 |
P.O.V. kicked off the discussion by asking
Frank 6 initial questions, the same 6 we are asking all the featured
guests.
P.O.V.: In your work, you consider the notion
of 'borders.' What is a border to you?
Frank: A "border" is a barrier that separates a sovereign
nation from its neighbors. We use our border as a checkpoint to
determine who may enter our country and who may not. In the US,
we tend to be stuck on literal and geographic definitions of what
a border is. We rely on old-fashioned methods of policing our borders,
rather than strategies that anticipate modern-day opportunities
and dangers. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks showed that
knowing who is seeking to enter our country, and why, is absolutely
critical. Still, in a world of free trade agreements and globalization,
the movement of people and goods across borders is a powerful force.
Under our current regime, the cross-border movement of goods is
increasingly liberalized, while the movement of people is increasingly
criminalized. As Cato Institute scholar Dan Griswold wrote in an
October 22, 2002 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal: "Current
immigration law has made lawbreakers out of millions of hard-working,
otherwise law-abiding people — immigrant workers and native
employers alike — whose only 'crime' is a desire to work together
in our market economy for mutual advantage."
P.O.V.: What's an important border that you've crossed in your life?
Frank: In our work at the National Immigration Forum, we've been
able to cross the border of simplistic formulations that limit the
debate on migration and border management. Opponents of immigration
attempt to smear proponents as "open borders" advocates.
This feeds the fear and misunderstanding so prevalent in the United
States that the debate is essentially between those who favor "open
borders" or "closed borders." Neither "option"
is realistic nor desirable. Opening the borders and allowing anyone
who wishes to enter the country to do so would not serve national
security interests. On the other hand, completely closing the borders
would have dramatic economic and political consequences. Both choices
are entirely impractical and only serve to polarize the debate over
responsible and comprehensive immigration reform.
The answer, we have found, lies in this notion of "smart"
border management. It involves using technology to better screen
potential travelers before they arrive on US soil. It involves devising
an immigration entry and exit regime that is overwhelmingly legal,
orderly, and safe instead of chaotic, illegal, and unregulated.
Important voices such as the Migration Policy Institute, Cato Institute,
Council on Foreign Relations, and other groups have begun to push
the framework of the debate to this level. Our conversations can
no longer be characterized as tugs of war between polarized extremes.
It is a maturing debate about what works from the point of view
of legislation, regulation, inspection, facilitation, and administration.
We are finally leaving behind the primitive formulations of the
past and engaging in a mature discussion of how best to serve the
national interest.
P.O.V.: If you could erase any border in your world, what would
it be?
Frank: I would erase the crude notion that some people have regarding
how much we should rely on traditional border enforcement alone
to make us safer. Fortifying our physical borders with border patrol
agents and well-trained inspectors, while necessary, is not enough
to keep us safe from international terrorism. We need to expand
our notion of what works to combat terrorism and how border security
fits in with that overall strategy in order to design good public
policies and practices.
I would also seek to revise people's expectation that front-line
physical border controls are any match for powerful market forces.
As long as our economy continues to support and even create more
jobs than we have available home-grown workers, we will need immigrant
labor. Just like previous waves of immigrants who journeyed here
to fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled, these are people
who want to contribute. The phenomenon of millions of immigrants
working without legal status shows that we have not kept immigration
admissions numbers in touch with our real economic needs. As President
Bush often says, if we have a "willing employer" and "willing
worker," the two should be matched up legally, instead of forcing
them into a covert and unstable relationship due to outdated limits.
We are not seeking to bring more immigrants into the country than
our economy will support; we only want to bring the flow of immigrants
— a flow that is already following the law of supply and demand
— into a legal, regulated, and safe framework instead of pushing
it further underground.
P.O.V.: When and how are borders useful?
Frank: Borders are useful when they operate the way they are intended:
to facilitate the cross-border movement of goods and people, with
special attention to controlling who and what should be allowed
to enter the country. The genius of America is that it not only
values this control, but also the need to have goods and well-intentioned
travelers cross our borders with relative ease. In a smart borders
context, screening out bad people is never sacrificed for ease of
passage (nor does ease of passage ever trump security screening).
These are both compatible and consistent goals. Unfortunately, some
Bush Administration policies that have been designed since September
11, 2001 fail to make effective use of our border controls.
P.O.V.: This episode of P.O.V.'s Borders concentrates on borders
as a physical reality, in terms of people moving from one place
to another and having to cross mental and literal borders to do
that. What, in your experience, is the most contested border?
Frank: The border we share with Mexico is the longest land border
separating a developed and a developing country in the world. This
border, and how we manage it, has been the source of heated debates
between policy makers, advocates on all sides, and the American
public. Given the huge economic disparities between the two countries
that exist today, and the fact that our population will continue
to fall well below the number of jobs our economy is creating, the
battle over this border will not subside without comprehensive reform
of our legal immigration system.
Only a comprehensive approach to this challenge — combining
legal channels for immigrants within enforceable limits, institutionalizing
meaningful cooperation with our international allies on border control
and security, and targeting economic development at migrant-sending
regions — will enable us to get better control of our borders,
make migration more orderly, help sustain our economic prosperity,
and improve our national security.
P.O.V.: Expand our borders. What's a book, movie, piece of music,
website, etc. that challenges or engages with the idea of 'borders'
that we should know about but perhaps don't?
Frank: I highly recommend much of the recent work by the Migration
Policy Institute in Washington D.C. on border management and migration
policies. As for movies, I recommend Well-Founded Fear, a powerful
documentary by Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini on the asylum
process in the United States. (Visit the companion
website to the 1999 P.O.V. film Well-Founded Fear). Finally,
the performance artist Sarah Jones has put together a show called
Waking the American Dream that captures the hopes, pain, and dreams
of immigrants coming to America. I heartily recommend this work
to anyone who has the opportunity to view it.
|
|
|
