The Border for DummiesNational Post editorial board
National Post Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
Just what does that mean, exactly?
Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
4 comments:
Actually, I've heard the comment about Canada's border with the US being just as porous as Mexico's border before when I was doing research for the CRs in 2006 when this was a hot topic. If memory serves, significantly more illegal immigrants come across the Canadian border than the Mexican border on an annual basis; however, they typically go more unnoticed than those coming from the South because of the focus on the violence there. Are we really willing to accept the premise that the borders should only be secured on one side of the country because the violence happens to be there right now instead of north?
Don't get me wrong, I think Janet Napolitano was the absolute wrong choice for DHS, but the truth is that this is an issue that started before she took office and will last until well after she is gone. It's surprising that the Post is just now playing catch-up.
Chelsea,
While I will agree that there is not quite so much violence on our northern border as ther is on our southern one, I must say that it is still a border, and, therefore, must be made secure. As for the illegal aliens that gain entrance to our country through our shared boundary with Canada, I cannot confirm whether there are as many as Andrew claims or not, but I will say that there are reports that many of them are carrying diseases and illnesses that we in America thought we had cured into extinction such as tuberculosis and other such things. Any unsecured border poses some risk and threat to us, and we must attempt to rid ourselves of such fears.
-Tyler.
Chelsea,
I did forget to mention something I thought ought to be said against Napolitano. Let us not so easily forget that it is her department who, while under her direction, cited military veterans and possibly right wing conservatives as potential combatant extremists who should be tracked by local law enforcement offices nationally. Although it is said that she has apologized for the criticism of America's finest and everyday families such as mine, the directives remain unduly instated.
-Tyler.
Andrew, you make a great point about the Canadadian border being just as porous. You asked, "...borders should only be secured on one side... ...the violence happens to be there right now instead of north?"
My answer is yes and no. I think wherever the crime is should be the primary focus, but you must also keep into consideration that once you seal off one border to try and combat the crime, then perhaps the other border would become more of a hotbed since it's the only way to come in. So I think they both need to be dealt with, but there are obviously priorities. (I'm speaking in general terms hear.)
Yes it's a problem that started before Janet, but my concern/issue is that she didn't even seem to attempt to do a thing about it in AZ and the same is true now. And the problem will still be a problem long after she's gone b/c she won't do a thing about it.
I've been out of AZ politics for some time, but I imagine she's left a bit of a mess in AZ and that, too, will take some time to repair.
Post a Comment