Counting Border Policy Perceptions

I ran into an opportunity to participate in modern science today that may be of interest to those who live near the border. A psychology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham is conducting an internet survey (not very long) about our perceptions of border security policies. It’s a funny survey (as surveys almost invariably are. If only one could have a little conversation with the instrument designer to determine what exactly they have in mind when they ask me to assess, e.g., ‘how knowledgeable [am I] about what should be done for effective border security?’ I mean, if they are asking the public to respond to the survey, do they really think that there is some large group of people out there who are technically knowledgeable or who know whether they are knowledgeable or even agree about what constitutes “effective border security’? Do I know what to do to keep foreign lemons from coming into Point Roberts? Is not the prior question why would we want to keep foreign lemons from coming into Point Roberts?)

I think about asking these questions of Israelis, perhaps. How good a job are they doing keeping Palestinians out of Israel? I would guess the answer to that is pretty much based upon whether they are currently having experience in Israel with terrorism. And they are and years more experience has not shown much in the way of effective border control in their arena. But the more important question, perhaps, is what else are they doing as a result of their border policies besides sometimes keeping Palestinians who are interested in doing violence out of the country? You can be somewhat effective at one thing but, at the same time, be doing a whole lot of other harms by virtue of that effectiveness. Is the one worth the other? Isn’t that the more important question?

I guess our border policies are wonderfully effective at keeping terrorists out because there have been no terrorist incidents in recent years. At least that’s what George W says. But what else are those border policies achieving? And how do I know they’re being effective? How do I even know whether terrorists are trying to come across the borders? George says so? I don’t think so. He pretty much lacks credibility on this or any other topic. Maybe the terrorists have all gone to the tribal areas of Pakistan or to the central drama of gee-what/gwot in Iraq, and nobody at any of our borders has prevented anything, although they certainly have managed to irritate considerably a very large number of people. Oh, I know, they’re only doing it for my benefit. Why am I not feeling benefited?

Another question: Do we need more protection on the border? What more could we be doing? Something comparable to the Berlin Wall? All around the country? (Reagan would come back from his grave to say, "Tear Down that Wall, Mr. Bush.") I could go on but won’t. The survey puzzles me greatly. I cannot quite imagine how to answer most of the questions nor, if I and others could, what kinds of conclusions could be drawn. But, you may do better. You can describe your own unhappy experiences, but the problem is that if YOU are having an unhappy experience at the border, it may not have any effect whatsoever on keeping terrorists or illegal immigrants out, unless, of course, you fall into either of those categories. The border policy could be very effective, even though you are having bad experiences. You may just be what we like to call collateral damage, no?

I feel like we pay our dues to live in this country (especially today, April 15, when I have just been in touch with IRS). Somebody ought to care about what we think. Maybe the psychology professor has something going for him that I missed. Certainly he's more interested in our views than our local congressman. Go here and you can have a run at it.