Border fence boondoggle, it's more than just the cost

One of the top stories of the day comes from a recently released report from the Congressional Research Service that shows the "cost of building and maintaining a double set of steel fences along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border could be five to 25 times greater than congressional leaders forecast last year, or as much as $49 billion over the expected 25-year life span."

Proponents of the border security measure were quick to make the rounds of the usual cable outlets to dispute the studies findings. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a leading advocate for the border wall, questioned the studies assertions, and brought up the success of the existing wall in San Diego to make his case. Admitting having not actually seen the study prepared by CRS, the agency responsible for public policy research for Congress, Tancredo claimed that something was "very peculiar" about the study.

Had Tom taken the time to read through the 45 page analysis, he would have seen that the costs of the fence may be the least of the problems.


tags: immigration, border fence , CRS, border security

Anti-immigration advocates like Tom Tancredo (R-CO), or Duncan Hunter (R-CA) love to point to the success of the 14 mile border wall in San Diego as their model for effective border security. In his interview on MSNB, Tancredo was quick to point out that the wall had only cost $1million a mile to build and the new report's cost estimates were "very peculiar". Hunter remarked about the dramatic changes the wall had made in the San Diego area in regards to the flow of undocumented migrants. What none of the immigration hawks mentioned was the fact that the original 14 mile wall did absolutely nothing, and that it took millions of dollars of additional resources and manpower to make it even reasonably effective.

Tancredo's $1 million dollar a mile wall…well not really

…in 1990 the USBP began erecting a physical barrier to deter illegal entries and drug smuggling. The ensuing “primary” fence covered the first 14 miles of the border, starting from the Pacific Ocean, and was constructed of 10-foot-high welded steel.

The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego. As a result of this, Operation Gatekeeper was officially announced in the San Diego sector on October 1, 1994. The chief elements of the operation were large increases in the overall manpower of the sector, and the deployment of USBP personnel directly along the border to deter illegal entry.

The strategic plan called for three tiers of agent deployment. The first tier of agents was deployed to fixed positions on the border. The agents in this first tier were charged with preventing illegal entry, apprehending those who attempted to enter, and generally observing the border. A second tier of agents was deployed north of the border in the corridors that were heavily used by illegal aliens… The third tier of agents were typically assigned to man vehicle checkpoints further inland to apprehend the traffic that eluded the first two tiers.

Operation Gatekeeper resulted in significant increases in the manpower and other resources deployed to San Diego sector. Agents received additional night vision goggles, portable radios, and four-wheel drive vehicles, and light towers and seismic sensors were deployed. According to the former INS, between October 1994 and June of 1998, San Diego sector saw the following increases in resources:

• USBP agent manpower increased by 150%


• Seismic sensors deployed increased by 171%


• Vehicle fleet increased by 152%


• Infrared night-vision goggles increased from 12 to 49


• Permanent lighting increased from 1 mile to 6 miles, and 100 portable lighting platforms were deployed


• Helicopter fleet increased from 6 to 10.

Border Security: Barriers along the U.S. International Border Congressional Research Service, Updated December 12, 2006, pg 3

Even with these increased resources, the fence still did not perform up to par. The primary fence in combination with the increased manpower did cut down on immigrant incursions in the region but proved to be both fiscally and environmentally costly. A 1993 INS study recommended a three-tiered fence system with roads between

In 1996, construction began on the secondary fence that had been recommended by the Sandia(INS) study with congressional approval. The new fence was to parallel the fourteen miles of primary fence already constructed on land patrolled by the Imperial Beach Station of the San Diego sector, and included permanent lighting as well as an access road in between the two layers of fencing. Of the 14 miles of fencing authorized to be constructed by IIRIRA, nine miles of the triple fence had been completed by the end of FY2005. Two sections, including the final three mile stretch of fence that leads to the Pacific Ocean, have not been finished.

Border Security: Barriers along the U.S. International Border Congressional Research Service, Updated December 12, 2006, pg 6

As to the final cost of construction for Rep. Tancredo's "$1million a mile San Diego fence system", the DHS is currently estimating that it will cost an additional $66 million to finish the San Diego fence, bringing overall costs for this 14 mile-long project to $127 million. These numbers do not include the funding for the increased manpower and resources or the maintenance on the fence system which the Army Corp of Engineers puts as high as $7500 a year per mile.

Additionally, the Corps of Engineers study notes that the Sandia fence would possibly need to be replaced in the fifth year of operation and in every fourth year thereafter if man-made damage to the fence was “severe and ongoing.” For this reason, in the study the Corps of Engineers noted that the net present value of the fence after 25 years of operation, per mile, would range from $11.1 million to $61.6 million.

Border Security: Barriers along the U.S. International Border Congressional Research Service, Updated December 12, 2006, pg 21

If you can't go over the wall…go around it

While the San Diego fence, combined with an increase in agents and other resources in the USBP’s San Diego sector, has proven effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in that sector, there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has adapted to this enforcement posture and has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert. Nationally, the USBP made 1.2 million apprehensions in 1992 and again in 2004, suggesting that the increased enforcement in San Diego sector has had little impact on overall apprehensions.

Border Security: Barriers along the U.S. International Border Congressional Research Service, Updated December 12, 2006, pg 1

Statistics show that the strategy of concentrating agents, resources and barriers in urban areas that traditionally had high levels of immigrant incursion such as San Diego or El Paso has only moved the flow of migration to more remote and dangerous areas.

Since the mid-nineties the Tuscon Sector, responsible for the Arizona border, has seen an exponential growth in migrant crossings. This shift in migration patterns has had the unintended consequence of an increase in the numbers of migrant deaths per year. In the early nineties on average 200 migrants died each year trying to cross the desert. By 2005 that number more than doubled to 472.

Additionally, this shift in migration patterns has put added pressure on rural areas, both economically and environmentally. Unfortunately, this shift has also brought with it a relative increase in crime to areas least able to address the problem. Along with economic migrants looking for a better life, drug smugglers and other criminals have been driven to the desert as their new point of entry.

Another unintended consequence of this enforcement posture may have been a relative increase, compared to the national average, in crime along the border in these more remote regions. While crime rates in San Diego, CA and El Paso, TX, have declined over the past 15 years, the reduction in crime rates along the more rural areas of the border have lagged behind the national trends

Border Security: Barriers along the U.S. International Border Congressional Research Service, Updated December 12, 2006, pg 32

If you can't go over the wall…go under it

While most have chosen to go around the walls, some have chosen to tunnel their way under them. As of January 2006, twenty-one tunnels had been discovered since 9/11. One in San Diego, under Tom Tancredo's flagship wall, was over 2,400 feet long with reinforced concrete walls and interior lighting.

Yet, these smuggling tunnels represent only the tip of the iceberg in the world of subterranean international travel. In many border towns and cities the existing infrastructure of sewers, storm drains, and utility tunnels provide an easy path for those willing to brave the underground world.

One mile deep into the drafty tunnel under this hilly frontier city, a flashlight beam cuts through the pitch-black darkness and illuminates a yellow line painted on the concrete wall: the U.S.-Mexico border.
…

Inside the largest known tunnels on the border — two passages that make up an enormous drainage system linking Nogales, Mexico, with Nogales, Ariz. — migrants stumble blindly through toxic puddles and duck low-flying bats. Methamphetamine-addicted assailants lurk. And young men working as drug mules lug burlap sacks filled with contraband.
…

llegal immigrants have breached drainage systems all the way along the border, from El Paso to San Diego. Most of them are of the claustrophobic crawl-through variety that prevents large-scale incursions.

The Nogales tunnels, by comparison, are superhighways.

Once open waterways, today they stretch for miles under the traffic-clogged downtown streets of both cities, zigzagging roughly parallel to each other.

In the smaller one, called the Morley Tunnel, an ankle-high stream of raw sewage and chemical runoff from factories in Mexico usually flows. The neighboring Grand Tunnel is up to 15 feet high and wide enough to fit a Humvee. Dozens of illegal immigrants can travel through it at one time.

Above ground, fences, sensors and stadium lighting clearly separate the two cities. Underground, they remain linked of necessity by the system built decades ago to channel monsoon rains.

LA Times

Across the length of the border existing infrastructure provides a ready path of entry those willing to brave them.

And so, welcome to the brave new world of cross-border tunnel migration and militarization – and, what could be the glimpse of a future (sub)urban world as more nation states wall off their borders from the increasing flows of global migration.

Essentially, the infrastructure has been left an exhausted corpse of overgrown concrete appendages and flogged lungs that today becomes a kind of mysteriously populated anti-city lurking below the real city above. It’s partly a thriving subterranean landscape with thousands of people traversing and living and conducting their own brand of commerce, but it’s also partly a massive industrial grave stewing with noxious hazards and quiet anonymous deaths.

"Orwellian Wormholes" Subtopia

Walls don't always keep you out …sometimes they keep you in

One of the biggest unintended consequences of increased border security has been its effect on preventing undocumented migrants from leaving the country to return back to their homes in their countries of origin. At a recent immigration symposium at the University of Chicago, Belinda Reyes, an assistant professor in the College of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State, presented a regression analysis suggesting that the more impregnable the barrier, the more unauthorized migrants wind up living in the United States. This presentation was an update to Reyes 2002 study "Holding the Line? The Effect of the Recent Border Build-up on Unauthorized Immigration" that found that with increased security between 1992 and 2000, the number of Mexican migrants returning home each year went down from 20% to 7%. It is only safe to assume that those numbers have decreased dramatically in the last six years.

There is strong evidence that unauthorized migrants are staying longer in the United States during the period of increased enforcement.

The findings based on both the national data and the Mexican Migration Project (MMP)5 sample indicate a decline in the probability of return in the 1990s. Analysis of the MMP sample shows no statistically significant
effect of the build-up on the probability of return. But the national data indicate a continuing decline in the probability of return in the latter part of the 1990s, which could be the result of an increase in border enforcement (see Figure S.2).

Data from a 1992 survey in Mexico indicate that 20 percent of the people who moved to the United States 24 months prior to the survey year returned to Mexico within six months of migration. By 1997, this portion had declined to 15 percent. By the time of the Mexican 2000 Census, only 7 percent of those who moved 24 months prior to the census returned to Mexico within the first six months and only 11 percent had returned within a year.

link "Holding the Line? The Effect of the Recent Border Build-up on Unauthorized Immigration", Belinda I. Reyes, Hans P. Johnson, Richard Van Swearingen, Public Policy Institute of California, 2002

conclusions

If Rep. Tancredo and his friends in the border security camp took the time to actually read some of the research provided for them at taxpayer's expense, they would see that their insistence on more fences and walls clearly provides neither security nor an effective means to curb undocumented migration. The walls are overly costly and are ineffective without huge amounts of added manpower and resources. The existing infrastructure in many areas makes them ineffective. Environmentally they are a disaster and have far too many unintended negative effects. Thus far they have only shifted the patterns of migration, bringing added death and crime to more rural areas and have kept immigrants from naturally returning home.

Perhaps it's possible that the Congressional Research Service, Army Corp of Engineers, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and the Congressional Budget Office are all wrong and the San Diego border fence has been a great success as Rep. Tancredo claims….but then again …maybe not.

A possible issue for Congress to consider as it debates expanding the existing border fencing concerns what the unintended consequences of this expansion could be. Given the re-routing of migration flows that have already occurred, are DHS and the relevant border communities prepared to handle the increased flow of illegal
migration to non-reinforced areas? Is DHS prepared to deal with an increase in the phenomenon of cross-border tunnels and other attempts to defeat the purpose of the fencing? What will the impact on crime rates be along the unreinforced areas of the border? Will USBP agents be required to spend some of their patrolling time
guarding the fence?

Border Security: Barriers along the U.S. International Border Congressional Research Service, Updated December 12, 2006, pg 33

Read More...

Summary only...

Border communities oppose use of military and walls to control immigration.

On Wednesday, the City Council of Douglas Arizona passed a resolution stating formal opposition to both the construction of walls, and the use of military forces in an attempt to curtail the flow of migrants over the border. The City of Douglas, located in Cochise Country, an area rapidly becoming ground zero for activists on both sides of the immigration debate, became the second border city in the last few weeks to voice opposition to the governments plans to place 6000 National Guard troops along the border and the construction of a new triple wall system intended to stop undocumented migrants from entering the country.

On May 23, the El Paso Texas City Council passed a resolution stating that the plan to send troops to "improve border security" not only violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that prohibits the use of military forces to patrol the border, but also threatened "the safety and well being of the residents of our border communities." The resolution went on to voice formal opposition to the plan and a demand for comprehensive immigration reform.

The Douglas resolution goes even further in its arguments against the Presidents proposals, stating that the "ineffective Federal policies will negatively impact local economies", pointing out that "the communities of Douglas, Arizona and Agua Prieta Sonora, Mexico are joined together not divided, as one region by the border, its people, culture and commerce."


tags: immigration, National Guard, border wall , Douglas AZ, resolution, oppose border wall

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006, DOUGLAS, ARIZONA - THIS IS A RESOLUTION APPROVED AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOUGLAS, ARIZONA, COCHISE COUNTY, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE ADDITIONAL BORDER FENCING WITHIN THE CITY OF DOUGLAS AS WELL AS OPPOSITION TO MILITARY PESONNEL STATIONED ALONG THE BORDER.

"Douglas - the premier southwestern border community."

RESOLUTION 06-445
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOUGLAS, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE ADDITIONAL BORDER FENCING WITHIN THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DOUGLAS FROM THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE DOUGLAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TO WHITEWATER DRAW AND OPPOSITION TO THE MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED ALONG THE BORDER OTHER THAN IN A SUPPORTIVE ROLE.

WHEREAS, the communities of Douglas, Arizona and Agua Prieta Sonora, Mexico are joined together not divided, as one region by the border, its people, culture and commerce.

WHEREAS, the City of Douglas depends heavily on international trade and commerce, and where ineffective Federal policies will negatively impact local economies. The total trade value of goods through the Douglas/Agua Prieta port of entry was 948 million dollars for 2005, second only to the Nogales, AZ trade values.

WHEREAS, the facilitation of trade to ensure the prosperity of our community has long been an underlying economic principal; our local business merchants depend heavily on cross border shoppers; conservatively estimating in excess of 40% of sales tax is generated by consumers in Mexico.

WHEREAS, the City of Douglas strongly supports the U.S. Border Patrol and believes in the virtue of governance and enforcement guided by the rule of law recognizing there are legitimate and sanctioned authorities, such as, the United States Border Patrol and others who merit the community's faith and trust to appropriately address the issues of undocumented aliens.

WHEREAS, the City of Douglas has worked with representatives and agencies in Mexico and the United States for many years to create secure trade and traffic programs.

WHEREAS, the City of Douglas has shouldered and endured the brunt and adversity of every failed past and proposed attempt to control and deal with illegal immigration in this community.

WHEREAS, the residents of this U.S./Mexico border community continue to have family, social and cultural relationships which would become severely jeopardized by continued ineffective stop gap measures.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOUGLAS that we are opposed to adding additional fencing within the area immediately adjacent to the City of Douglas from the east boundary of the Douglas Municipal Airport to Whitewater Draw to the West which could adversely affect and displace many of our longstanding residents and homes in those areas and any military personnel stationed along the Border other than in a supportive role. Furthermore, be it resolved that the complex issues of illegal immigration and a porous border cannot be fixed by an enforcement only approach. The solutions must take a multi-faceted approach to multi-layered issues created over the years by virtue of neglect; also that a more realistic, safe and humane approach that should recognize the dignity and worth of every human life should require allowing the entry into the U.S. of documented workers who are filling legitimate employment needs to remain in an approved and monitored program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Douglas, Arizona, this 7th day of June, 2006.

link

In a related story, on Monday at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Las Vegas a resolution was passed urging President Bush and Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, including a guest worker program.

The mayors from more than 200 U.S. cities also debated a measure opposing the building of a 300 mile fence along the border at the Rio Grande in Texas. The resolution was submitted by Laredo, Texas, Mayor Elizabeth Flores, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz and Albuquerque, N.M., Mayor Martin Chavez on the grounds that the fence would harm relations between the U.S. and Mexico. It urged the Senate to "ask itself if the expense and symbolism of such a proposed fence can possibly be worth the misunderstandings it will create between the United States and Mexico." The resolution, which had mixed support from border state mayors was ultimately not backed by a majority of the Conference.

Border community residents also gained a valuable ally in their opposition to "the wall" on Thursday when former Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking at a business conference in Mexico City said that extending walls along the U.S.-Mexico border would not solve the problem of illegal immigration.

"The Berlin Wall did not work perfectly and the wall that the Israelis are putting up is not going to work perfectly," Powell said. "So, a wall alone is not the answer."

Powell also added that a path to legalization must be provided for the 12 million undocumented immigrants already in the US.

As those in Washington and the media fight it out in the court of public opinion, those who must live every day with the true ramifications of failed US immigration policy continue to fight to have their voices heard above the din.

Read More...

Summary only...

The song remains the same; Bush to use military on border to bolster sagging poll numbers

With poll numbers now below 30%, and House conservatives ready to mutiny over his immigration reform plan, The President appears to be on the verge of making a major concession to the “enforcement only” wing of the party. Monday evening it is believed he will outline a plan to station upwards of 10,000 National Guard troops along the southern border with Mexico.

Earlier in the week Senate Republicans first dismissed there was any plan to militarize the border.

…the White House is searching for ways to assure conservatives that Bush understands their concerns. White House strategist Karl Rove met with lawmakers earlier in the week, and at least one session included a discussion about making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border security.

"Nobody is suggesting that we put troops on the border," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who attended the session. "We are suggesting there are plenty of resources in the government" to increase border security, at least in an interim period while provisions in the pending legislation take hold, he said.

"The National Guard can in some cases help do that," he added. Other lawmakers said they expected Bush to announce border security improvements next week, possibly in a speech in Arizona or another border state

Link

But as pressure mounted on the Administration, it has become evident that Bush must shore-up his conservative base in order to avoid catastrophic losses in the upcoming midterms.


tags: immigration, National Guard, Border Security, Bush, troops border

Seeking a quick enforcement boost at the U.S.-Mexico border, President George Bush is set Monday to propose dispatching more National Guard troops to the region and deploying additional Defense Department equipment to thwart illegal immigration.

In a televised address to the nation Monday night, Bush will outline a new border-security effort in hopes of giving momentum to an immigration overhaul the Senate will begin debating earlier in the day.

-snip-

"This is crunch time," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. "The president does want comprehensive immigration reform addressed."

Details of the border enforcement plan were still being cobbled together Friday evening, with the White House swapping various proposals with the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

"We are looking at a range of options," said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The question is how best to deploy assets to have the most immediate impact."

Under consideration:

_Using federal funds to pay for Southwest governors to deploy National Guard troops.

_Requiring National Guard units from around the U.S. to conduct their training near the border.

_Hiring private contractors to assist the Border Patrol in support roles.

What seemed clear is that the Defense Department would be directed to use some of its assets - including aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and sophisticated monitoring devices - to enhance surveillance along the nearly 2,000-mile border.

The Defense Department and Homeland Security Department refused to discuss the plan. "I have no detail on anything right now," said a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke.

The senior administration official stressed that active-duty troops would not be deployed to the border and that the National Guard units probably would be used in support roles for the Border Patrol. They could provide surveillance, transportation and construction of infrastructure such as berms, fencing and other border barriers, he said.

Though some officials on and off Capitol Hill speculated that the National Guard contingent could reach 10,000, the administration official said troop strength hadn't been decided.

Link

The immediate response from the leadership of the House was positive.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., one of the staunchest opponents of the president's immigration plan, said he is in favor of using the Guard.

"We train National Guard all over the country, and there is no reason why we shouldn't be conducting that training on our borders," Tancredo said. "Really, we are not trying to take them from other places where they are needed."

Link

In addition to the use of Guard troops at the border there are also plans in the works for the greater cooperation between US military forces and those of Mexico. This “cooperation” includes US training, equipping and funding Mexican security forces. (Sounds familiar. I guess they want to “catch migrants over there” so we don’t have to “catch them over here” )

The Pentagon has begun exploring options for the potential use of troops and equipment to help secure the U.S. border with Mexico, where hundreds of thousands of migrants enter the country illegally each year, a defense official said on Friday.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed border issues at the Pentagon with his Mexican counterpart, Defense Minister Gen. Gerardo Clemente Ricardo Vega. Mexico and the United States share a 2,000-mile border.

"The U.S. and Mexican governments continue to work together to control the border and collaborate on these important efforts," said U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

"This cooperation includes limited U.S. assistance with training, equipping and funding Mexico security forces so that they can better meet our shared challenges in protecting the border," he said.

Link

As has been the case so many times before with this administration, it appears that once again they are more than willing to rely on short-term military solutions to try to solve long-term policy problems, especially in election years. It appears that when all else fails, and electoral defeat looks imminent, they believe that only the rattling of sabers and the pounding of drums can save them. To this end they are willing to militarize the border, use “private contractors” (perhaps even Blackwater Security) to patrol the borders and set up funding and training for Mexican security forces, all in the name of “national security”. All along hoping that such actions will provide them political cover.

The only saving grace is that Bush has been very big on making promises in election years but not too effective in delivering them. Perhaps his military incursion on the southern border will go the way of his Mars exploration program, or the banning of human-animal hybrids. We can only hope.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Republicans shift funds from Iraq war budget to border security.

On Wednesday in a party line vote of 59 to 39, Senate Republicans passed an amendment to trim $1.9 billion from President Bush's emergency spending request for the Iraq war and Katrina relief. According to the amendment sponsored by Judd Gray (R-NH) the funds would be used in increase border security.

The money would be used by the Border Patrol and Coast Guard for new airplanes, helicopters, patrol boats, communications equipment and vehicles as well as border checkpoints and a fence along the Mexico border crossing near San Diego. The legislation also includes money to replace the U.S. border protection agency's only unmanned surveillance aircraft, which crashed Tuesday in Arizona.


tags: immigration, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, funding Iraq, Frist, S. 2454

"This bill is about national defense, especially relative to terrorism," said Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the amendment's lead sponsor. "And, yes, fighting the war in Iraq is critical to this war on terrorism. Fighting the war in Afghanistan is critical to this war on terrorism. But I have to think equally important is making sure that our borders are secure."

New York Times

"The purpose of this amendment is to basically give the people who are defending us on our borders -- the border security agents, the Customs agents, the Coast Guard -- the tools they need to their job right," added Gregg, "We can bring the border under control and we're on a path to do that."

Bloomberg

The move was in sharp contrast to the Republican's usual strong support for the Presidents funding efforts for the Iraq War, which in the past they have been adamant about giving the highest priority to. Three Republicans voted against the shift in money, seven Democrats voted for it and two Democrats did not vote.


In a reversal of roles, the Democrats quickly questioned the wisdom of the cuts, claiming that the Republicans were shortchanging the war effort for quick political gain. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) called the cuts "a false, cheap choice to secure political points" and that Gregg's cuts would "take money from troop pay, body armor and even the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund. Now that is a false choice and it is a wrong choice."

``Border security is an urgent need and it should and must be addressed by this Congress,'' said Senator Hillary Clinton, a Democrat from New York. ``But our security and our values are not served by choosing between protecting our troops and protecting our homeland.''

A Democratic alternative proposal, which would have made paid for the border security equipment without cutting defense programs, was rejected on a 54-44 vote.

Bloomberg

This change in Republican tactics comes as Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) tries to unite his party behind the pending immigration reform legislation that is at present stalled in the Senate.

As the poll numbers continue to show, the vast majority of Americans now favor an immigration policy that allows for some sort of "earned citizenship" or "amnesty".

It appears that Frist is starting to have to come to grips with this fact and this border spending amendment appears to be part of an effort to garner favor with the "enforcement only" wing of the party.

With their eyes towards November, this move to add 1.9 million to the already 9 million budget for the border is an attempt to provide some political cover for the right-wingers. It appears now that it will be impossible stop comprehensive reform in the Senate, so this is a bone thrown to them to take home to their constituents and say they have implemented "tough new border security measures."

It would seem that the Republican leadership are willing to put themselves in the position where Clinton, Schumer and Harry Reid can accuse them of "shortchanging the troops, and the war effort" in order to put the immigration issue behind them. Having brought this issue to the forefront in an effort to created a distraction to take voters minds off their general disenchantment with Republican policies, it appears the "immigration issue" has now backfired and blown up in their faces.

At this point they would rather go home and defend their cutting of military spending for the mess in Iraq rather than go home empty handed from the immigration table.

Read More...

Summary only...

Internment of undocumented immigrants to begin.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that DHS would be opening detention facilities in the next few weeks to house thousands of Chinese immigrants who have been denied immigration to the United States, yet were refused readmission by the Chinese government. Currently there are an estimated 39,000 undocumented immigrants caught in this diplomatic limbo, but if the more punitive immigration legislation passed in the House back in December, and now being debated in the Senate, was to become law perhaps millions more would join them.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Chertoff said that China last year readmitted 800 people. But that made only a small dent in what he described as a backlog of thousands illegally in the U.S.

"The math is pretty easy — at that rate, we wind up with increasing numbers of migrants who, if we're going to detain them, we're going to have to house at enormous expense," Chertoff said.

He added: "We can't be in the position any longer where we are paying the burden and bearing the burden for countries that won't cooperate with us and take their own citizens back."

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately return a call for comment.

Currently, 687 Chinese are being held in federal detention facilities, at a daily rate of $95 each, while some 38,000 have been released on bond or under a monitoring program, such as wearing an electronic surveillance bracelet, the Homeland Security Department said later Tuesday.

-snip-

Chertoff also said Homeland Security would open detention facilities in the next few weeks to house entire families of illegal immigrants who hope to bring their children along in order to avoid jail time. "It'll be humane, but we're not going to let people get away with this," he said.

Chertoff's remarks comes as the Homeland Security Department aims to end its "catch and release" immigration policy by Oct. 1. After that date, all illegal immigrants will be held in U.S. detention centers until they can be returned to their nation of citizenry.

AP

(more below the fold)
tags: immigration, HR4437, internment camps

Japanese-American internment camp during WWII

The Department of Homeland Security's decision to end the "catch and release" immigration policy by Oct.1 comes on the heels of last month's announcement by the Army Corps of Engineers that a $385 million contract had been awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Root and Brown to build "temporary immigration detention facilities".

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
New York Times

Feb. 3 - The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary…

KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space…

A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.

"When there's a large influx of people into the United States, how are we going to feed, house and protect them?" Mr. Church asked. "That's why these kinds of contracts are there."

-snip-

In recent months, the Homeland Security Department has promised to increase bed space in its detention centers to hold thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. In the first quarter of the 2006 fiscal year, nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico were released on their own recognizance.

Domestic security officials have promised to end the releases by increasing the number of detention beds. Last week, domestic security officials announced that they would expand detaining and swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to include those seized near the Canadian border

As the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up immigration reform this week they will be debating provisions that may increase the number of incarcerated undocumented immigrants into the millions. Both the current Senate proposal, "The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006", sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spectrer, and it's House equivalent, the "Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005"(HR4437) would criminalize almost any immigration infraction and leave the entire undocumented population vulnerable to incarceration. Both bills, in theory, call for the arrest and possible detention of all undocumented immigrants.

Mandatory Detention
Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

“Illegal Presence” and “Aggravated Felonies,”
Section 203 of HR 4437 calls for the creation of a new federal crime of “illegal presence”. As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays. In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. This classification would have the further effect of restricting ordinary undocumented immigrants (including those with pending applications) from many forms of administrative or judicial review. Those convicted of an "aggravated felony" would be subject to indefinite detention and/or expedited removal.

Indefinite Detention
Indefinite detention currently applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. Most often they come from countries without good relations with the United States.

Section 602 of HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including:

• those with a contagious disease
  
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)
  
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
  
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

MORE

With the internment of undocumented Chinese immigrants and their families becoming a very real possibility, we need to start to look at the real ramifications of some of this proposed legislation. Homeland Security has already announced its intent to greatly increase the incarceration of undocumented immigrants and Halliburton is ready to supply the facilities to hold them. With HR 4437's provisions for indefinite detention and the reclassification of even minor offenses as aggravated felonies it is quite possible that all 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country could shortly end up in internment camps no different from the refugee camps we see throughout the rest of the world. We just never thought it could happen here.

Tag: immigration

Read More...

Summary only...

Ariz. Governor says "We are not at war with Mexico." Then sends troops to border

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

PHOENIX -- Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered more National Guardsmen posted at the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigrants and curb related crimes.

National Guard troops have worked at the border since 1988, but Napolitano signed an order authorizing commanders to station an unspecified number of additional soldiers there to help federal agents.

Once the funding is approved, the troops will monitor crossing points, assist with cargo inspection and operate surveillance cameras, according to the order.

"They are not there to militarize the border," the governor said. "We are not at war with Mexico."

About 170 National Guardsmen are already posted at the nation's busiest illegal entry point, where they assist with communications, fence construction and anti-drug efforts.

Napolitano did not say how many additional troops would be stationed at the border and referred questions to the National Guard. Guard spokesman Maj. Paul Aguirre said the number of troops would not be known until funding for the plan is approved.

-snip-

The governor declared an immigration emergency last summer in Arizona's four border counties, citing security shortcomings by the federal government.

(more below the fold)
Tag: immigration

The continuing trend towards militarization of our southern border shows little likelihood of slowing down. It appears that rather than addressing the root causes of increased unauthorized migration or looking for solutions that remove the barriers to legal immigration, local and state officials choose to continue to follow the failed policies of the past. Believing that stricter enforcement and tightening of border security will somehow stem the tide of migration. They fail to recognize the fact that with each new barrier put in place they only force the patterns of migration to shift further out into the desert. No restrictive efforts thus far have lowered the number of migrants entering the nation, the numbers grow yearly. The walls, barriers, increased border patrols and military pressence have only increased the number of migrant deaths as they are forced further out into the desert.

Governor Napolitano would be better served, working with her fellow state and federal leaders to work on a comprehensive immigration policy that recognizes the need for immigration and provides a way to make it safe and legal. But that would require doing the tough work of real reform ... and that doesn't make the same kind of political splash as a photo-op on the border surrounded by guardsmen does.

Read More...

Summary only...