Do We Have an Open Border - Or a Weaponized Border?
Our southern border is being invaded.
Critics of the Biden Border Policy sometimes call it an open border, or say we no longer have a border.
Such descriptions are powerful. But are they accurate?
Hear me out.
An open border would be totally open, with no restrictions whatsoever.
“No border” would mean that the act of crossing it would have no significance whatsoever.
Therefore, these aren’t precise descriptions of what’s occurring on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trucks and cars, for example, still have to stop when they cross the border.
Some of the illegal border crossers are being sent back, though not as many as we’d like.
The illegal migrants consider the border to be significant. Many of them voluntarily surrender upon crossing.
If the border had no significance, they wouldn’t be doing that.
When they turn themselves in, they think they have a good chance of being allowed to stay in the U.S.
And many of them are right about that.
Some are transported by the federal government to other points in the interior of the country, while others go to bus stations and travel to the destination of their choice.
So yes, we do have a southern border.
But it’s a different kind of international boundary than most Americans would expect it to be.
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has been mocked for saying the border is secure.
But in all fairness to Mayorkas, maybe he has a different definition of a 'secure border' than we do.
Secretary Mayorkas explained the administration’s objective for the border in a May interview with Bret Baier on Fox News.
Baier asked a very direct question, inquiring if the Biden administration aims to "sharply reduce the total number of illegal immigrants coming across the southern border? Is that the objective?”
Mayorkas’ response: “It is the objective of the Biden administration to make sure that we have safe, orderly, and legal pathways for individuals to be able to access our legal system.”
According to Mayorkas, the goal is to provide “legal pathways… to access our legal system.”
The DHS Secretary also said, “We are against irregular migration. We are against individuals taking a perilous journey, putting their lives in the hands of the smugglers, and trying to enter the United States between the ports of entry.”
Are those statements compatible?
Mayorkas says the administration is “against irregular migration."
On the other hand, its goal is to provide “legal pathways for individuals."
In Mayorkas-speak, yes, these statements are compatible.
It’s a catch-22.
If the goal is to provide “legal pathways,” then “irregular migrants” can simply be legalized somehow.
That’s what the government is doing – using various legalistic pretexts such as “parole," taking bogus asylum claims seriously, and just handing illegals “Notice to Appear” documents before turning them loose.
Both the administration and the border crossers know that, if they can just get past the border and be released on U.S. soil, they probably won’t be deported.
Are they wrong?
The Biden Border Policy is not the result of incompetence, neglect, stupidity or ignorance.
If that were true, they might accidentally do the right thing half the time.
Oh no, gentle readers. This administration knows exactly what it’s doing.
There is a border. The foreigners who cross that border into the United States know they have a good chance at being allowed to stay. If they do get sent back, they can just hang around near the border and enter again.
What we have is not an open border but a weaponized border. It’s weaponized against the American people.
The policy is government-managed importation and de facto legalization of several million border crossers.
It is not designed to serve the interests and security of American workers nor of American citizens in general.
What Biden and Co. want is a demographic and political transformation of the United States. They want to bring millions of foreigners here as rapidly as possible because they know it’s difficult to get them out.
That’s the policy. Should Americans allow it?
You can find more of Allan Wall's work at his website.