It may not quite be the
French Open,
but James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation and I have been
discussing the pros and cons of the virtual fence in a series
of recent
blogs.
At least I thought that was what we were discussing. In his most
recent post, Carafano
doesn’t mention the virtual
fence once. Instead he takes a potshot at me for “condemning
the
United States.”
Here’s a good
rule of thumb for
policy debates: when your opponent can’t argue for the policy
in
question on its merits and tries to change the subject,
you’ve won
the argument.
Nevertheless, the ACLU is
never one to
shrink from a fight when it goes below the belt. There is little
debate out there about whether we are succeeding in securing the
border. The Border Patrol is certainly not to blame for this: As
Carafano describes
vividly and accurately, Congress has
repeatedly failed
to recognize the challenges dedicated Border Patrol agents face on
the ground and fund border security initiatives that will actually
make their jobs easier. The virtual fence is a perfect example of
this disconnect –a fat cash payout to Boeing Corp. for a
program
proven to be a miserable failure.
On human rights, we have a
long way to
go. In the 14 years since Operation
Gatekeeper pushed the bulk of border
crossing into the
harsh Arizona desert, more than 5,000 migrants have died from
exposure. That’s an intolerable
statistic for both the United States and Mexico. Again, this is not
the fault of the men and women who go to work on the border everyday
and approach their jobs with professionalism and compassion.
It’s
the underlying national policy, courtesy of Washington, that is
putting at risk the lives of migrants and Border Patrol agents alike.
In Carafano’s
world, criticizing a
failed Washington policy that endangers Border Patrol agents is
tantamount to “bad-mouthing the Border Patrol.” If
that sounds
like a bogus argument to you, that’s because it is. Carafano
still
fails to answer my original point: that the virtual fence is a fiasco
that not only threatens civil liberties, but is also indefensible
from the fiscal conservative philosophy that the Heritage Foundation
claims to promote. By questioning our patriotism, he is not
furthering an open, responsible discussion about policy –
he’s
trying to short-circuit
the discussion because he’s out of arguments.
The ACLU and the Heritage
Foundation
often disagree, and we like to engage them when we do because
they’re
known and respected for defending conservative principles with
passion and intellectual rigor. Needless to say, we’re
disappointed.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.