http://www.azstarnet.com/public/dnews/0906CV4.html
Monday, 6 September 1999
By Bronwyn Lance
If invoking ``patriotism'' is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then surely a modern
politician's last defense for bad legislation is that it helps combat terrorism.
Such deceit is currently being used to justify an obscure bit of immigration law
that will effectively close the borders between the United States and her neighbors.
In 1996, as part of its mammoth omnibus appropriations bill, Congress passed a law
that affected almost everything dealing with immigration, from asylum to visas. Deftly
inserted at the 11th hour, with no debate, was a provision known as Section 110.
This legislation compels the Immigration and Naturalization Service, part of the
Justice Department, to introduce an entry and exit control system ``for every alien
departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of
the alien's arrival in the United States.''
This system is mandated to be in place at all border crossings and seaports no later
than March 30, 2001. This provision, weaseled into a bill with no forethought, is
set to make crossing our borders a near impossibility.
On the surface, this new requirement might seem sensible. No thought was given, however,
to the concrete effects this law will have on American businesses. The new entry-exit
system will cause mind-boggling backups at the border for both persons and transport.
How excessive will these delays be? According to testimony at Senate hearings, even
with the best system in place, the delays will be such that our borders with Canada
and Mexico will, in effect, be shut down.
For example, the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, handles
about 30,000 vehicle crossings per day.
Assume that efficient entry-exit procedures are used and take only 30 seconds per
vehicle. Make another optimistic assumption: that only half of those are carrying
aliens who will have to endure the procedures.
This would mean 3,750 minutes of additional processing time each day. But as there
are only 1,440 minutes in a day, this system will result in the closing of an already
crowded border.
An analysis of the projected impact that a mere pilot program will have on the Thousand
Island Bridge between New York state and Ontario showed the delays could be as much
as two and a half days! The line of waiting vehicles would be more than 7 miles long.
Time is money. Entire industries that have operations on both sides of the border,
such as automobile manufacturing, will face increased costs from transport delays.
It is a safe bet these costs will be reflected in the sticker price of future American-made
cars.
The situation is no better on America's southern border. The Mexican border handles
600,000 vehicle crossings a day, including about 3.5 million trucks each year. The
delays at this border arguably will be worse than those in the north. Americans can
say goodbye to inexpensive produce in their supermarkets.
American states that rely on cross-border trade and tourism, and their counterparts
in Canada and Mexico, will be adversely affected.
Among the states, Michigan is Canada's largest trading partner, while New York is
the top destination for Canadian tourists.
About 2.75 million Canadians visit New York state for at least one night, spending
more than $400 million. If border inconveniences arise, those Canadians will undoubtedly
choose to spend their dollars elsewhere.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that this is an ill-conceived law, a few in Congress
still support it and have wrapped themselves in the mantle of anti-terrorism, claiming
that Section 110 will aid in that fight. But fraud and bad record keeping by the
INS ensure that such a system will be practically worthless as a law enforcement
tool.
Section 110 calls for providing information only on those who have overstayed their
visas but offers no assistance in identifying terrorists, drug traffickers or other
undesirables. Meanwhile, it will cause great headaches for the rest of us.
Before going forward with this titanic system, we should ensure we have done what
we can to make the current system work. (No feasibility studies were conducted before
this preposterous law was decreed.)
Time is running out. Congress will soon have to decide to scrap this law or appropriate
the money necessary to implement it by the beginning of 2001, as stipulated.
The Senate, led by Sen. Spencer Abraham, a Republican from Michigan, has already
taken steps toward its repeal. But will the House follow suit?
The Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded that this misguided law ``has absolutely
nothing to do with countering drug trafficking (or) . . . halting the entry of terrorists.''
Bronwyn Lance is a senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a public
policy think tank in Arlington, Va. This piece was prepared for Bridge News.
------------------------------------------------------------------------