The Government remains shut down after President Donald Trump offered a plan over the weekend to provide temporary protection to some groups of immigrants if Democrats agree to fund the border wall. Democrats refused the offer and are calling on the President to re-open the government while they address issues of border security.
This, as hundreds of thousands of federal workers are facing a second pay period without receiving a paycheck. The political back and forth has taken the discussion clearly away from actual border strategy, so in an effort to get back to the issue, we reached out to Cipher Brief expert and former Chief, U.S. Border Patrol Mike Fisher to remember just what the threat is and what mitigation strategies have been effective in the past.
The Cipher Brief: Do you think the president's speech over the weekend was effective at convincing people who may be undecided on this issue? And is he doing a good job of framing up a reasonable proposal that might move this situation forward?
Fisher: What the President is proposing is very reminiscent of what was offered early in the administration with respect to providing what was once a democratic imperative, and that being the future of those that are in this country illegally to include the DACA population, to even expand that into the TPS individuals, that's the temporary protective status. And recognizing that it's not just all about securing the border, it's just that whole, dare I say - comprehensive - approach to immigration. Actually hiring more judges to adjudicate cases faster, which I think is in everybody's interest typically if you get outside of the political realm.
I think what he was offering again was reasonable, but from early indications, there is just an entrenchment within the other party to even accept any wall, whether because of immorality or because they don't believe they work or whatever it may be and I think until, and unless, both sides are realizing through either public opinion or something else, that they're not going to win this, I think that’s when we’ll finally see some compromise. It's unfortunate that the compromise sits at the expense of those who are protecting this country, and are doing so without a paycheck for an extended period of time unprecedented in our country. That's the real tragedy here.
The Cipher Brief: The last time we talked about this issue, you talked about the judges and the ability to get more cases through the system. You said that was an important issue that wasn’t getting enough attention and that’s noted, but right now, there are 115 miles of barrier, wall, fence, whatever you want to call it, under contract. And this proposal would add 230 miles. I've not seen a graphic that kind of lays that out with specific locations, but what are your thoughts on this strategy?
Fisher: A lot of the construction that's being done right now is replacement fence along the primary border with Mexico in between the ports of entry. You've probably seen it, the old corrugated steel landing mat that we first got from the U.S. military back in the early 90s, and we started building that east and west of the legitimate ports of entry. If you start in the very downtown congested areas, you really don't need to be a genius or a tree expert to figure out where the requirement is. If you look on a map, there are four populations along the southern border with Mexico that have the densest populations: San Diego, Tijuana, Nogales, Nogales Senora, El Paso Juarez and Brownsville and Matamoros in Mexico. If you Google density maps, you'll be able to see, those are the areas that need legitimate infrastructure. You need ports of entry, you need road egress and ingress. You need transportation hubs, bus stations, train stations, airports. That is the legitimate infrastructure used by smuggling organizations and people who are coming into this country illegally.
When you start working east and west of those legitimate ports of entry and those four locations and that 120 miles, 200, 300, whatever it ends up being, you'll be able to see that you're getting coverage in those areas, which is 90% of all the illegal activities happening within those areas. So the numbers seem rational. I mean we've never had, even when I was in the border patrol, a requirement for physical barrier beyond really 300 or 400 miles. Most of that was to replace, some of it was secondary fence. So, when you really look at the linear miles, some of that is because we need a secondary fence like we had in San Diego. But all that being said, they do work, it is effective. And the requirement for the border patrol has not changed.
So, the question really should be how do we define security? This was the holy grail that I was looking for and trying to help others come to a discussion about when I was Chief: how do you define border security? Forget about how we do it. How do you define it? And if the 2006 Secure Fence Act and the president's executive order, which is complete operational controls so nobody will ever, ever come into this country illegally, then we're in for a big disappointment. That's why I will always be focused on the non-enforcement approach, which is changing the calculus. And the judges are also very important, as we’ve talked about before. People are going to continue to come into this country illegally if they believe - whether it's real or perceived - but if they believe that the benefit exceeds the cost. And until that paradigm shifts, they're going to keep coming. The reason why they continue to come today is because we're not able to hold them, plain and simple. Which is why - if you can get additional judges to adjudicate them - and there are at least 800,000 backlogged cases, there's no way that we're going to be able to dig ourselves out of it.
It took us three decades to get where we are. It probably won’t take three decades to fix it if we’re smart about it. But it's about people being able to stay here. And in the end, if they spent their life savings of $10,000, $15,000, $30,000, on a smuggler only to cross the border and within 20 to 30 days be put right back on a plane home, they're going to stop coming. With or without walls. It doesn't really matter.
That needs to be the focus of this discussion, how do we adjudicate? And you've heard people talk about fixing the loopholes. I think it gets thrown out of the conversation because people really don't understand what the law is, let alone what the loopholes are. And once you start reducing that flow, there is a whole different discussion about what the requirements are to actually secure the border.
The Cipher Brief: Do you see signs that give you any optimism that we're moving the ball in the right direction?
Fisher: No. I had the opportunity last week, to talk with Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson. He’s looking for the way to solve and I just think people are too entrenched in whether we're going to have a wall or not, that trying to move the discussion in this political environment, although it would seem prudent to do so, feels fruitless, at least to a lot of folks.
I can imagine there is probably a group on the National Security Council or even within the administration and some on the committees with oversight and jurisdiction for DHS who are really trying to noodle on this. And I can only hope that some of the secretaries and Kevin McAleenan, the commissioner of CBP, some of their folks are actually giving them some of this insight as well. I don't know that because I haven't spoken with them recently.
But just from the public perception and what I'm reading and what I'm seeing, they won't get to that discussion until this whole issue of getting government workers back to work is settled. Then they can start to talk about what kind of wall they need. The president has been adamant, as you've seen in terms of what he's willing to compromise and negotiate. And I think the Democrats have been as resilient in their position to thwart that. So, until and unless something there breaks, I don't think there are any other discussions that will take precedent.
What's interesting for those who remember history, is that when the government has taken this approach on adjudication and holding people until a determination was made, it worked. I remember a case, I think it was in 2004 or 2005. We were seeing an increase and onslaught of entry by Brazilians. They were just coming in mass numbers in between the ports of entry and we just couldn't stop them.
At the time, under then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, is when we saw the original catch and release policy come into play. It was specifically for Brazilian nationals who were flowing across our borders and we didn't turn them over to detention to be released on their own recognizance. As soon as we changed that policy within the department, and we kept holding them and not releasing them until their cases were being heard or they had agreed to be removed voluntarily and we were flying them back to Brazil, within 30 to 45 days, no kidding, the Brazilians stopped coming.
And we didn't build a single fence. We didn't add any infrastructure. We didn't have to hire 5,000 border patrol agents. That's why I'm still adamant today that would work, because it has in the past.
The Cipher Brief: What would you say if you had the microphone and had an opportunity to weigh in and offer something that might break this log jam?
Fisher: One thing I would offer is to continue to listen to the real experts, the men and women who know this border and have identified the requirements, which basically stipulate that it's going to take a combination of things to get this done. So let me leave aside the policy considerations that we just talked about and talk a little bit about the enforcement piece, which is what everybody still wants to talk about.
There is a requirement for physical barriers, not to prevent everybody from coming across the border, but to buy back the tactical advantage of time, plain and simple. The thing is, if you can move these smuggling organizations from crossing the border and disappearing into the United States within seconds and send them out into more rural and remote areas where we have hours and days to be able to get that certainty of arrests, that is the end state, which I believe is what border security's all about.
It would be nice to prevent entry, but you do that through a level of deterrence. What changes the calculus is increasing the certainty of apprehension in that final prosecution so only those small numbers who have legitimate claims to remain and reside in the United States legally will be allowed to do so. The vast 98% of everybody else is going to be sent back.
And that's where the enforcement piece helps because then you can increase the probability that most people who do elect to enter the United States are detected. Then you can classify and identify those who pose specific threats beyond just the economic migrants, all the way through to potential terrorists. You can then track them and you can respond and resolve the situation within that operational continuum. That's where the law enforcement piece gets smarter. And with the advent of technology, we're able to do that at a much lower cost than we were two decades ago.
The Cipher Brief: Chief, thank you.
Read more from Mike Fisher here....
