Tara Magner [Policy Director, National Immigrant Justice Center]: "The Secure Fence Act has generated a good deal of controversy this election season. First, its price tag is unknown, but is estimated to fall between $2 billion and $9 billion. Second, it is unlikely to solve the problem of unlawful entry and visa overstays. A decade of "enforcement only" policies has failed to stem the flow of immigrants responding to the demand for labor in the U.S. economy. Third, loopholes in the bill's mandate to build a fence suggest that one may never be built at all.

Signed less than two weeks before the November election, the bill throws a bone to the restrictionist forces that favor "enforcement only" and oppose comprehensive efforts to reform the nation's border security and immigration policies. This is unfortunate considering a broad bipartisan majority of the nation and of the U.S. Senate believes that piecemeal efforts will fail to secure the nation, grow the economy, or honor the American tradition of welcoming immigrants to our shores. Among many prominent conservatives arguing for a comprehensive approach, Tom Ridge, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, wrote in a September 10, 2006, Washington Times op-ed, that gaining "operational control of the borders is impossible unless our enhanced efforts are coupled with a robust temporary guest worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of the shadows into some type of legal status."

While the new law is frequently described as merely a fence on the southern border, public and congressional debate over the cost and effectiveness of the Secure Fence Act largely ignores a significant portion of the bill's text. It contains broad language directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to take all actions "necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control" of the border, specifically meaning the prevention of all unlawful entries. This language is not limited to the Southern Border but encompasses "the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States."

Many legal policy analysts who support both secure borders and immigration reform believe this text will justify searches and other intrusions of U.S. citizens' homes and businesses. If this broad grant of executive authority is cited by federal agents on the border to justify intrusions on personal property and privacy rights, then liberals, traditional conservatives, and libertarians should speak loudly and fight to repeal this portion of what is otherwise a "bumper sticker" law."