We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Urges Regulators to Approve T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, and cautioned the federal government against any pointless and destructive objection to the deal.  In today's Wall Street Journal, its editorial board encourages the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move forward on the deal:

The Justice Department lost its lawsuit to block AT&T's purchase of Time Warner.  Yet now the antitrust cops are holding up T-Mobile's merger with Sprint even though it could give AT&T more competition in wireless.  What gives?

A year ago, T-Mobile announced plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion in stock, yet the merger is still stuck in government antitrust purgatory.  The Federal Communications Commission keeps pausing its 180-day shot clock on the merger…[more]

April 22, 2019 • 04:07 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.
Democrats Want 'Technological Wall' That Won't Keep Anybody Out Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, January 16 2019
Given the nature of the illegal flow across the border, a virtual wall would be even less effective than it might have been in the past.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border would be "immoral." Instead, she favors something she calls a "technological wall." Another top House Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn, calls it a "smart wall."

Instead of building an actual physical barrier of steel, concrete or some other material, Pelosi, Clyburn and other Democrats advocate employing an array of high-tech devices  drones, infrared sensors, surveillance cameras and more  to keep track of activity at the border without physical impediments to discourage illegal crossings.

"We cannot protect the border with concrete," Clyburn said recently. "We can protect the border using the technology that is available to us to wall off intrusions."

The problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall  in past debates it was often referred to as a virtual fence  is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country.

That is especially important given the nature of the migrants crossing the border illegally today. In the past, many were single adult men who could be caught and quickly returned to Mexico. But now, according to the Department of Homeland Security, about two-thirds of the crossers are families and unaccompanied children, who by U.S. law cannot be quickly returned. Once in the United States, their asylum claims  the vast majority are ultimately judged without merit  take a long time to process. During that time, many simply disappear into the country.

The point, for those illegal immigrants, is not to enter the United States without being detected. It is to enter, be caught, and begin the asylum process that will allow them to stay, one way or the other.

A smart wall is no obstacle to such crossers. On the other hand, a physical barrier would be a big obstacle and, if placed in key areas of the border, would likely reduce illegal crossings significantly. That is precisely the kind of barrier that Pelosi, Clyburn and other Democrats oppose.

"The virtual fence does not actually block the entry of anyone like a real wall or fence does," said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter controls on immigration. "The virtual fence only works if there are enough Border Patrol agents around to arrest the illegal crossers who are detected.

"Most importantly, this technology would not help in the case of caravan migrants pushing through the obsolete and aging barriers we have in many places," Vaughan added. "And it does not help at all if the people who cross are detected only to be released after they state a fear of return, or because they brought a minor with them, or if they are unaccompanied minors led across by smugglers."

Given the nature of the illegal flow across the border, a virtual wall would be even less effective than it might have been in the past.

Still, Democrats insist it is what is needed. Rep. Scott Peters, who delivered the recent Democratic weekly address, discussed his home city of San Diego and called for "sensors and radar ... cameras mounted on drones ... (and) state-of-the-art technologies to detect tunnels."

"That is what real border security looks like, and I can tell you that San Diegans want that border security," Peters said. "But we do not want a wall."

Under Peters' plan, the Department of Homeland Security would have to rely on technology at the border; if it wanted to build a physical barrier, it would have to get special congressional permission.

Peters briefly acknowledged that San Diego has a border fence. What he did not tell listeners was that building that physical barrier saved the city from a crisis in the 1980s by dramatically reducing the flow of illegal immigrants. In 1986, with no barrier to speak of, an astonishing 600,000-plus people were caught trying to enter illegally.

Only after fencing went up in 1989, and was lengthened and strengthened a few years later, did the flow subside. People seeking to enter the U.S. illegally moved eastward, to points where there was no fence.

The border barrier was a key factor in solving San Diego's problem. Now, a congressman from San Diego is dead set against building a physical barrier to stop illegal crossings in other parts of the country the way it did in San Diego.

Peters reflects his party's leadership and their determination to stop the construction of any more barriers on the border. But Democrats from Pelosi down still want to appear strong on border security. Now, they are advocating sensors and drones and cameras that would watch an un-fenced border  while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.


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

Question of the Week   
How many times in our nation’s history has a presidential election been decided by the U.S. House of Representatives?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"President Donald Trump opened a new flank in his battle against illegal immigration on Monday when he ordered his administration to crack down on 'visa overstays' -- foreigners who legally enter the country but remain in the U.S. after their visas expire.The president signed a memorandum ordering the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to submit plans within four months to crack…[more]
 
 
—Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
— Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
 
Liberty Poll   

How likely are you to read all or a significant part of the Mueller Report?