Anthony Batista
Professor Black
ENGL 102
06-06-2012

On the Border
Is protecting our borders necessary? For the sake of argument, we can all agree some level of protection is necessary. A hasty generalization, perhaps, but let’s continue nonetheless. The real question becomes-- to what extent should we secure our borders? Here is where we reach a fork in the river. On one side, you have the conservative right-wing view, pushing to secure our borders at all costs. On the other side, is the liberal left-wing view, advocating for leniency when it comes to securing our borders. Let’s start with the conservative viewpoint.
In the article “At the Border, on the Night Watch”, Marc Lacey reports on decreased border crossings in the border town of Douglas, Arizona. For example, “no matter the dire rhetoric often heard in political circles, crossings at this stretch of border are nowhere near what they once were” (Lacey). This is a good example of a slippery slope fallacy appealing to the fear factor (i.e. claim that a certain way of thinking or acting will necessary lead to more of the same). Proponents for border patrol argue an increase in staffing serve as a deterrent to thwart border crossings and help to apprehend drug traffickers, which ignores the possibilities of lesser financial incentive due to a weaker U.S. economy for immigrants or perhaps, more attractive crossing routes elsewhere. Another argument of proponents is improved fencing. For example, “Douglas used to have a modest barrier right around the port of entry. Smugglers took drugs and migrants around the edges and just ran north, playing the odds. Over the years, the fences near Douglas grew in length and height” (Lacey). This could be construed as a hasty generalization (i.e. drawing a conclusion based on too little evidence). The author posits higher walls help to deter border crossings. Perhaps, immigrants no longer view the area as viable crossing route and have simply moved elsewhere. Lacey also talks about how fences are constructed. He says “with the United States trying various materials, among them recycled scrap metal from the military” (Lacey). One could make a case this is an example of a red herring fallacy focusing the attention on recycling, instead of border patrol (i.e. fallacy that deliberately attempts to change the subject). This could also be considered an argument for personal taste disguise appealing to advocates of recycling (ergo camouflaging an argument in an appeal to the audiences personal tastes and desires).
Another argument by proponents of border patrol is improved surveillance technology. Lacey talks about a smuggler caught by Douglas border patrol agents. He says “He did not know it, but he probably would have been caught no matter what he was wearing. He was picked up on an infrared tracking device installed in a Border Patrol vehicle” (Lacey). This could be considered an example of a hasty generalization (i.e. drawing a conclusion based on too little evidence). Another proponent for strengthening our border security is Edward Alden. In his article “Immigration and Border Control”, he talks about the reduction on border crossings. He writes “More difficult is determining how much of the reduction in attempted crossings is due to enforcement and how much is the result of a weak U.S. economy dropping the demand for immigrant workers. Still, the numbers suggest that enforcement is playing an important role. Since 2006, the number of apprehensions has fallen by more than half. This decline coincided with the manpower buildup during the Bush administration, and predated the effects of the 2008 recession. The number of attempted crossings has fallen each year. By comparison, the previous recessions the past 3 decades had virtually no effect on illegal entries” (Alden 113). This is another example of a hasty generalization fallacy. The objectivity disguise in both articles is very apparent. The opposition has no voice—they are silenced. Both articles exhibit propaganda in form of appealing to our human need for safety. Both effectively use the conflation of groups (Us versus Them) as well as the fallacy of hasty generalization. Spin is also apparent in Alden’s article, whereby he discounts the effects of the weaker American economy on the reduced crossings. Now, we move on to the other side of the argument.
Opponents of border control argue to lower the restrictions for immigrants to entry the U.S. They argue for legalizing immigration on the grounds that everyone should be given the same opportunity to make living in this country--a sort of quasi-homestead idealism. Over the years, a myriad of proposals have been bandied about. One such proposal is the concept of comprehensive immigration reform. Such a reform creates a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and establishes flexible limits on permanent and temporary immigration that respond to changes in labor demand in the future (Hinojosa-Ojeda 177). Ojeda also argues comprehensive immigration reform produces the greatest economic benefits when compared to a temporary work program and mass deportation (Ojeda 177). This type of fallacy is an example of non sequitur (i.e. skips or confuses logical steps). Because people who settle here are going to find jobs and boost our economy by spending here, instead of exporting U.S. dollars to their native countries. The article by Ojeda challenges the assertions in Lacey’s article that illegal immigrants do not create benefits for the U.S. Ojeda goes on to say “The current enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration is not cost-effective and has not served as a deterrent. On the contrary, such policies have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars while pushing unauthorized migration further underground (Ojeda 178). This is a good example of a slippery slope fallacy, whereby failed policies of the past will continue in the future.
Both sides believe strongly in their respective views. The Right believes in allocating whatever resources are necessary to secure our borders. The Left in is in favor of relaxing the restrictions for entering our country allowing immigrants an opportunity to contribute to our economy. Neither side wants to back down. In the end, one cannot ignore the fact the world has changed. In the beginning, when our country was in its infancy foreigners were encouraged to come here to stake their claim to help America grow per se. The idea of anyone wanting to do us harm never crossed our collective minds. That all changed after Pearl Harbor and more recently 9/11. What good is comprehensive immigration reform, if we can’t protect what we have? Sooner or later we all have to decide which side of the border is more important.

Work Cited
Alden, Edward. “Immigration and Border Control”: CATO Journal 32.1 (2012): 107-124. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 May 2012.
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raul. “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. CATO Journal 32.1 (2012): 175-199. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 May 2012.
Lacey, Marc. “At the Border, on the Night Watch”. The New York Times. 12 October 2011: n. pag. Web. 16 May 2012.