Gainesville Times
January 21, 2007

Isakson's plan to police border beats fence idea

It seemed like a good idea at the time, which may be why it's back again. And this time, it might fall on more receptive ears.

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson has revived his immigration proposal that earned a quick brush-off last year from his Republican colleagues in the Senate.

Isakson's plan to address illegal immigration seeks a comprehensive approach to controlling the U.S.-Mexico border first, then taking on the larger task of how to deal with the 12 million or more illegal workers already in the country.

When proposed last year -- an election year, don't forget -- the idea was dismissed by a 55-40 vote. While the Senate debated the merits of a guest worker plan backed by President Bush, the House leadership stressed a greater need for enforcement and no consideration of what many consider "amnesty" for the undocumented workers already here. The lack of a compromise doomed any chance of legislation making it to the president's desk before the November vote.

In fact, the only proposal Congress approved last year before heading off to stump for votes was a 700-mile border fence, a laughably weak notion that most experts dismiss as a "look-see" attempt to satisfy voters without any real substance. And in fact, no one has determined how to pay for such a boondoggle anyway; it could run $50 billion or more, so it likely will never happen.

Isaskon's border control plan is much more involved, and it, too, will be costly. Then again, any program to address illegal immigration is going to come with a hefty price tag. The key is to find a plan that will be worth the money we sink into it.

Now that the Democrats are in control of Congress, Isakson is trying again in the hopes of gaining support from moderates on both sides of the aisle, as well as the White House.

The senator's plan would add 1,400 new border patrol agents; 250 port inspectors; 250 deputy marshals; 20,000 detention center beds and an end to "catch and release" policies; a combination of new fences and underground sensors; and new harder-to-forge identification papers for legal immigrants. He also has advocated use of high-tech surveillance equipment, such as aerial drones, to monitor the border, which seems more likely to be effective than a stationary fence.

Under the plan, the border would be secured first before discussion of a guest worker plan, or similar expansion of worker visas, could be implemented.

"There is no way you can reform legal immigration unless you first stop the porous borders and the flow of illegal immigrants," Isakson said on the Senate floor.

Isakson estimates the price tag for his border plan at somewhere between $4 billion and $6 billion. Again, that's not cheap, but still a fraction of the cost of building a worthless fence. No method of tightening the borders or documenting illegal workers can succeed without a heavier investment in personnel and equipment. Federal agencies now in charge of policing immigration simply don't have the resources to contend with the scope of our immigrant problem.

We've seen in recent months how just a small boost in the numbers of border agents can make a difference. Last year, the president sent National Guard units to the border to support patrol agents and help secure unprotected areas. Since then, border crossings have dropped significantly in many areas. A fully-funded comprehensive plan like Isakson's stands an even better chance of keeping those numbers on the decline.

Once the borders are secure, the nation can address the immigrant issue more effectively with Mexico and other Latin American governments. And the decision over what to do with the immigrants already here then can become the focus of our policy debate.