By Chris Ladd

Whenever any serious effort to modernize our immigration policy ramps up you hear the same objection – no immigration reform is possible until we secure the border.  It sounds reasonable enough, but in reality it amounts to saying, ‘we’re not going to call a plumber until the leak is fixed.’

A secure border does not look like the Korean DMZ.  If that border were secure it wouldn’t need millions of land mines and thousands of troops to protect it.  A secure border is a healthy one, where both sides cooperate on enforcement; where people and trade can move across it under a set of reasonable rules.  Our border with Mexico is dysfunctional.  Why?  Because of the billions of dollars we pump into two illegal activities – drug smuggling and illegal immigration.

As a country we are not ready to discuss a real solution to our drug problem, so no matter what we do about immigration the border is likely to remain troubled for the near term.  And in fact, much of crime that fostered the recent immigration legislation in Arizona can be traced to the drug war, not immigration.  But illegal immigration is a valid concern and stemming it could marginally improve conditions on the border.

So how could we fix the border?

Decide what kind of immigration policy we want.

For too long our debate on immigration has turned around two irrational poles.  On one end of the spectrum are those who think practically any immigration enforcement is inherently inhumane and work to undermine even the most reasonable efforts at security.  At the other pole are the Tancredo-ists in the Tea Party orbit with their paranoid hostility toward people who talk funny.  Neither of them should be taken seriously, but unfortunately each owns a powerful stake their respective parties.  They are wagging the dog.

In place of these ridiculous extremes we need to see a reasonable debate about what kind of immigration we want to accept.  That debate needs to include an understanding of the implications of each choice.  For example, if we are going to accept a fairly wide-open immigration policy like the Bush Administration tried to sponsor, what enforcement mechanisms are willing to live with?  Can we accept a national ID card?  Full citizenship checks with employment?  Criminal penalties for employers?

We must find a way to have this debate without being suckered by the cynical manipulators who will try to sell us on the various immigration reform equivalents of the “death panels.”

Move beyond scorched-earth politics.

This would have benefits across the board, but immigration policy could be an ideal place to start building it.  The far ends of both parties have held each side hostage on this issue for too long.  Immigration is one issue where there may be enough of a reasonable middle remaining on each side to find some consensus.  If we could build some common ground across the aisle on this one matter, it could perhaps be used to crack the frustrating power of the extremes in our wider political environment.

Start discussing the problems with drug prohibition.

Our policy on dangerous narcotics has been an off-limits subject since the late seventies.  We need to revisit the matter.  Full prohibition has been a disastrous failure, but all the alternatives are thorny.  We need to start exploring ways to satisfy the seemingly insatiable, multi-billion dollar demand for narcotics without ruining neighborhoods, burdening law enforcement, and destabilizing entire regions of the world.  We can start by recognizing a failure then move on to a serious search for a better approach.

Drones and helicopters and fences have their place, but a secure border has only a modest need for them.  Real security on the border will come from smarter policy in Washington.  A smarter Washington is waiting on us.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Chris Ladd is a moderate Republican who writes for the online publication Republicans United