As for Mr. Chertoff, he stated at the UTEP Border Security Conference that he is still “disappointed” that Congress failed to pass the comprehensive reform bill, and because of the failure of Congress, customs and immigration officers have now had their workloads increased. Chertoff further stated “We’re faced with a system where our customs and immigration officers are saddled with the need to pursue people who are coming here to work, which distracts them from pursuing those who are coming to do harm.” Implicit in this statement from Mr. Chertoff is another example of his tone-deaf stance towards an injustice that Americans are angry about - - the reality that those who are “coming here to work” broke our nation’s laws getting here in the first place.

In concluding his presentation, Mr. Chertoff stated “In the end, it is very hard to secure the border with only brute force; it can be done, but it’s going to be a labor-intensive and time-consuming way to do it.”

So “brute force” is a problem. And doing things in a “labor-intensive” and “time-consuming” way is a problem, too. The Administration that has spent millions of American dollars and has spilled plenty of American blood to topple a brutal, murderous dictatorship in Iraq, now remains troubled by the task of securing our nation’s homeland.

This comparison may seem crude, or even inappropriate to some. But the Administration’s domestic security policy is viewed by the American people in the context of its’ foreign policy - - there is no separating the two. Like it or not, the American people perceive a mixed message from their government, and they are angry about it.

As for the “big new developments” on fighting illegal immigration, Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Gutierrez announced a twenty-six point plan on August 10th, three days before Chertoff spoke at the UTEP conference. The “plan” entailed such things as adding border security agents, border barriers, and expanding the forthcoming “border wall.” But Chertoff apparently didn’t see fit to talk about these “new developments” in El Paso, perhaps because some of the tougher aspects of the proposal may have seemed offensive to an audience on the southern border.

On can only hope that Washington fixes the “p.r. problem” sooner, rather than later.