A Nation Divided: the Border Wall, Immigration and Citizenship on the U.S. Mexico Border

Now that DHS has cut funding for the construction of a virtual wall, SBI-net,  it is worth revisiting the optimism about the project expressed in 2007.

• The virtual wall would use existing technologies, therefore keeping costs down.
• It would only require the construction of 1,800 towers to secure both borders.
• UAVs would augment tower surveillance, this includes a hand launched UAV called Skylark supplied by Elibt systems of Haifa, Israel.
• Seismic sensors would detect ground movement, including footsteps and vehicles.
• Border patrol agents, with laptops, will be alerted to border crossings through a satellite communication network.

With these promises it is easy to see how SBI-net funding was authorized.  In addition, as our survey shows, border residents favor virtual walls over physical walls because they are less intrusive.  What remains to be seen is what the next big ticket request will be for border security—at this point it appears more national guard troops.

For more information see: http://electronicdesign.com/article/communications/building-a-virtual-wall-to-protect-our-borders1603/2.aspx

Adam Isacson argues sensibly that militarization is not the answer to border security, while pointing out that civilian agencies such as the border patrol are successfully limiting spillover violence from Mexico.  This perspective makes sense since an expanded role for the military also runs a danger of politicizing military operations and placing military personnel in situations that they are not trained to resolve.  One also has to look at the risk of militarizing civilian agencies. The following was originally published at:  http://justf.org/blog/2011/01/12/getting-it-wrong-pursuing-military-solution-law-enforcement-problems-our-border-mexi

(Image Source)

This post was guest-authored by George Withers, a senior fellow for Regional Security Policy at the Washington Office on Latin America. A former staffer for the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Withers has closely followed the growing use of the U.S. military and National Guard in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

A bill introduced at the end of the last Congress, and again at the beginning of this one, would greatly expand the U.S. National Guard’s mission on the border with Mexico. Introduced by Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas), the bill would require that “not less than” 10,000 additional National Guard troops be deployed along the border on what would turn out to be a permanent basis.

While the bill itself has little chance of passage – none of its co-sponsors in either Congress comes from a border district – it still merits a critical analysis. Rep. Poe and the bill’s other sponsors clearly intend to spark a debate about the role of the U.S. military, particularly the National Guard, on U.S. soil. What they propose, however, would set a disastrous precedent for U.S. civil-military relations and for the legal framework governing the National Guard’s mission, while having little impact on U.S. citizens’ security.

The bill responds to a political impulse. The worsening epidemic of drug-fueled violence on the Mexican side of the border has claimed a great deal of attention in recent years, and especially in the past few months. Also under the media spotlight have been illegal immigration and the steady flow of illicit drug trafficking from Latin America through Mexico and the Caribbean into the United States. As these challenges continue to mount, the need for a response has been felt more urgently, both in Washington DC and in border states.

In May 2010, President Obama announced that 1,200 National Guard troops would be stationed along the border in support of the effort to address these problems. While they were sent with specific instructions not to be directly involved in searches or detention of suspected lawbreakers, the Guardsmen are armed and are meant to provide a visual and physical deterrent at the border. As such, their presence implies a threat to use military force.

This deployment, the Poe bill, and similar proposals appear to respond to a belief that if law enforcement personnel are good, then the military is even better. The higher level of potential violence catapults the armed soldier into the role of “Supercop.” Indeed, in Mexico and in several other countries in Latin America, especially Central America, several governments have turned in desperation to their militaries to do the work of outgunned and/or corrupt police agencies. But is deploying the military the appropriate response? In particular, is it the right answer – even temporarily – in the United States, where the legal concept of separate police and military roles has a strong and relatively successful history?

Rep. Poe, an original founder of the Victims’ Rights Caucus, has more than once taken admirably strong stands in opposition to violence against women in Mexico and elsewhere. But when it comes to protecting U.S. citizens from law enforcement problems on the border with Mexico, he opts for militarization. His bill would not only deploy an additional 10,000 National Guard troops, it would do so in the following ways:

• The bill would add a very comprehensive new section to the U.S. Code, entitled “border control activities.” This provision would enable greater federal assistance to the states’ use of the National Guard and significantly broaden the Guardsmen’s activities and authorities. These would mean allowing – or requiring – the National Guard to participate in, among other duties:
  • Armed vehicle and foot patrols on U.S. soil along the international border.
  • Interdiction of vehicles, vessels, or aircraft, including those of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
  • Search, seizure, and detention of suspects, including U.S. citizens.
  • Intelligence gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance, including against U.S. citizens.
  • Aviation support.

  All of these activities are currently – appropriately – assigned to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, both of them entities of the Department of Homeland Security. Most or all of these new military activities would go far beyond what the National Guard currently practices in its current border deployment missions, as defined by the border states’ governors and the National Guard Bureau. They also are in contravention of the legal principles and practices of the federal Posse Comitatus Act, which generally disallows the military’s use in law enforcement.

• The Poe bill would set a 10,000-person minimum troop strength level (which is in addition to any and all troops already deployed) and keep it in place until “operational control” of the border is achieved. “Operational control” is defined, by reference to a2006 law, as when the Secretary of Homeland Security can certify “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.” This “all unlawful entries” language sets a very high standard: it is highly unlikely that the prevention of every single illegal entry into this country could ever be certifiably achieved. Thus these troops would, in effect, be deployed permanently.
• It is highly unusual, if not entirely inappropriate, for the U.S. Congress to pass a law dictating the appropriate level of troop strength in any specific mission deployment, as the Poe bill would do through its “required” 10,000 level. Such an operational decision falls under the core competency of military leadership, not politicians.
• The bill chooses to authorize the troops’ deployment under a section of the U.S. Code that allows for “training” purposes only. However, since the bill would call on the Guard to carry out extraordinarily increased police activities that the military does not have a traditional legal mandate to perform – including searching and apprehending U.S. citizens – it contemplates use that goes way beyond “training.” These duties are “operational.”
• The bill would exempt the deployment from end-strength limitations that are key to a well-balanced and militarily ready National Guard. To deploy large numbers of Guard members away from their home units, without consideration for how they would be replaced or how units might return to their designated force levels, would be disruptive to say the least.

Beyond these mostly technical problems with the bill, there remains the larger issue of militarizing our border law enforcement. Whether through the Poe bill or any other policy change, the circumstances do not warrant such a large, risky and potentially counterproductive step.

Rather than a threat of violence “spilling over” from Mexico into the United States, FBI Uniform Crime Reports actually point to an overall decrease in violent crimes in metropolitan areas along the border. El Paso, Texas, directly adjoining the border with Ciudad Juarez in Mexico, is statistically one of the safest cities in the United States: with 5 murders in 2010, it registered its lowest homicide rate since 1965. Individual, anecdotal incidents aside, the overall trend points away from the need to arm against an “invasion” or significant threat of violence.

Vastly increased numbers – and increasing strengths – of civilian law enforcement personnel, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, are already demonstrating success in keeping the U.S. side of the border area safe. To turn to the military serves more of a political purpose than a practical one.

This article appeared in the McAllen Monitor.  Some of the comments are amazing.  http://www.themonitor.com/articles/wealthy-45949-fleeing-mcallen.html

McALLEN — The drug war in Mexico could be economically beneficial to Hidalgo County as more and more elite Mexicans look to foreign investment as a way to escape the violence, said Keith Patridge, president and CEO of the McAllen Economic Development Corporation.

Wealthy Mexicans have been targeted by criminals because of their assets, Patridge said, and no longer feel safe in their country. Many are looking to relocate and invest north of the Rio Grande.

But the investment has less to do with stimulating the economy than finding a path for legal immigration.

Permanent residency, or a green card, is available to foreign nationals and their family members who invest at least $500,000 in the United States, Patridge said.

“(Mexican elites) are looking to coming over and bringing their families with them, at least until things settle down in Mexico,” he said. “And the investor visa is the principal way they are looking to do it.”

‘UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY’

The potential influx of wealth and Mexican nationals to the area could also benefit the cultural climate, said Miguel Diazbarriga, a sociology professor at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg.

“I think this is an unprecedented opportunity … that is definitely good for the (Rio Grande) Valley,” he said. “(Mexican elites) have a very global outlook, but they’re also very nationalistic and proud of their Mexican identities, and if we could find a way to mesh that with the Mexican culture of the Valley, that would be an amazing cultural hybridity.”

Getting there won’t be easy, he said. It will take strong leadership to overcome some of the stereotypes both cultures have imposed on each other.

“In the past there were many negative attitudes toward Mexican-Americans in Mexico, you know, pochos,” he said, referring to the derogatory term used for Hispanics who don’t speak Spanish perfectly. “But I think that’s changed a lot and we have to make sure that keeps changing.”

Mexican-Americans, however, also have changes to make, he said.

“We have to get rid of the (term) fresas,” he said, referring to the derogatory term given to the allegedly pretentious, wealthy Mexicans. “We don’t want to create a situation where you have Mexican elites living in one area and Mexican-American elites living in another.”

Diazbarriga also said there is potential for mixed feelings from Mexican-Americans in the area who are very patriotic, he said.

“There could be some resentment as far as ‘we’ve paid our dues as Mexican-Americans,’ for example, ‘and now we have these wealthy people that just come in and start doing their thing,’” he said. “There could be some challenges.”

The professor suggests encouraging cultural events and establishing a Mexican-American Museum to help diffuse some of the tensions. He hopes UTPA can take a leadership role and become involved in the cultural transition.

“We want to look at ways to break that down and create avenues of creativity and cultural contact,” he said. “We can’t assume that’s going to happen naturally, so the question is: How do we foster that?”

See our lecture on the U.S. Mexico Border Wall at the Mobilities Center at Drexel University.  Comments Welcome.

http://rmcp.dcollege.net/playlists.aspx/978/17137/html

On April 28, 2008, Colorado Congressman Thomas Tancredo attended a Congressional Hearing hosted by the University of Texas Brownsville and Texas Southmost College. Towards the end or the hearings Tancredo pointed out that too many people in this area do not think that borders matter, he criticized the audiences “multiculturalist attitude” and stated in an exasperated matter:  “If you do not want a fence between you and Mexico I suggest that you build the fence around the northern part of your city.”   It is true that many residents of  South Texas are against the border wall.  It is wrong however to think that South Texans are against border security, are misguided by “multiculturalism,” and are not proud citizens of the U.S.  Our survey of South Texas residents (through random phone interviews, n=153) showed that while there is wide opposition to the border wall there is also strong support of the border patrol.  We are in the middle of analyzing the data but thought we should share our initial results.  In response to our question, “Are you for or against the construction of the border wall in South Texas?,” an overwhelming majority of respondents, 60%, were against the border wall.  Only a minority of respondents, 16%, expressed support for the construction of the border wall while 24% were neither for nor against. Security was also a concern of our respondents.

When asked, “Do you think that the number of Border Patrol agents on the U.S. Mexico border in South Texas should be increased, decreased, remain at current levels?”, over 80% responded that the number of agents should either remain at current levels or increased.

Finally, when asked about virtual fencing respondents were almost evenly divided.

The statistics show that residents of South Texas have complex and strong views on border security that should be taken into account when formulating policy.  We are now in the process or further analyzing this data, including conducting follow-up interviews, to provide a broader interpretation of this data.  One thing that appears to be true, in contrast to Tancredo’s view, residents of South Texas do care about border policy.