Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
This Week's "Your Turn" Radio Lineup

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

 

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute - An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance - Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste - 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Marlo Lewis…[more]

June 17, 2019 • 12:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
In Border Talks, a New Fight for Barrier Deniers Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, January 30 2019
The construction of barriers dramatically reduces illegal border crossing attempts.

A House-Senate conference committee is beginning work on a package of border security policies that, it is hoped, can win the support of both Democrats and Republicans. The final product is certain to include several measures that already have full, bipartisan approval: more immigration judges, more technology to detect illegal drugs at ports of entry, more humanitarian aid for migrants in custody, etc.

The hang-up, of course, will be a border barrier. President Trump insists on money  his demand is $5.7 billion  that would build new steel-slat barriers along about 230 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. About 80 miles of that would replace current, dilapidated, inadequate fencing, while 150 or so miles would cover currently unfenced areas.

On the other side are Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called a border wall "an immorality between nations" and denies evidence that a barrier would increase border security by decreasing the number of illegal crossings into the United States.

Pelosi won the 35-day partial government shutdown by sticking to her position. The new negotiations will test whether she and other Democratic barrier deniers can prevail again.

The need for new and improved barriers along some parts of the border is in the news almost daily. Take, for example, the events of Jan. 24 near Lukeville, Arizona, in the Tucson Sector of the border. Even though there is a six-lane crossing at Lukeville, migrants seek to enter the United States illegally in nearby areas that have ineffective fencing. Thus, on the 24th, Border Patrol agents found a large group  242 people, most from Central America  who illegally crossed the border west of Lukeville.

"Agents discovered the group after they crawled over and under the crude vehicle barrier separating the United States from Mexico," the Border Patrol said in a press release.

Just a week earlier, a group of 84 migrants arrived nearby in a tour bus, and then crawled under the fence into the United States, where they were taken into custody by Border Patrol agents.

On Dec. 19-20, in nearly the same place, the Border Patrol apprehended 306 Central American migrants crossing illegally into the U.S.

Clearly, the fencing in that part of the Tucson Sector is not working.

The border is 1,954 miles long. Everyone agrees that big parts of it do not require any fencing because the terrain is so rough that it makes crossing very difficult.

On the other hand, a significant part of the border does need barriers. Right now, there are about 705 miles of fencing  about 405 miles of pedestrian fencing and about 300 of vehicle fencing, which blocks vehicles but allows people on foot to cross easily.

The vehicle fencing did nothing to stop recent crossings near Lukeville and in other places on the border. In addition, some of the pedestrian fencing is easy to breach because it is old, falling apart and was never that imposing in the first place. The Trump administration seeks to do three things: 1. Replace some ineffective pedestrian fence; 2. Replace current vehicle fence with new pedestrian fence; and 3. Build new pedestrian fence in some currently unfenced areas.

The construction of barriers dramatically reduces illegal border crossing attempts. Looking at the Yuma Sector along the border in western Arizona, in 2005, before the construction of barriers, the Border Patrol caught 138,438 illegal crossers, according to figures compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors greater restrictions on immigration. Last year, with barriers, there were 26,244 such apprehensions in the Yuma Sector.

The San Diego Sector in California is a case study in the effectiveness of a border barrier. In 1986, before the construction of a barrier, there were more than 628,000 apprehensions, while untold numbers of others successfully made it across the border illegally. In 2017, after the construction of extensive barriers, there were 26,086 apprehensions, according to the Border Patrol.

Would anyone argue that border barriers had nothing to do with those striking before-and-after reductions? And, given what is happening in the Tucson Sector and other places today, would anyone argue that new, more daunting barriers such as the Trump administration proposes would not reduce the number of illegal crossings?

The effectiveness of border barriers is a settled fact. Yet some Democrats, led by the speaker of the House, deny that fact and insist that new and improved barriers would not increase border security. Other prominent Democrats, such as recently declared presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, have called the Trump barrier proposal a "medieval vanity project."

At the same time, other Democrats seem more willing to take a fact-based approach. "In the past, we have supported ... enhanced fencing," Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership, said recently. "And I think that's something that's reasonable that should be on the table."

Who will prevail in the border talks? Will it be Pelosi and her fellow deniers, or Jeffries and the reality-based community? The president and Congress have two weeks to find out.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
Prior to 2016, what was the last Presidential election year in which the candidate who won had never before held elected public office?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"[T]he public fretting about launching a war with Iran ignores the fact that Iran has waged its own war against the U.S. and its allies for decades. It has supplied insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan with the roadside bombs that maimed and killed U.S. soldiers. It tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. More recently, Iran's diplomats and operatives were tied to terror plots in Western…[more]
 
 
—Eli Lake, Bloomberg Opinion National Security and Foreign Policy Correspondent
— Eli Lake, Bloomberg Opinion National Security and Foreign Policy Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the 2020 U.S. Census add a multi-part question regarding U.S. citizenship, including specifically whether the respondent is or is not a U.S. citizen?