Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Privatized Violence

By Zach Myers

The military “downsizing” which occurred at the end of the Cold War created a large supply of unemployed highly trained military personnel (Singer 2006, Pelton 2006). At the same time, increasing global instability created a demand for more troops. Unable to adequately address security issues with limited professional militaries, “many governments succumbed to an ideological trend toward privatization” (Singer, 2005). Professor P.W. Singer explains, “PMFs [Private Military Firms] have been essential to the U.S. effort in Iraq, helping Washington make up for its troop shortage and doing jobs that U.S. forces would prefer not to.”

Unfortunately, the negative consequences of these “private warriors” severely outweigh their largely illusory benefit. Outsourcing security to private companies can be justified as a way to save money, and to meet modern security demands – reducing the strain on traditional military in instable regions. However, in practice this justification is not enough to make privately owned and operated military force a good idea. The true utility to governments of private military companies is in fact the shroud of extra-legality which they operate under. Contractors don’t fit in the schema of traditional legal systems – they provide cover to government programs and allow governments plausible deniability when human-rights violations occur.

The first justification for contracting out military operations is that it saves money. However, outsourcing does not save money. Private military contractors cost the US government as much as $1200 a day (NY Times September 2007), this, according to Pelton, is due to the various layers of bureaucracy involved in financing a “security specialists”. On the other hand, a traditional soldier of the same pay grade costs approximately $100 to $250 a day (Pelton 2005). Because pay is so lucrative, military personnel are leaving their positions in order to go work for private enterprises (Singer, 2005). This drastically increases recruiting and training costs for the traditional military and seriously undermines their effectiveness. Elite soldiers, which cost millions to train, are being drained from traditional military units and are getting paid three times as much to work for private security firms. P.W. Singer, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, says,Elite force commanders in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all expressed deep concern over the poaching of their numbers by PMFS” (2005). Pelton acknowledges that post-service costs, including veteran’s benefits and compensation for families of those killed in action, are higher for a traditional soldier then for a private contractor; however, these costs are justified. A soldier needs to be willing to risk their lives in order to successfully complete their objectives – their effectiveness at seeing a mission through to the end is undermined if they cannot ensure that they’re family will be taken care of if they were to die. However the huge extra costs due to corporate profit mongering is simply unwarranted.

The capitalist ideal behind privatization is that by allowing private companies to bid for military expenditures the forces of competition would drive down the cost while simultaneously increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of providing security in unstable countries. However, US companies such as Blackwater and Halliburton were quickly able to use the political system to gain “no-bid” contracts (Pelton 2006). According to Pelton, Blackwater took advantage of a provision which allowed the Department of Defense to eliminate all the competitive bidding requirements when giving away state dollars, so long as they could demonstrate that the contract was “Urgent and Compelling” (2006). Since Pelton’s book Blackwater has milked this exception to the utmost. According to the New York Times, “Ranking Blackwater executives have used inside influence as administration fund-raisers to multiply their no-bid war contracts a thousandfold to more than $1 billion” (March 2008). Without competition private security firms operate wildly inefficiently and ultimately become more expensive then traditional military, because they have an incentive to cheat and steal and fudge records in order to exaggerate their costs in order to make a more private profit at the expense of tax payers. “Halliburton--Vice President Dick Cheney's previous employer--has been accused of a number of abuses in Iraq, ranging from overcharging for gasoline to billing for services not rendered; the disputed charges now total $1.8 billion” (Singer 2005). Likewise,A separate review by the Defense Contracting Audit Agency found that DynCorp had billed for $162,869 of labor hours for which it did not pay its workers'” (NY Times October 2007).

Private Contractors may temporarily fulfill limited security demands, but they cannot provide long-term stability and peace, and ultimately only get in the way of this end. While the trend towards military privatization is a natural product of supply and demand, let us not pretend that it is desirable. Diffusing military power into the hands of private companies does not lend to stability. The power of capitalism and market systems is that they are dynamic. Governmental monopolies, on the other hand, are stable, some may say stagnant; however, removing governments’ monopoly on military force incurrs huge amounts of unpredictability and instability. For example, Anna Leander from the Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark says, Many of the 80 military contractors arrested in March 2004 for their plans to overthrow the government in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, were former EO employees” (2005). In Africa private military companies have created a sustained market for their services furthering forces of violence and instability. “EO was officially closed down in 1998, but its network seems to be outliving it well enough” (Leander 2005). Profit incentives motivate private military firms to do business with anyone, no matter their politics. Furthermore, there seems to be no profit disincentive to helping unsavory or illegal groups: “DynCorp International FZ-LLC, for example, does not seem to have fallen out of favor with the US government, despite its alleged work for and dealings with rightwing paramilitaries in Colombia” (Leander 2005).

Robert Pelton describes a similar case. Sandline, a US PMF operated by Jeff Spicer, “managed to deftly violate an international arms embargo to ship weapons in to a group that intended to overthrow a government… in Papua New Guinea.” This eventually “led to riots and the abrupt downfall of Prime Minister Julius Chan” (Pelton 2006). EO supervisor, Jeff Spicer, continues to score government contracts despite EO’s extra-legal operation in Papua New Guinea, and his partner’s direct participation in a coup in Equatorial New Guinea. “No one, not even Spicer, has been able to explain how his fledgling company won the largest single-security contract ever rewarded in Iraq” (Pelton, 2006). Prior to its demise, EO operated heavily in resource rich Africa. They even had “a public website that offered a full menu of military services, showcasing images of tanks, jet aircraft, and combat operations in a manner that made selling violence as innocuous as pest removal or extermination… When the Angola operation wound down, EO already had another contract lined up… Sierra Leone” (Pelton 2006). Mass marketing of these services has become a reality and has already been shown to have moderate success.

Proliferation of private military services is particularly bad for the stability of the African region (Musah 2002). “In resource-rich African states, that capacity – including through the selling of future war booty – is bound to remain large” (Leander 2005). In Robert Young Pelton’s interviews he also finds evidence that contractors will not shy away from exploiting African resources, as EO did in Sierra Leone (Pelton, 2005). An explosion of privately funded armies threatens to further destabilize African regimes and/or exploit Africa’s resource driven economies. “In weak African states, where the legitimacy of existing public orders is weak, there is good reason to think that [PMFs] will be used to contest those orders and establish new ones. The result is likely to be more violence” (Leander 2005). “Moreover,” according to Professor Leander, “as the number of firms in search of clients expands, the threshold for clients falls,” meaning as time goes on and firms are pressed to find more business they will become more willing to accept contracts from nastier parties and be less concerned with international law.

According to P.F. Singer governments have become incredibly reliant on private contractors (2005). Furthermore, the US military’s reliance on private military has undermined their control of the situation in Iraq and makes counter-insurgency much more difficult for traditional military forces:

“Unlike military units, PMFS retain a choice over which contracts to take and can abandon or suspend operations for any reason, including if they become too dangerous or unprofitable; their employees, unlike soldiers, can always choose to walk off the job. Such freedom can leave the military in the lurch, as has occurred several times already in Iraq: during periods of intense violence, numerous private firms delayed, suspended, or ended their operations, placing great stress on U.S. troops.” (Singer 2005)

While in Iraq, Robert Young Pelton reported on just such an incidence. “Blackwater,” according to Pelton, “has a policy of using overwhelming firepower to break contact, as do most security teams operating in Iraq.” Contractors are basically being trained to make a big mess and then to leave as quickly as possible. In one instance Pelton reports, two marines were killed by a “booby-trap” left on an insurgent’s body when cleaning-up a mess left by Blackwater. Private military contractors are a liability that often trip up the operations of traditional military forces, they are not there to create stability and safety but only to accomplish limited security goals – this focus on profit and self-preservation without concern for the overall security situation makes private contractors a huge liability for traditional forces.

Another problem with PMFs is there is no legal mechanism in existence to try private contractors for crimes they might commit through excess use of force. Pelton says that “at the date of [his] writing in early 2006, no private security contractors [had] yet suffered legal consequences for causing collateral damage in Iraq.” Private contractors operate in a legal gray area which makes it difficult to hold individuals accountable for their actions. William H. Cohn is a lawyer and lecturer at the University of New York in Prague. He writes that “the September 16, 2007 killings of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad by private security guards of the US govt. provides a useful case study of the pitfalls of outsourcing traditional military and other governmental functions.” The FBI investigation into this incident revealed “criminal” behavior on the part of the Blackwater employees with “no enemy activity involved.” Yet the Department of Defense continued to fund Blackwater and even granted the Blackwater employees immunity from prosecution under US law (Cohn 2007). Furthermore, “Blackwater continues to receive lucrative government contracts and the State Dept. reportedly gave bonuses for ‘outstanding performance’ to officials with direct oversight of Blackwater” (Cohn 2007). Since the Coalition Provisional Authority installed in Baghdad following the US invasion of Iraq decreed that “US forces and agents are immune from Iraqi prosecution,” the Blackwater contractors are left to operate with impunity. They aren’t under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts, nor are they subject to US law. This amounts to the US government giving private military contractors a “license to kill” (Pelton 2005).

With this license private contractors can erode the rule of law. Pelton reports that “Security contractors in Iraq have told [him] that many of them refuse to stop for the Iraqi police or military under any circumstance, since there have been so many incidents of insurgents using stolen uniforms or of infiltrators exploiting their official position to create the conditions for an attack.” Regardless of their justifications the fact is that private military contractors operate outside established legal systems and therefore have no respect for the rule of law. “Blackwater was involved in 195 instances of gunfire from 2005 until early September... In 163 of those cases, Blackwater gunmen fired first” (Cohn 2007). Private contractors create a sort of Wild Wild West in occupied territories, where one must kill or be killed. This mentality only makes it easy for terrorist and insurgents to make the case against Western imperialism. Also eroding the rule of law makes it easy for insurgents to operate. Thus private contractors ripen a country for instability and insurgency.

Private Military Contractors do not increase stability. Governments do however find them useful in getting around international law and continue to use them despite human rights violations because they, the government, can maintain plausible deniability (Roseman 2005). Governments can tacitly support extra-legal activity by rehiring contractors while still being able to publicly condemn them. Jeff Spicer scoring the biggest private security contract in Iraq after his professional disaster in Papua New Guinea is an example of this behavior on the part of government. Alarming evidence that governments are tacitly consenting to human rights violations can also be found in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. “The systematic and illegal abuse of detainees and the numerous instances of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib prison between October and December 2003 were sought by interrogators employed by private corporations, such as CACI International Inc” (Roseman 2005). These privately contracted guards “were the same interrogators used by the U.S. army and intelligence in Guantanamo Bay.” Torture got shut-down at GTMO, so to get around the restrictions the government seems to have simply outsourced torture to private contractors, who then simply rehired the interrogators from GTMO and restarted the illegal operations which occurred there. Even if this was an unintentional consequence (companies have to draw their employees from somewhere), it still reveals how in the legally shady realm of private military firms, individuals can be insulated from the standard repercussions for human rights violations.

Robert Young Pelton writes, “I have met former Apartheid era enforcers, dictators’ bodyguards, bounty hunters, and mercenaries working as contractors for large Western security companies.” Idema, the jingoistic US civilian who was able to operate an Afghani torture camp under the guise of a private military contractor also aptly illustrates how the quasi-legal status of private contractors allows otherwise horrible atrocities to go unnoticed and unpunished for long periods of time (Pelton 2005).Idema has proven that an ambitious civilian… can soldier on independently of any government oversight, command, external financial support, or approval” (Pelton 2005).

On the whole the Costs of using private military companies severely outweigh any apparent Benefits. Not only is privatizing military functions more expensive, it is also counter-productive to the goals of safety and security abroad. The US and other nations should be extremely careful when contracting out their vital interests to corporations driven not by security and safety but by profit; especially, when these companies are able to operate outside the control and jurisdiction of law.

Works Cited

Carmola, Kateri. "It's All Contracts Now: Private Military Firms and a Clash of Legal Culture." Brown Journal of World Affairs (2006). Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 13 Apr. 2008.

Cohn, William. "Government Inc. : the Rise of the Unaccountable Government Contractor." THE NEW PRESENCE (2008). Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 6 Apr. 2008.

Leander, Anna. "The Market for Force and Public Security: the Destabilizing Consequences of Private Military Companies*." Journal of Peace Research (2005). Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 13 Apr. 2008.

Musah, Abdul F. "Privatization of Security, Arms Proliferation and the VProcess of State Collapse in Africa." Development and Change (2002). Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 13 Apr. 2008.

Pelton, Robert Y. Licensed to Kill. New York: Three Rivers P, 2006.

Risen, James, and David Johnston. "Justice Department Briefed Congress on Legal Obstacles in Blackwater Case." The New York Times 16 Jan. 2008. Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 13 Apr. 2008.

Roseman, Nils. "Privatized War and Corporate Impunity." Peace Review: a Journal of Social Justice (2005). Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 10 Apr. 2008.

Shmitt, Eric, and David Rohde. "2 Reports Assail State Dept. Role in Iraq Security." The New York Times 23 Oct. 2007. Academic Search Premier. 13 Apr. 2008.

Singer, P W. "Outsourcing War." Foreign Affairs (2005). Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 13 Apr. 2008 .

"The Private Sector's Tramping in Iraq." The New York Times 24 Mar. 2008. Academic Search Premier. USU Library. 13 Apr. 2008.

Bush Got One Right!?

I wrote this in Spring 2007. I still think Bush was on the right track for Immigration Reform, even if his rhetoric did suck sometimes.

Bush Got One Right!?

The Plan

I stand in firm affirmation of USU Bill 21: The Fair and Secure Immigration Act based on President Bush’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposal. Said proposal, which I will refer to from now on as Comprehensive Immigration Reform would change US policy in the following ways:

(1) Currently border security, as provided by The Immigration and Nationality Act is woefully inadequate; this measure would update border patrol technology and increase funding by $327 million. (Office of the Press Secretary 2006) (D’agistino 2002) (Krikorian 2008) (Bush 2006).

(2) Repeal of ‘catch-and-release,’ policy where “four-fifths of non-Mexican illegals, when caught, are released pending an appearance before a judge.” (Economist 2005)

(3) This proposal creates a much more expansive Guest Worker program allowing significantly more foreign laborers into the country each year on a temporary basis (Office of the Press Secretary 2006) (Greenblat 2008).

(4) Currently, employers have very little obligation under the law to determine the legal status of their employees. This proposal institutes a system designed to include employers in the process of preventing illegal immigration by expanding “‘basic pilot’ - an electronic employment verification system and mandat[ing] that all employers use this system to …confirm work eligibility for all prospective employees” (Office of the Press Secretary 2006).

(5) In 1986 the US Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) granting blanket amnesty to the approximately 2.7 million illegal aliens then living in the United States (Numbers USA 2007). This plan creates a similar “Path to citizenship” allowing illegal immigrants currently living in the US to obtain citizenship, bringing them under the “reach and protection of [US] Law” (Office of the Press Secretary 2006).

The Status Quo

Border enforcement in the US is laughably inadequate; each year nearly a million people enter the country illegally (D’agostino 2002). Furthermore, despite granting a woefully small number of visas each year, the US still cannot secure its borders against dangerous traffic in-and-out of the country. While the American Dream is squashed for honest, hard-working emigrants with aspirations of citizenship, the door is left wide open for terrorists to enter the United States (Malkin 2006). Also, the lack of effective border enforcement encourages over-zealous vigilantes in Texas and Arizona to take matters into their own hands (Gallegos 2004). The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates that there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants living in the US (Knickerbocker 2006). Immigrants risk their lives for the chance at a labor-intensive job with relatively meager wages (Economist 2005), but once in the States, they are forced to “live in the shadows of our society” (Bush 2007). They are denied equal rights and protection of the law. Furthermore, refugees including 10,000 Haitians fleeing from chaos and destruction, now face the threat of deportation without even hope of appeal for citizenship (Bragg 2000). Finally, without safe immigration, our economy suffers. US American businesses suffer. For instance, without foreign laborers to harvest it, perfectly good fruit is left to rot in Washington orchards (Greenblat 2008).

The Problems are many - The Solution is Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The terror attacks of Sept. 11 are widely blamed on the failure of American intelligence to detect and apprehend potential terrorists entering the country.” According Texas Governor Rick Perry's security overview, “Al-Qaeda leadership plans to use criminal alien smuggling organizations to bring terrorist operatives across the border into the U.S" (National Catholic Report 2006). Border security is critical to protecting US Americans from another terrorist attack. However, despite the lessons of September eleventh, illegal border crossings are currently at an all time high (Economist 2005). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Border Patrol are incapable preventing a terrorist threat because they are hampered by bad policy and lack of funding (D’agostino 2002). Policy reform and increased funding are necessary to secure our border against incursion from a foreign threat.

Furthermore, the failure of the DHS to secure the border has undermined the semblance of law and order on the border lands. Vigilante organizations, such “the Minutemen” of Texas, have become very popular due to the permeability of the US border. Vigilante justice was responsible for six shootings in 2006. Two people were killed. All six were shot in the back while attempting to run away (Gallegos 2006). Vigilante justice does not respect the rights of people as well as established and codified governmental rules do. Therefore, the Rule of Law must be reestablished, replacing vigilante justice with proper governmental procedures. Gabriella Gallegos of Berkley School of Law writes that “the failure of U.S. authorities to meaningfully work against these instances of brutality reinforces the national vision of who matters and who is expendable. In this way the dehumanization of Mexicans implicitly supported by the U.S. government affects all border peoples.” Without rule of law the distinction between legal and illegal emigrants becomes fuzzy. This results in the dehumanization of all emigrants. Thus the stigma of illegality reduces all Hispanic Americans to “bare life” or “homo sacer”: they exist outside society and so can be killed with impunity (Wikipedia.org Agamben). Simply ignoring the problem of illegal immigration does not help immigrants. Inadequate enforcement of immigration law merely solidifies racist attitudes.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform plan will secure our borders and reestablish the rule of law. The funding provided by this legislation will drastically increase the number and effectiveness of border patrol agents and provide them with new technologies which are devastatingly effective at preventing border incursions (Bush 2006). Using these technologies border patrol officers report that captured migrants sometimes have no idea how they were spotted:

“Carmen Vasquez […] says she was tip-toeing through the mountains with her family after dark when she was suddenly surrounded by Border Patrol agents on roaring quad bikes. Agent Hawkins explains… that she was seen through an infra-red camera on a distant hilltop. ‘Don't let anyone tell you we can't control our borders,’ says Mr Nicely, ‘We just need more resources.’” (Economist 2005)

Along with high-tech gadgets for securing the border, fences, including miles of infra-red ‘virtual fence’, are critical to Border Patrol effectiveness. Empirical evidence proves fencing works. In San Diego, building of fences along the border has caused “illegal crossings [to] plummet” (Krikorian 2008). We don’t need an anachronistic 8,000 mile “wall” along our border when plain, unobtrusive, even invisible “virtual” fences will do the same thing for less, without the risk of estranging the Mexican government.

The plan further solves the problem of illegality by bringing the actions of employers under the arm of the law to prevent illegal hiring practices (Bush 2006). Currently employers can easily side-step labor laws. “In the most extreme cases, some employers tell unauthorized applicants they must get fake documents to be hired” (Brownell 2005). By enforcing labor laws these reforms will protect illegal immigrants from unfair labor practices and will help diffuse the stigma of illegality placed on Hispanic Americans by also prosecuting the employers who are involved in illegal practices (illegalemployers.org). Finally, the major reason immigrants enter this country is to find work. If employers no longer hire illegal immigrants, then immigrants will no longer have a reason to entry the country illegally. The effectiveness of this principle has been recently demonstrated In Yuma, Arizona: prosecutors increased prosecutions of illegal employers and employees, and raised the penalty of hiring illegal immigrants as a deterrent to illegal immigration. During these months “the number of immigrants caught crossing illegally dropped 70 percent” (NY Times 2008).

For non-Mexican immigrants, the current Homeland Security policy of “catch-and-release” creates a “get out of jail free card” which severely hampers the effectiveness of border enforcement (Bush 2007). All non-Mexican immigrants are released after setting-up a date to return to court. However, only 75% of these immigrants have ever returned (Economist 2005). Currently this system has allowed over 1,000 illegal immigrants, from countries known to be enemies of the United States, to escape the reach of the Justice Department (D’agostino 2002). This represents a huge security problem. Comprehensive Immigration Reform provides funding for DHS officials to build and maintain facilities for detaining illegal immigrants to ensure that they receive proper legal proceedings (Bush 2006). Ending the policy of “catch-and-release” ensures that potentially dangerous people entering the US will go through proper clearance procedures before being allowed free-reign in the States (D’agostino 2002).

Many immigrants merely want a chance to work hard and make a living in a land of prosperity. Policies should reward this behavior and create incentives for immigrants to go use the proper legal channels when entering the United States (nclr.org). In an interview for American Enterprise, Michelle Malkin, a daughter of immigrants and conservative book author and newspaper columnist said, “rather than just bringing down the overall level of legal immigration we should target bad provisions that let terrorists and others slip in, so that the people who really do want to come here and achieve the American dream …are still able to get through” (2005). Badly organized policy basically rubber-stamped the 15 hijackers who instituted the September the eleventh attacks, through immigration, but makes it virtually impossible for a humble migrant worker from a small village in Puerto Rico to get a visa into the United States (Malkin 2006). According to Tamar Jacoby of the conservative Manhattan Institute “A Mexican without family in the US who wants to do something other than farm work has virtually no legal way to enter the country” (Economist 2005). US policy severely over-limits visas to unskilled Hispanic workers, while at the same time handing out visas randomly like “Pez candies to certain underrepresented minorities” (Malkin 2006). With no way to come into the country legally, most would-be immigrants are forced underground (Greenblat 2008). Comprehensive Immigration Reform rectifies this flaw in US policy by providing 800,000 temporary work permits “that can, with good behaviour, lead to citizenship within 3 to 5 years” (Greenblat 2008, Economist 2005). The plan simultaneously fixes leaks in border security while increasing the amount of immigrants, particularly unskilled workers, allowed into the country.

10,000 Haitians have narrowly escaped a violent insurrection only to now face deportation at the hands of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. One woman referred to deportation as a return to “her worst nightmare.” Nearly 3,000 of these Haitians have one or more children who were born in the United States. US policy destroys families. Parents feel obligated to leave their children behind, in the safety of the US, when they are forced to return to violent or poverty-stricken homelands (NY Times 2000). Amnesty is needed for Haitians and all other refugees to the US, but pushing amnesty through Congress is often difficult to impossible and always time-consuming (NY Times 2000). Comprehensive Immigration Reform has the potential to help refugees who are otherwise left helpless when facing deportation. The plan includes a “path to citizenship” which awards visas using a merit based points system which takes into consideration many factors: whether or not a person has children, their work record, etc. (de Leon). The path to citizenship provides a procedure for refugees – as well as other established, hard working members of the community – to apply for citizenship and allows them a chance to remain with their children in the United States.

Currently Guest Worker programs are too limited to provide the labor force necessary to fulfill the needs of US businesses. Guest worker programs cover only 2% of farm workers in the US; thus, growers are forced to “turn to the black market for undocumented workers” (Greenblatt 2008). Local businesses in the United States favor granting temporary visas to workers. Without the creation of these visas any attempts to tighten border security in the US would cause major labor shortages which could hurt the US economy by raising the cost of food (Greenblatt 2008, CIS 1996). Growers have already, experienced harmful labor shortages as result of increased border security and regulation of employers: “Some growers in the Northwest… let cherries and apples rot because of a shortage of workers, and in some in North Carolina didn’t plant cucumbers because of they feared they wouldn't be able to find the workers to harvest them” (Greenblatt 2008). The practical beauty of Comprehensive Labor Reform is that it provides increased border security while, at the same time, allowing migrant workers temporary visas so they can continue to work for local businesses in the US; thereby, preventing any harms to the US economy, caused by labor shortages, which tightened immigration standards might otherwise produce.

For the record, the “path to citizenship” is not amnesty. Amnesty forgives immigrants for breaking the law; the “path to citizenship,” on the other hand, requires illegal immigrants to pay a fine for breaking the law and to pay all back-taxes as part of the process of becoming a citizen (Bush 2006). Mass deportations of the millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the US is unfeasible, only 13% of Republicans support deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants (Economist 2005). On the other hand, while granting blanket Amnesty in 1986 brought illegal immigrants into the US legal system; it failed to stem the situation of illegality because it created incentive for immigrants to enter the States illegally (Camarota 2000). Something new must be done in order to bring the 12 million illegal immigrants back into legal system. The “path to citizenship,” is the solution. It not only provides a way for illegal immigrants to integrate themselves into US society, but also creates an incentive to not enter the country illegally punishing those who do with a fine and reparation of backed taxes. This will encourage prospective immigrants, to use the proper legal channels before attempting to cross into the United States illegally – reducing illegal border-hopping (Greenblat 2008).

Finally, by assimilating the extra-legal influx of people into the US legal system, US officials will be better able to regulate movement across the border (Bush 2006). The more people that enter the US legally the better, because surveillance and monitoring are easier when government officials have a legal framework which they can use to keep track of who is coming into the country and who is leaving it. Thus, counter-intuitive to some, this proposal would actually increase US security by allowing more people into the country.

President Bush’s proposed immigration reform is a solution with broad bi-partisan appeal, offering a real chance for members of both parties to unite in order to fix the United States sprawling immigration problem. Senator Kennedy says about Comprehensive Immigration Reform, "the plan isn't perfect, but only a bipartisan bill will become law" (Greenblat 2008). Voting for these reforms, in their entirety - not piecemeal, demonstrates that you brave, young policy-makers are willing to put ideology aside and support realistic solutions, which operate within the constraints of the political landscape, to the very real problems facing this nation. Many of you may be surprised, as was the reporter in the Economist, that “George Bush has promoted a sensible immigration plan!” (2005) But, since he has, Let’s Run With It!

Works Cited

Bragg, Rick. "Haitian Immigrants in U.S. Face a Wrenching Choice." NY Times 29 Mar. 2000. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Brownell, Peter. The Declining Enforcement of Employer Sanctions. University of California, Berkeley. Berkely: Migration Information Source, 2005. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Bush, George W. USA. Office of the Press Secretary. The Oval Office. President Bush Addresses the Nation on Immigration Reform. 15 May 2006. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Camarota, Steven. New INS Report: 1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal Immigration. Center for Emigration Studies. 2003. 5 Mar. 2008 .

"Come Hither." The Economist. Academic Search Premier. 5 Mar. 2008 .

D'agostino, Joseph A. "PUT U.S. TROOPS ON U.S. BORDERS." Human Events 21 June 2002. Academic Search Premier. 5 Mar. 2008 .

De Leon, Kevin. "Just and Pragmatic Immigration Reform Must Include a Path to Citizenship." California Progress Report 27 Mar. 2007. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Dinan, Stephen. "McCain Supports Bush’S Fair and Secure Immigration Reform in the Senate." Washington Times 27 Feb. 2008. Newspaper Source. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Elliot, Michael. "What the World Needs Now." Time Canada 26 Jan. 2004. Business Source Premier. 5 Mar. 2008.

Gallegos, Gabriella A. "Border Matters: Redefining the National Interest in U.S.-Mexico Immigration and Trade Policy." Califomia Law Review (2004). Academic Search Premier. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Gertz, Bill. "Hasty Iraq Pullout Seen as High Risk." The Washington Times 29 July 2007. Lexis-Nexis. USU. 26 Feb. 2008.

Glick, Caroline B. "Where America and Iraq Converge." The Jerusalem Post 12 Sept. 2007. Lexis-Nexis. USU. 26 Feb. 2008.

Gordon, Michael R. "Petraeus Sees Bigger Role in Protecting Iraqi Civilians." The New York Times 10 Sept. 2007. 27 Feb. 2008 .

Greenblatt, Alan. "Immigration Debate." CQ Reasearcher (2008). 5 Mar. 2008 .

"Illegal Employers.Org." 5 Mar. 2008 .

Jiminez, Flaudia. "TALKING POINTS ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION." National Council of La Raza. 31 Mar. 2006. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Kingsbury, Kathleen. "Immigration: No Correlation with Crime." Time in Partnership with CNN 27 Feb. 2008. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Knickerbocker, Brad. "Illegal Immigrants in the US: How Many are There?" Christian Science Monitor 16 Mar. 2006. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Knowlton, Brian. "Bush Warns U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq Would Destabilize Mideast." New York Times 28 Aug. 2007. 26 Feb. 2008 .

Krikorian, Mark. "Immigration Debate." CQ Researcher (2008). 5 Mar. 2008 .

Malkin, Michelle. "Michelle Malkin Interview." American Enterprise (2005). .

Mary, Jo Mcconahay. "- on the Texas Border, Every Would-Be Crosser is a Terror Threat." Catholic Reporter 17 Nov. 2006. Academic Search Premier. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Persaud, Felicia. "CARIRBBEAN UPDATE 2005." New York Amsterdam News 4 Sept. 2005. Academic Search Premier. 5 Mar. 2008.

Preston, Julia. "New Tactics to Control Immigration are Unveiled." New York Times 23 Feb. 2008. 5 Mar. 2008 .

Rieffel, Lex. "REACHING OUT: AMERICANS SERVING OVERSEAS." The Brookings Institution (2005). 4 Mar. 2008 .

"U.S. Amnesties for Illegal Aliens." Numbers USA. 2007. 5 Mar. 2008 .