Editorial: U.S. border crossing fee a severely flawed idea

Buried in the president’s fiscal 2014 budget is a proposal for a study on revenues from imposing a fee on those entering the United States, and how a system to collect a fee might work.

The nation’s already huge expenditures on border security – $73 billion during President Obama’s first term – could more than double if the pending immigration bill is passed. So, the administration wants to look at ways to get Mexicans, Canadians and anyone else crossing the border to help foot the bill.

Now, there is something to be said for user fees. But the failure of the Discovery Pass to generate the amount of revenue that was projected suggests one drawback: People stay home.

That would be bad for businesses and communities in the Northwest that depend on Canadian visitors taking advantage of cheaper U.S. prices for just about anything. In Sandpoint, for example, roughly one-half the tourists are from north of the border, from at least as far away as Calgary. One observer says Costco will not build a store there because it does not want to cut off Canadian traffic to its Coeur d’Alene store.

Colville and Republic profit from smaller influxes, as does Spokane.

In 2011, Canadians made an estimated 21 million trips to the U.S., and left $24 billion lighter. Border communities are the biggest beneficiaries, and they will be the biggest losers if a crossing fee is imposed.

Members of Congress from border districts, including three from Western Washington, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in April opposing the fee study. A toll would discourage economic integration, they wrote, “and is the absolute last thing we should be doing to grow our economy. It would be a waste of government resources to even study the flawed idea.”

Southwestern representatives are reportedly more receptive to a fee, in part because border security has become a major employer in many rural areas. Security forces could increase twofold if the pending immigration bill sets absurdly high thresholds for intercepting would-be immigrants for allowing those already here to continue on a path toward citizenship.

The movement of people over the southern border was a net zero in 2012; as many left as arrived.

The failure of the Interstate 5 bridge over the Skagit River, besides drawing attention to aging infrastructure, also focused officials on the economic implications of blocking that critical U.S.-Canadian link. And Blaine is already one of the most congested of all border crossings.

How much sense would it make to charge visitors for the thrill of sitting in their vehicles for hours?

All Americans benefit from secured borders, and all should pay. Border states and border communities should not have to carry a disproportionate share of the costs.