The solution to any issue depends upon the premise and the desired outcome. The border issue is tremendously complex due to the fact that the premise and outcome has so many variables. For example some wish for an impenetrable border. What does this mean? Just the U.S.-Mexico border? That’s only about 2,000 miles of the over 12,000 miles (these numbers are disputed depending upon methodology used. Some government agencies use over 95,000 miles including island and lake coastlines. We’ll use the simple contiguous number for this discussion.) of coastline. It would seem a bit silly to think the bad guys would only utilize the U.S.-Mexico border to enter illegally. Rather the U.S.-Mexico border is purely a political football about voters and dependency upon U.S. social welfare programs as well as cheap labor imports.
This brings us to the premise. To failsafe secure the entire border of the country would be fantastically expensive and difficult and likely impossible. This would have to include every possible entry point via land, sea or air 24/7/365. Not. Gonna. Happen. Just sayin…
So 100% exclusion is off the table. A combination of physical barriers, manpower, technology, and good old fashion best educated guessing on who, when and where someone may attempt to breach the border is the best we’ll ever have. No amount of money, political promises, protests or other input from security stakeholders will change the basic premise. True border security is simply do the best you can. You could build a physical wall with electrified fencing, sharpshooters and landmines thrown in for good measure around the entire 12,000+ miles of coast and still not guarantee no one could ever breach it. That doesn’t even factor in terrorist wannabe’s overstaying visas, radicalizing domestic homegrown terrorists or maybe just sending good old dirty bombs through the mail.
What if we change the premise to the U.S.-Mexico border only since that’s what dominates the news cycle? We know that true security isn’t a desired outcome because 10,000 miles of the country would remain open. Therefore an actual wall is merely symbolism. If it were about desperate migrants from poor, oppressed third world countries seeking a better life they could simply go to a U.S. Consulate much closer to home to apply for asylum or aid. The point is the stated reasons for the dispute you hear everyday in the media are all hogwash. Everyone has an ulterior motive. You may say, Spellchek, we already know all this. Granted, however, we have to establish the common ground premise despite the different desired outcomes.
Is it possible to have an outcome in which all sides can claim victory and take this issue off the table? I think so. It would require a change in law but God knows our Congress loves to make new laws. The answer is to change the designation of the border. It can no longer be a simple case of which side of it you are physically standing on that determines your legal status. Imagine if you will a Korean style DMZ (demilitarized zone) surrounding the country. A sort of limbo land in which you have entered a buffer zone where you haven’t fully entered the country and thus aren’t eligible for due process or any of the myriad of social welfare handouts liberals like to give away merely for you being present despite your status as an illegal alien. Here you can make your request for whatever aid or solace you search for.
Cross over past the buffer zone without the proper credentials and you are a felon eligible for immediate deportation, prosecution, fines or some combination of the above. No anchor babies. No chain migration. Legal citizen or other with a valid reason and proper documentation to come into the country? Proceed per normal and enjoy America! The buffer zone doesn’t have to be an actual physical designation either with some fancy hedging to show where it is. The border is still the border. This is merely a legal status zone which could be accomplished by any number of methods to allow someone to request entry.
So the wall goes away and so does the massive fight over the funding, government shutdowns, amnesty, etc. The right can claim victory by still being able to spend lots and lots of infrastructure funding through the usual corporate-military-industrial complex to monitor the border and see who is crossing over and skipping the buffer zone. The left can claim victory because the poor migrants won’t have to be offended by having to breach a wall. They can still enter through the buffer zone process without having to attain U.S. citizenship. Once here they can go to the ever growing sanctuary cities and states to claim their free social justice and eternally vote democrat.
You see there is no solution the way it is now. The right uses security as their basis to oppose open borders. The left uses humanity and social justice as cause for open borders. Fact is both left and right want more voters, are beholden to lobbyists and donors throughout the corporate-military-industrial complex, and don’t really much care about redistributing taxpayer dollars among different classes of Americans. Will the day ever come when Americans in general will realize they are the chumps who are being played against one another? Sure doesn’t seem likely does it?
In the meantime the Spellchek solution to the border issue will at least change the subject so we can all argue about something else.