trade almost resembles a street fair. The INS has a dismal record as well. It is not uncommon for illegal aliens to be involved in the illegal substance business.

One thing is certain; we could get better value for our general domestic security dollar than we have been getting. As opposed to more laws and agencies, perhaps different foucus and more inter-agency coordination would better, an more cheaply, serve the function.



timber

You are absolutely right, Timberlandko, but the problem is as follows: granted the U.S. borders' (both ground borders and coast line) length counts thousands miles, it is absolutely impossible to close them hermetically...

Well, when the GDR with its rotten economy and low standard technics could not only build the Berlin wall but a relatively good and close border system, the USA could certainly do better, even some hundred miles more of borders! (It wasn't closed hermetically, I admit. But not many really could get through alive.)

Well, but as far as I remember, FRG did not make attempts to send terrorists to GDR. The majority of terspassers were the people that wanted to escape to the West. They were not trained to cross borders and to deceive the border guards. And the U.S. borders are tens times longer than the GDR-FRG and GDR-West Berlin ones.

The official version by the GDR definately was to secure its borders.
If it is of interest, I could look up the relevant GDR laws.

Well, this was an official version. But it is known that the main purpose for which the Berlin Wall was erected was prevention of the GDR citizens escaping to the capitalist world through West Berlin. I have never heard or read of West Berlin or FRG having ever attempted to invade GDR: this would merely cause the WWIII.

"Walls" are of undemonstrated value ... witness China's "Great Wall", or Rome's British "Hadrian's Wall". Geographic considerations render any "Sealing" of US borders infeasible. As an avid "Outdoorsperson", I personally am acquainted with any number of points at which border crossing US/Canada, and even US/Mexico, can be accomplished bi-directionally with exceedingly little potential for interference or even notice. That likely never will change. It remains, however, critical to improve procedures and enforcement at conventional border-crossing points, and to engender greater efficiency and cooperation among all the relevant agencies among the involved nations.



timber

Absolutely agree, Timberlandko. Walls do not solve problems of terrorists infiltration or drugs trafficking. There must be another ways of protecting the country against these: sometimes by transferring battlefield to the enemy's territory.

So, steissd, you suggest that the USA invade Mexico and Canada as well?

Of course after Libya, Cuba and now the new enemy in that line (as the defense secretary pointed out) Germany.

No, since governments of Mexico and Canada by no means are rogue regimes, it is possible to negotiate an agreement of cooperation in prevention of infiltration of undesired people and shipments through respective borders. In this case diplomatic effort may be quite sufficient to provide a solution.

Heavens forbid, Mr. Hinteler. The WWII ended 57.5 years ago, and Germany is no one's enemy. U.S. administration official expressed dissatisfaction with position of the German government, but he did not consider Germany being a hostile country.

Now, Walter, Point of Procedure here ... wasn't that hyperbole and reductio adsurdam just a bit "inappropriate"?



timber

Nor is Germany nescessarily Germany's Best Freind in this.


timber

Well, the current German government is Social-Democratic, and people of this party, wherever they hold power, are not the biggest friends of the USA in Europe. But the next elections may change the situation; SDPD is losing popularity, and recent elections in some of the Federal Lands showed this: the conservative opposition party CDU won the elections.
Socialists are not all the Germans, only part of them.

[The SPD won the last election - so say analysts - just becuase of being against against the war. Its loosing popularity has more or less only domestic, economic reasons.
Only about 3% of Germans voted Socialists (in the new, former GDR although about 25%). The SPD is a social-democratic party, as name and program show.]

steissd

Perhaps you misunderstood my responses. More probably, however, I made some mistakes in my posting.

The clear majority of Germans is against Saddam's regime - and against a war. (That's what the allied forces wanted after WWII, btw: Germany should never go on war again.)