What is your principal focus, illegal immigration or combating drug trafficking?This last part is simply ridiculous. First of all, replacing the war metaphor with a battle metaphor is hilarious. Quite the paradigm shift. Second, US "education" about drug use promoted the idea that smoking a joint is analogous to frying your brain like an egg on a skillet, among other gems of hysteria. Actually improving education on drugs would likely lead us to the conclusion that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, and should have been legal yesterday. I also think his point that Zedillo, et al are ex-presidents cuts both ways, and in fact cuts more deeply against his argument. Yes, they aren't responsible for the well being of their nations anymore, but they are three men who clearly care about their public reputations. It's not like they are spouting nonsense simply because they can now that they are no longer in office. Furthermore, the fact that they only make such declarations when out of office isn't a product of post-official irresponsibility, but rather is due to the grossly distorting lens of the present political context.
I cover the complete range of border issues that worry us. But in the short-term focus, owing to present problems, is on the drug-trafficking organizations and violence that they generate in northern Mexico. For now, drug trafficking is a central point, but my jurisdiction, if you can call it that, covers the enforcement of laws on all of the issues that worry us, such as illegal immigration and the movement of arms and cash from the US to Mexico.
[Break]
What is the difference between what you are doing now and what you did during your first experience as "border czar"?
In my first turn as the special representative of border affairs, I was part of the Justice Department and I represented the attorney general. Now, I'm part of the Department of Homeland Security. The difference isn't so much in the position I hold, but rather in authority attributed to the position that 13 years ago didn't exist [the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003].
In those days your central role was in combating illegal immigration, with the controversial Operation Guardian, not the fight against drug trafficking.
Yes, I was the prosecutor in California responsible for corrdinating with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the effort to retake control of the border from the hands of illegal immigrants. But even then, I worked with the Departments of Justice and the Treasury, the DEA, the FBI and Customs in dismantling drug cartels linked to the Arellano Félixes in Tijuana. Yes, combating illegal immigration was the issue that most worried us, in the same way today with drug trafficking.
Is that change due to the fact that today immigration doesn't represent the grave problem that it did in the 1990s?
It's due to a combination of two things. This government is worried about illegal immigration and it wants to ensure that there are firm measures in place to enforce the laws on the border, in workplaces, and in the interior of the country where foreign criminals operate. This administration is determined to eventually seek, as the president has said, the passage of an integral immigration reform program. But the president also understands that for it to be effective and accepted by the people of the United States, immigration reform must be based on a firm plan to enforce the law; a plan that shows that we have control of the borders, that doesn't permit the employment of illegal workers, and that identifies and deports the foreign and illegal criminals that commit crimes in our society. They are critical aspects in any attempt to reform our immigration laws. The president has been very clear on this respect and even more so Secretary Napolitano.
There is new information that indicates that illegal immigration is dropping. In one year, between August 2007 and 2008, it declined by 25 percent due to the lack of jobs because of the recession. There has also been a reduction in arrests by the Border Patrol. Are you optimistic?
Yes, in effect, the arrests have fallen a great deal, but also the attempts to cross the border because of the economic downturn. People come when there are jobs available and try not to come if the labor market isn't welcoming. The two phenomena, the recession and greater border control, have contributed to the drop that you mention. For us it represents an opportunity to strengthen ongoing law enforcement actions and to talk clearly with our Mexican neighbors about what is needed to created a legitimate job market between the US and Mexico. We have a labor market, but it operates in the shadows. It's an illegitimate market. The majority of the workers that have come from Mexico have crossed the border illegally and have been employed illegally. That has to end.
Is the drop in immigration temporary and will it increase once the economy begins to grow and with the demand for labor?
That has been the historic pattern and it would surprise me a great deal if this tendency didn't hold true. The difference is that the border situation, in the workplaces, and in American society will be significantly different if we put into practice law enforcement priorities, with the energy and determination that Secretary Napolitano has asked.
[Break]
Does there exist a contingency plan, should it be needed, to use the National Guard on the border?
The decision to deploy the National Guard on the border will be made by the president, with the advice of Secretary Napolitano. I can't make a judgment beforehand. If the decision is made, there will be funds in the budget to execute it. It remains to be seen if the decision will be made or not.
Would it be in response to an unprecedented eruption of violence on the border?
The violence that has cost the lives of 10,000 people in Mexico in the last four years is a matter of great concern. It was the issue under discussion by Presidents Obama and Calderón and the purpose of trips to Mexico of Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The instruction that we have received from the Department of Homeland Security is to do everything possible to guarantee the security of border communities on our side. Contingency plans do exist. Therefore, should a threat against the security of our border present itself, we will be able to confront it.
[Break]
What do you think of the declaration of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, in which former presidents Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), Fernando Enrique Cardoso (Brazil), and César Gaviria (Colombia) call for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and to create a new paradigm in the combat against drugs?
I respectfully disagree with their points of view and with all due respect point out that it's from three ex-presidents, that don't have the responsibility of confronting the problem. There is a lot we can do to improve the cooperation between the US and Mexico before throwing in the towel and saying that the repressive regime is not a viable option. I don't think that we have arrived to at that point or that we are close. There is a very deep moral aspect that can't be eliminated with a magic wand or simply by saying "Let's legalize drugs".
[Break]
We have to stop seeing it as a war and begin to see it as an ongoing battle in which we need to improve our performance in educating people about the risk of consuming drugs.
Lastly, no one is saying "Let's legalize drugs" on a teenage whim. People who think it should be considered are motivated by a costly, decades-long failure of government policy. If Bersin thinks we haven't yet arrived at the point where we can consider legalization, when could we possibly do so?
No comments:
Post a Comment