Showing posts with label militarization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label militarization. Show all posts

Friday, January 3, 2014

A Vale of Terror, Transcended: Artists Explore Immigration, Border Issues and the Drug War

The New York Times
January 2, 2014
by Laura Tillman

MATAMOROS, Mexico — The artist Patricia Ruiz-Bayón recently met with three migrants in a shelter in this ravaged border city and invited them to take part in one of her performance works. The piece, “70+2...,” commemorated an act of extreme brutality that continues to traumatize the region: a 2010 massacre of 72 migrants in nearby San Fernando that the Mexican authorities say was carried out by the Zetas criminal gang.

Like the slain migrants, who were pulled from buses and shot, Ms. Ruiz-Bayón’s art volunteers were on a treacherous journey north toward the United States. On the day of the performance, barefoot and dressed in white, the participants, two men and a woman, walked slowly through soil that Ms. Ruiz-Bayón had transported from a San Fernando cornfield, evoking a mass grave but also hope and renewal. Then they walked along an infinity symbol that had been carved into the dirt, signifying the eternal path of migration.
      
The performance was the first in a series called “Todos Somos Victimas y Culpables, We Are All Victims and Culpable,” a deeply serious message in a part of Mexico that continues to be rattled by clashes between rival gangs and the police.
      
Ms. Ruiz-Bayón’s work is part of a growing art movement in the Rio Grande Valley exploring immigration politics and a rise in drug violence in the region over the past four years. Although the artists’ circumstances and their audiences vary, depending on where they live, they see themselves as part of a transnational community that is artificially divided.
      
The 18-foot-high border fence, ever-present in the artists’ work, is a ready symbol for the dissonance between the local understanding of the region as a unified one with strong cultural and economic ties, and policy prescriptions from Washington aimed at controlling the area and dividing it into discrete parts. As a new immigration bill presents the likelihood of new fencing and increased surveillance, the artists are determined to highlight the discord and societal hierarchy that the fence represents to many here. In their work, they also conjure an alternative situation. 
      
For Mexican artists in Matamoros and Reynosa, where the local news media has been largely silenced, their artwork, often urgent and somber, fills a void.
      
Artists on the American side of the border tend to take a more ironic approach. David Freeman of McAllen, Tex., designs piñatas in the shape of border guards, presumably waiting to be thrashed to bits, and meticulously made “trophies” for gang leaders composed of tiny machine guns, marijuana leaves and other objects covered in gold spray paint. He also integrates found objects into his work, like the wood-plank ladders the migrants used to climb the multibillion-dollar security fence and clothing and ID cards that they leave by the river.
      
Mr. Freeman moved to the region nine years ago, just as McAllen was beginning to pump civic funds into the arts. Since then, new galleries have sprung up on Main Street along with a monthly “art walk” and low-cost studio space. Not long ago, his studio was packed with work for a solo show at Texas A&M University at Commerce. Photographs of the border fence shared space with paintings in which he had daintily etched the fence into foreign landscapes. Mr. Freeman said he hopes his work will gain exposure beyond Texas and have a greater impact. Most galleries and museums in the Rio Grande Valley favor more conventional abstract and landscape paintings over political work.
      
The classically trained painter Rigoberto Alonso Gonzalez relies on an altogether different strategy to pierce what he says is the indifference of some Americans to the region’s drug war, painting Baroque-style scenes of violence in a dark palette. Some of his paintings show decapitated heads; other, larger tableaus depict gang members torturing victims or families discovering the bodies of their dead loved ones after shootouts.
       
Mr. Gonzalez, who was born in Reynosa, Mexico, and now lives across the river in Harlingen, Tex., left the Rio Grande Valley to study at the New York Academy of Art in 2002. When he returned, he quickly recognized the parallels between the gang narratives and historical paintings about biblical violence, like Caravaggio’s “Beheading of Saint John the Baptist.” He calls attention to the demand for drugs and cheap labor in the United States, which contributes to the drug war, by recreating real events in a style of painting that viewers are more accustomed to seeing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art than on CNN.
 
“If you depict it in a way that’s too raw, people are going to be turned off by it,” Mr. Gonzalez said. “You have to do it in a way that they’re drawn in, and then slowly they realize what it is that they’re looking at.”
 
His paintings have been collected and exhibited by museums in Texas and New Mexico, although some museums in the Rio Grande Valley are reluctant to show more graphic violence, he said. “It really doesn’t compare to what’s actually happening,” Mr. Gonzalez said of his stylized work.
      
While artists like Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Freeman have the freedom to speak out about politics in their work, the risks are higher for artists across the border.
      
After Reynosa was taken over by violence, the artist Tochiro Gallegos abandoned street photography, mindful that taking a picture of someone who didn’t want to be photographed could cost him his life. He moved into the studio and now makes portraits that speak metaphorically about the violence. Some of his subjects are shown with belts of bullets across their mouths — “a way to express everything we see, the way that we have to be quiet,” Mr. Gallegos said.
      
Ms. Ruiz-Bayón’s work, which extends beyond performance to sculpture and mixed media, also relies on metaphor to talk about migration, gender and violence.
      
In 2010, the same year as the massacre in San Fernando, a wave of gang violence pushed into Matamoros. Traumatized, Ms. Ruiz-Bayón said, she could not bring herself to make any artwork for an entire year.
      
In “70+2...,” she sought catharsis. “I’m so sick of guns, I’m so sick of blood,“ she said. “I wanted to make something that would make people think deeper and ask: ‘O.K., this is happening to me. How can I feel a little relief?’ ”
      
She visited San Fernando and tracked down on the Internet videos of the family members of the murdered migrants and a survivor. She spent time with migrants from Honduras and Guatemala, who also participated in her piece, and learned about the poverty they fled, the families they left behind and their journeys north.
      
“I had urgency to heal myself,” Ms. Ruiz-Bayón said. “And hopefully, in the process, it was a healing piece for the people.”
      
The prospect of performing in Matamoros last August initially made her anxious. Few murders are solved there, and she was concerned about the safety of the volunteers in the work. But the pieces finally fell into place, and she scheduled the performance at a secure private building, her concerns allayed. “I thought, if the migrants are brave enough to take this long, long, dangerous journey, why shouldn’t I?” she said.
      
The victims of the 2010 massacre have also been memorialized by journalists and novelists who created a website, 72migrantes.com, with profiles and photographs evoking each of the dead.  
       
George Flaherty, an assistant professor of art history at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in Latin American art, said terror is a major theme for artists who set out to document scores of anonymous deaths. “It’s about creating alternative archives and alternate ways of recognizing that which has been forgotten or willfully ignored,” he said.
      
The art is also about rectifying the way the border region is perceived from afar. The photographer Stefan Falke has been documenting artists in the region since 2008 in an project titled “La Frontera: Artists Along the U.S.-Mexico Border.” Having grown up in a divided Germany, Mr. Falke said, he was suspicious about the mainstream portrayal of the border area as a dangerous place without much to offer. He said he wanted to convey that the border is not a space of absence, but one of creativity and life.
      
To that end, he has photographed 180 artists from Brownsville to Tijuana. An exhibition of works from “La Frontera” is to open at the International Museum of Art and Science in McAllen on Jan. 23.
       
“You hear about tens of thousands of killings, and it’s natural to think, ‘Why would people want to live there?’ ” he said. “Then you go there, and you find everyone you meet doesn’t want to leave. They just love their city.”
      
Ms. Ruiz-Bayón, who has lived and worked in both the United States and Mexico, declined to identify her birthplace, saying she does not believe she belongs to one country or the other. “For me, the border is like a parentheses that is neither Mexico nor the United States,” she said. “It’s a place of its own.”
      
While such sentiments are common along the border, they are a striking counterpoint to discussions of immigration reform in Congress that take the necessity of enforced border security and hundreds of miles of hard fencing for granted.
      
Some artists have used the fence itself as an exhibition site. After construction crews built a new section less than a block from Galeria 409 in Brownsville, its owner, the artist Mark Clark, asked artists to bring their work to the fence and hang it on its metal beams. Included in the show, “Art Against the Wall,” was Mr. Clark’s painting of a voluptuous woman in a bikini floating down the Rio Grande in an inner tube, extending “Saludos desde el otro lado,” or “Greetings from the other side.”
Mr. Flaherty said that artists who seek to upend the way the border is usually viewed are trying to inspire a broader international conversation.
      
“They’re very much challenging the understanding of the border as a checkpoint and geopolitical boundary or zone,” he said, “and bringing to our attention that the border is malleable, it’s figurative, it’s poetic.”
 
 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Border Patrol considers putting razor wire on Nogales fence

Nogales International
July 19, 2013
by Kurt Prendergrast

Concertina wire could be installed on the border fence to the east and west of downtown Nogales, much to the chagrin of the city council.

The wire, made of razor-sharp blades attached to coiled metal strands, was installed on the fence separating San Diego and Tijuana five years ago and the Border Patrol is considering a similar action in Nogales.

 


The issue was brought up at Wednesday’s regular council meeting by Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino in response to a conversation he had with Leslie Lawson, patrol agent in charge of Border Patrol’s Nogales Station, who let him know about the proposed plan to install razor wire on the fence near Short Street on the east side of Nogales and near Hereford Drive on the west side.
 
The Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector “is considering a proposed deployment of concertina wire in the Nogales area,” spokesman Brent Cagen wrote in an email response to questions from the NI. The proposal is still under review, he wrote, adding “specifics concerning this proposal are unavailable at this time.”
 
During his meeting with Lawson, Garino said, she told him that rather than place the wire on top of the fence, the wire would be installed about 10 feet above the ground on the U.S. side of the fence.
Lawson told Garino that the wire would act as a deterrent to prevent people from jumping the fence, he said.
 
“There’s been a lot of injuries – broken ankles, hips, and different injuries – from people trying to jump,” he said, noting that the Border Patrol’s concern about injuries was “understandable.”
 
However, Garino said, he has “concerns” about the dangers of installing razor wire on the fence.
 
“If somebody at night was to jump the fence, not knowing that on the other side of the fence, 10-feet high, waiting for him is the razor wire. I don’t know what conditions we would find that person there,” he said. “Is it better for that person to break an ankle or is it better for that person to be tangled in that wire?”
 
Garino found support for his concerns among the other council members.
 
“It kind of gives me an image of Hitler coming back,” said Councilman John Doyle. “I think that it’s a little too strong. If somebody gets tangled up there, their eyes go or their legs get cut.”
 
Councilman Cesar Parada proposed that the council pass a resolution in opposition to the plan, which it could send to members of Congress. City Manager Shane Dille proposed a news conference to protest the plan.
 
After the discussion, Garino directed staff to draw up a resolution along the lines suggested by Parada.
 
On the razor’s edge
 
In 2010, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords requested funding from the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security for a border barrier in Nogales that would “incorporate double-wall fencing, concertina wire... and vehicle ditches.”
 
That request was pulled back after the NI called attention to the plan, and when the new fence was constructed in 2011, it was a single-layer, bollard-style fence without concertina wire.
 
However, razor wire was installed on the border fence that separates San Diego and Tijuana five years ago, according to a May 17, 2008 report in the Los Angeles. Times. In late April, news outlets reported that the San Diego Fire Department had to extricate a man who found himself entangled in the wire while trying to illegally cross the border.
 
The cost to the Nogales Fire Department for extricating illegal border-crossers entangled in the wire was a point of concern for the council on Wednesday.
 
Parada asked staff whether the city could hold the Border Patrol responsible for “picking up the tab” on healthcare costs for people caught in the wire.
 
City Attorney Jose Machado said that department heads could instruct their personnel to take care of the injured person without taking the person into custody, which would make the city responsible for the costs. He noted that the federal government is responsible for injuries sustained within 60 feet of the U.S.-Mexico border.

http://www.nogalesinternational.com/news/border-patrol-considers-putting-razor-wire-on-nogales-fence/article_b5bba22c-eb04-11e2-995b-001a4bcf887a.html

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Sierra Club: More border walls is not the answer

Rio Grande Guardian June 22, 2013 by Steve Taylor HIDALGO, June 22 - The Sierra Club has denounced plans to build hundreds of miles of additional border walls, saying the only place left to add more barriers is through wildlife refuges and private property along the Rio Grande in Texas. In a statement, the group said America and its environment can’t afford another “Border Splurge.” So far, six hundred miles of walls have been built along the U.S.-Mexico border. “What we’ve learned,” the Sierra Club states, “is that that these barriers do not stop immigration – they only devastate wildlife and habitat while bisecting communities and costing taxpayers millions of dollars per mile.” Plans to build more border walls came via an amendment to the Senate immigration reform legislation authored by Republican U.S. Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The amendment, which has the backing of the so-called Gang of Eight U.S. senators, would require the construction of hundreds of miles of border walls, to be added to the existing 651 miles of fencing already built, in addition to a near doubling of the U.S Border Patrol by adding 20,000 agents. There would also be a lot more towers, cameras, sensors and drones. The additional border security could cost $48 billion over ten years. Dan Millis, of the Sierra Club Borderlands team, said the Sierra Club “strongly opposes this reckless and unrealistic proposal that would not only destroy habitat, cut off wildlife migration corridors and cause flooding, but also waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on technology we know has little impact on fixing our immigration system.” Millis pointed out that last year the U.S. government spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement - more than all other federal law enforcement combined. “Our borderlands are already overrun with excessive numbers of Border Patrol vehicles, agents, towers and buildings. We have more than 650 miles of border fence that only serve to bisect communities and devastate the borderlands environment. We already have a border splurge – we don’t need another one,” Millis said. Millis said the proposed doubling of the Border Patrol is precisely that, another border splurge. “While cutting basic services and environmental protections, they want to waste billions more building more fences. The truth is the only place left to build more fences is through wildlife refuges and private property along the Rio Grande in Texas, where Homeland Security estimates future wall construction projects to cost $9.4 million per mile. That means spending billions of dollars on hundreds of miles of fence that won’t do what they want it to do,” Millis said. “Our communities, our wildlife, and our borderlands can’t afford another border splurge, and neither can American taxpayers.” Another group that has come out strongly against the Corker-Hoeven amendment is CAMBIO, which stands for Campaign for an Accountable, Moral and Balanced Immigration Overhaul. Its members include the Border Network for Human Rights, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, and the Northern Borders Coalition. The group released the following joint statement in united opposition to the negotiated Senate deal: “This is a bad deal for U.S. taxpayers, but especially for those that live and work in the border region. While the flow of migration is at a historic low, excessive enforcement remains unchecked and unaccountable to communities in which Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection operates. This proposal to increase enforcement without checks and balances is an example of excessive and wasteful government spending and represents an unnecessary expansion of the federal government's authority. “We know the effects that these provisions will have on the daily lives of all border residents. Our communities have endured the painful reality of unchecked and unaccountable enforcement operations, which have led to decreased civil liberties and civil rights protections, interruption of commerce and trade, constant surveillance in our neighborhoods, excessive and deadly use of force by Border Patrol agents, and the outright militarization of border communities. The senators need to be reminded that border communities are still part of this nation and that there should be no further militarization of our neighborhoods. In fact, there has been an immediate and overwhelming response from mayors, local elected officials, law enforcement leaders and faith leaders along the border in opposition to the proposal. “As border communities, we stand united in our resounding rejection of the Hoeven-Corker deal and urge the Senate to include accountability and oversight mechanisms to the already massive presence of border agents in our communities. This includes mandating lapel cameras for border agents, providing subpoena power to the DHS Border Oversight Task Force, applying geographic limits on warrantless Border Patrol stops in the southern border, and directing any increase in personnel to ports of entry where they are needed to facilitate trade that is fueling our economies. “The Hoeven-Corker proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol, add additional fencing, and spend trillions in technology is expensive, extreme and wasteful, particularly at a time when we need to improve our schools, fix our roads, and grow our economy. It is an assault on our system of checks and balances and seriously threatens the quality of life of border residents. Overhauling the nation's immigration process is urgently necessary, but this should not be done without proper consultation with those communities who must live with the effects of poorly thought-out policy. We cannot not remain silent as politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to treat border communities as an endlessly expendable trade-off for immigration reform.” Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas was one of the elected officials to welcome members of the Border Network for Human Rights when they participated in a caravan for immigration reform in Laredo on Tuesday. This week, Salinas has been in Las Vegas for the Conference of Mayors’ summer meeting. Salinas offered a resolution in support of comprehensive immigration reform that was approved by both the Conference of Mayors' Immigration Reform Task Force and its Criminal and Social Justice Committee. This committee is chaired by Houston Mayor Annise D. Parker. “I am grateful to Mayor Parker for carrying the resolution through her committee and I am prepared to carry the resolution on the floor of the Conference on Monday,” Salinas said. “Immigration reform is needed now more than ever, and I am pleased that the Congress and the GAO have now documented the Immigration Reform is not only the right thing to do, it will provide this nation a needed economic stimulus.” Vice President Joe Biden spoke about immigration reform at the Conference of Mayors event. “The math is pretty simple, if you bring people out of the shadows and you give them a start they add to the tax base. They start investing in the communities where they live and they begin to lay down roots,” Biden said. Salinas was pleased with the remarks Biden made. “Vice President Biden referenced research that documented that the majority of small business that are started today are started by immigrants. But, more than the research, I was pleased that the Conference of Mayors debuted a documentary on the DREAMERs. You don't need research to see the desire in those young people's eyes,” Salinas said. http://www.riograndeguardian.com/green_story.asp?story_no=25#.UcZRCFtF_7s.facebook

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Senate ‘Gang of 8’ Members Pledge To Bolster Border Security On Arizona Trip

Talking Points Memo
March 27, 2013
by Benjy Sarlin

Senators working on a bipartisan immigration bill toured the Arizona border Wednesday in an effort to reassure worried hawks that security will be a top priority in any legislation they produce.

“What I learned today is we have adequate manpower, but not adequate technology,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters after meeting with Border Patrol agents.


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stressed the hardware side of the equation as well, calling for “constant surveillance over the entire length of the border” via improved equipment. Illustrating his point, he tweeted shortly before the press conference that he, Schumer, and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Michael Bennett (D-CO), had just watched a woman climb over an 18-foot border fence before being apprehended.

Responding to a reporter’s question, McCain said that the border security issue was more urgent because of Congress’ failure to reach a deal replacing sequester cuts.

“There’s no doubt that our border is less secure because of the sequester and we’ll be doing everything we can to restore that funding,” he said.

The Senate group has yet to release a draft of their bill (Schumer put their status at “90 percent” complete), but an early framework includes a requirement that certain border metrics be met before undocumented immigrants can apply for green cards and citizenship. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressed concern this week that the border “trigger” could end up being too vague and stranding millions of immigrants in legal limbo. Republican lawmakers, led by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY), have said the trigger concept is absolutely necessary to draw GOP support.

McCain told reporters that he did not see the Senate group’s border measures as a long term barrier to citizenship.

“I believe that if we do the right thing … that over a relatively short period of time with the proper use of technology, with the proper coordination between different agencies that we will be able to see that we have a degree of border security that will allow people to move forward with a path to citizenship,” he said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/senate-border-trip-immigration.php

McCain, other senators to tour U.S.-Mexico border with immigration reform on their minds

Associated Press
March 27, 2013

A group of U.S. senators who will be influential in shaping and negotiating details of an immigration reform package is traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona to get a firsthand look at issues affecting the region.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona were expected to tour the border today with Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado. They are all members of the so-called Gang of Eight — a bipartisan group that has spent recent weeks trying to craft proposed immigration legislation.

The trip comes as Congress is in recess and as the lawmakers wrap up a bill designed to secure the border and put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to pass immigration reform this year, and border security is critical to McCain and other Republicans who contend that some areas along the border are far from secure.

"I wish every member of the United States Senate and Congress could see the border," McCain told reporters in Phoenix on Monday. "Only when you can see the expanse, the difficulties and the challenges of the border, can you really appreciate the need for our border security."

With top Republicans and Democrats focused on the issue, immigration reform faces its best odds in years. The proposed legislation will likely put illegal immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship and would install new criteria for border security, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. and hold businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally.

McCain sought to lower expectations for the bill Monday during a town hall in Phoenix. He told immigration activists they wouldn't be completely happy with the measure and warned that the group must overcome difficult disagreements.

"We've made progress in a number of areas that I am encouraged by, but there are still areas that we are not in agreement," he said.

McCain said the lawmakers had reached an agreement on protections for young illegal immigrants brought to the country as children and on visas for workers, but declined to provide specifics.

Reports indicate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, negotiating through the Gang of Eight senators, had reached significant agreement Friday on a new visa program to bring up to 200,000 lower-skilled workers a year to the country. The groups did not reach consensus on how much the workers would be paid.

The bill is expected to be lengthy and cover numerous issues, including limiting family-based immigration to put a greater emphasis on skills and employment ties instead.

The legislation was initially promised in March, but the lawmakers have since said they won't be done until at least April. Immigration proponents have said the group needs to introduce legislation soon, while some Republican lawmakers complain the process has moved too quickly.

If passed, the legislation could usher in the most sweeping changes in immigration law in nearly 30 years.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/mccain_other_senators_to_tour.html

Monday, March 18, 2013

Questions about border commission

Politico
March 18, 2013
by Kevin Robillard

The security of the U.S.-Mexico border, and the fate of the estimated 11 million people illegally living north of it in the U.S., may end up in the hands of that most Washington of institutions: a commission.

The recently announced outline of a bipartisan immigration reform plan from the Senate’s Gang of Eight calls for a commission made up of border-state governors, state attorneys general and “community leaders” to evaluate border security.

The commission is seen as crucial by both Republicans and Democrats because illegal immigrants could only start on the pathway to citizenship envisioned by the Gang of Eight once the border is deemed secure, and the panel is expected to have an important — although still largely undefined — role in making that determination.

”Border security is what the conservatives are really going to be focused on, and the commission is the cost of the pathway to citizenship,” said Rebecca Tallent, a former chief of staff for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who now chairs the Bipartisan Policy Center’s immigration project. “How do you thread that needle? How do you make the border commission a viable, realistic sign-off that the Republicans can support? But how do you make it so that a person who might oppose comprehensive immigration reform doesn’t have veto power?”

But some of the same factors that have hamstrung panels charged with solving the nation’s fiscal challenges (see: the Supercommittee, Simpson-Bowles) could plague a border commission, too, critics warn.
Republicans and Democrats both assume the other side is playing politics and have fundamental disagreements over how secure the border is right now, as well as who should serve on such a commission and just how much power it would have.

The Gang of Eight’s bare-bones plan includes just two sentences describing the commission, and the group has been tight-lipped about further details.

“We recognize that Americans living along the Southwest border are key to recognizing and understanding when the border is truly secure,” the bipartisan framework says. “Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.”

For a body with such potential power, what is so far known about the commission is greatly outweighed by what isn’t. But what’s clear is that Republicans and Democrats working on immigration reform have very different ideas about the most important aspects of how the commission would function. It is expected that the Gang of Eight will flesh out its vision for the commission and other aspects of reform when it unveils more specifics about the immigration plan in the near future.

MEMBERSHIP

Under the plan, state attorneys general and governors from Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California would serve on the commission.

Democrats are concerned that the GOP border-state members could outnumber Democrats on the panel and they are fearful that fiercely anti-illegal immigration, pro-border security Republican governors in particular — like Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Arizona Gov. Janet Brewer — could torpedo the commission’s work and block the pathway to citizenship.

Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who represents El Paso, Texas, told POLITICO he would prefer a commission made up of border-area House members or local officials. (Eight Democrats represent the border in the lower chamber, compared to only one Republican.) And Marshall Fitz, the head of immigration policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said logical appointees would include small and big city mayors along the border.

As for filling out the commission with “community leaders,” it’s unclear how they would be selected and appointed or even how many would sit on the panel.
The GOP remains wary.

“Who’s going to appoint this commission?” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) asked on Laura Ingraham’s radio show recently. “Are we going to have a commission full of Janet Napolitanos? That’s really going to ensure enforcement, right?”

For their part, Republicans have instead suggested tapping law enforcement officials to fill out the group.
Fitz said a commission with diverse membership could kick-start a dialogue about the border, one that would continue even after reform gets under way.

“What we’re having is sort of two camps talking past each other, and the advantage of having the commission, with prominent people from all the border states, is that you could have, at least theoretically, a more robust conversation about the state of the border,” Fitz said. “The demands today won’t be the demands tomorrow. It’s a dynamic area, and there’s an evolving set of analyses that have to be made about costs and benefits of different approaches.”

AUTHORITY

Perhaps the most pressing issue for those crafting the commission is this: How much power will it have, if any? Will it be an advisory group that issues nothing more than recommendations, or will it have real authority to issue a decree on whether the border is secure, thereby allowing the pathway to citizenship process to begin for millions, or finding the border is porous and stalling the move toward citizenship for illegal immigrants?

After concern from Democrats that the commission could turn into a roadblock, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security — and not the commission — would make the final call.

“Holding immigration reform hostage to someone’s definition of a secure border could be a real problem,” Eliseo Medina, the SEIU’s secretary-treasurer, said on a conference call with reporters in early March. “This could turn into ‘beauty in the eye of the beholder.’”

While the Gang of Eight’s description of the commission says it will make a “recommendation,” Republicans insist that issue hasn’t been settled.

In interviews earlier this month with the Arizona Republic, two GOP members of the Gang of Eight, Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both said that the body’s role in making the border security determination that could trigger the path to citizenship remained up in the air.

“We’re still trying to figure that part out, and what role [the commission] plays,” Flake said.

BORDER SECURITY

Beyond the commission’s power, another particularly thorny problem facing the Gang of Eight involves the requirements or guidelines that would be put before the commission for it to determine how border security is defined. What does a “secure border” really mean?

Democrats fear the commission could use the elusive and perhaps impossible goal of a hermetically sealed border to delay the launch of the pathway to citizenship.

“You’re never going to certify the border secured,” Fitz told POLITICO. “There’s never going to be a ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’ sign draped across the border fencing.”

Some Republicans, like Arizona GOP Rep. Matt Salmon, would prefer using the GAO or an independent outside group to make that determination.

But Flake has hinted at a possible compromise by citing the use of “metrics” in making the judgment about whether the border has been secured. That suggests eventual immigration reform legislation could set clearly defined quantifiable and measurable goals for border security, leaving the commission to simply “check the box” as requirements were met — or not.

Example of such “metrics” can be found in the 2007 immigration bill that laid out certain numerical goals that have mostly been attained over the past six years: There are now 18,5000 Border Patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border; 10 drones patrol the skies; and 300 camera towers have improved surveillance. (The administration has built only 651 miles of border fence out of a requested 670 miles.)

The Gang of Eight’s framework includes a commitment to further increase the number of agents and drones, and a pledge to equip the Border Patrol “with the latest technology, infrastructure, and personnel needed to prevent, detect, and apprehend every unauthorized entrant.”

While Congress and the White House await more details from the Gang of Eight, Republicans and Democrats insist they want to remove politics from the decision about border security, at least as much as possible.

“Take it out of the hands of politicians,” Salmon told POLITICO. “You don’t let the fox guard the henhouse.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The Big Conversation

Texas Tribune
January 29, 2013
by David Muto

A major new federal immigration proposal has corralled bipartisan support, but Texas Republicans aren't biting.

The proposal — unveiled Monday by a group of four Republican and four Democratic U.S. senators — includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and increased border security. The unveiling came a day before President Barack Obama is expected to lay out a plan of his own that is said to be moderately more liberal than the senators' proposal.

But in Texas, the senators' proposal isn't winning much GOP support. Both of the state's U.S. senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, expressed reservations about the plan.

"There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration," Cruz said in a statement. "However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally."

A spokeswoman for Cornyn told the The Dallas Morning News, "There are many facets to immigration reform, but one that must be addressed first and foremost is our porous border."

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, a San Antonio Republican and member of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, called the plan "amnesty," adding, "When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration."

The opposition from Texas Republicans may mirror the pushback the plan receives from Republicans in Washington, especially in the GOP-controlled House, whose speaker, John Boehner, on Monday offered a tepid response to the proposal.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/29/brief-top-texas-news-jan-29-2013/

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Residents in Arizona town feel 'invaded by Border Patrol'

Los Angeles Times
January 12, 2013
by Cindy Carcamo

BISBEE, Ariz. — For the last 20 years, they have descended on the sun-bleached desert lands in southeastern Arizona near the Mexican border.

Longtime locals say they damage irrigation lines, tread on land without permission, alienate merchants and contribute to a sense of unease that didn't use to exist.

But lately these complaints are aimed not so much at people arriving illegally from Mexico as they are at the federal forces sent to stop them.

Residents say the deployment of hundreds of agents — armed, uniformed and omnipresent — and millions of dollars in new infrastructure have created a military-like occupation in their once-sleepy hamlets.

They point to sprawling new facilities that dominate the scrubby landscape, such as the upgraded U.S. Border Patrol station in Naco and a fortified border fence that lights up like an airport runway lost among the yuccas. Some grumble that the federal agents are paid well above the county average while spurning the areas they patrol to live in a suburbanized town nearly 25 miles away.

Others here welcome the buildup, and even argue that it should be enhanced, especially in light of the slaying two years ago of border agent Brian Terry during a shootout with bandits. But many chafe at what they contend is an unacceptable cost to property, nature and their desert way of life.

"Honey, I've lived here all my life. This is all I know. I thought we were better off before the Border Patrol invaded us," said Annette Walton, 53, as she served coffee and burgers to regulars at her diner, Our Place Cafe in South Bisbee. "We were not invaded by the illegals. We were invaded by Border Patrol."

Innkeeper Jami Knudsvig is put off by the "ominous and eerie" way the border fence near her home is illuminated at night, itsgreen-tinged lights pulsing in rhythm.

"They're like Christmas lights. Just bigger," she said. "Who are we keeping out? Are we keeping us in?"
Dan Oldfield, who has lived in the area for more than 30 years, calls the security presence excessive and "a constant nuisance."

Oldfield said he had never felt unsafe, even when his home was burglarized in the 1990s by people he suspects were border crossers.

"Nothing was taken," he said. "They went through the refrigerator, looking for something to eat."

A tree-maintenance contractor, Oldfield said he didn't understand how the agents filled their days, noting that illegal border crossings in the area have plummeted in recent years.

Gary Widner, the Border Patrol deputy agent in charge of the Naco station, says the agents keep illegal crossings and related crime down.

"It's because we're here. That's why they've slowed down," Widner said. "If you have no presence in the area, they'll exploit it."

In the 1960s, Naco, Mexico, and Naco, Ariz., were essentially one small town.

Anna Marie Salomon, a teenager at the time, said she and others knew the 20 or so immigration officials on both sides of the old port of entry. Most lived in the community, with family on both sides of the border.

Crossing the boundary "was like going from your living room to your bedroom," Salomon said.

Even in the late 1990s, only about 50 agents patrolled the region out of the Naco station, 12 miles south of Bisbee.

But from 2000 to 2003, the Naco station led the nation in human and drug smuggling arrests, Widner said, citing Department of Homeland Security statistics. The region saw more armed home-invasions and other related crimes.

By 2005, an estimated 400 Border Patrol agents had been deployed in Cochise County to secure 30 miles of international boundary. The border fence was fortified, checkpoints sprang up, and the National Guard arrived for support.

From California to Texas, the Border Patrol ranks doubled to 18,500, the agency said.

Crime and apprehensions fell sharply in the entire Tucson sector, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In Tucson, violent crime decreased by 27%, despite population growth in the last decade.

"The quality of life for these folks has gone up pretty significantly," Widner said. "They're not having to worry about the groups coming on their yard or being scared by armed invasions."

Though some agents grew up locally, the assignment is "an eye-opener" for those from urban areas, said Steven Passement, a Tucson-based U.S. Border Patrol community liaison.

The agents are trained in ranching etiquette, taught to respect open pastures that probably are a rancher's private land and livelihood, he said.

Still, property damage is inevitable when agents chase smugglers.

"It's going to happen. Our guys are out there working," Passement said.

They patrol a region left depressed after the decline of nearby copper mines, usually while sitting behind the wheel of government SUVs.

"They've got ATVs, horses. They've got helicopters now. It grinds me every day," Oldfield said of the money spent. He and others complained about the agents' salaries — the base pay of $38,000 to $49,000 is up to 40% higher than the median income in Bisbee. There are also plenty of opportunities for overtime.
Many choose to live in Sierra Vista, nearly 25 miles from Bisbee.

Unlike the rural areas near the border, the town offers recreational activities, employment opportunities for spouses, retail outlets such as Target, and the schools are better.

"It happens to be that the Sierra Vista community gives them everything they need for their family," Passement said.

Widner says agents are vital to the local economy, pointing out that they spend money at local eateries and other businesses even if they don't live nearby.

Officials say they've made an effort to forge partnerships with residents, calling them essential to border security.

"They are some of our best sources of information," Widner said.

Now, officials say, some of America's safest communities are along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Dawn Birdsong, who has five acres a few miles north of the border, isn't convinced. She points to a collection of more than two dozen tattered hats that decorate her chain-link fence. She said they probably belonged to border crossers and their smugglers.

The agents who patrol the area are "all we have," said Birdsong, who favors deployment of the U.S. military.
"Get them down here and secure our border," she said. "This is escalating. I think there is going to be a war."
But longtime resident Salomon questions the big security footprint.

"Don't get me wrong. I know there are bad things going on over there, but that's over there," she said, pointing south toward Mexico. "There's no war going on here."



 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-occupy-border-patrol-20130113,0,3867806.story

Thursday, June 21, 2012

2013 Conference Advisory Board To Focus On Greatest Challenges and Solutions for Border Security

Press Release from the Border Security Expo:
June 21, 2012

WESTPORT, Conn., Jun 21, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The 7th Annual Border Security Expo conference program will be developed by a group of top experts on the subject. The newly formed 2013 Conference Advisory Board is chaired by Jayson Ahern, currently Principal at The Chertoff Group and the former Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He will be joined by:

-- W. Ralph Basham, Partner, Command Consulting Group; former Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; former Director, U.S. Secret Service

-- Michael A. Braun, Managing Partner, Spectre Group International; former Chief of Operations, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

-- Bobby Brown, Vice President, Homeland Security Solutions, Telephonics Corporation

-- Ronald S. Colburn, Treasurer, The Border Patrol Foundation; former National Deputy Chief, U.S. Border Patrol

-- Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Director, National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Arizona

-- Chris Marzilli, President, General Dynamics, C4 Systems

-- Ben Reyna, former Director, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Department of Justice; Chief of Police (Retired) Brownsville, Texas

-- Brian Seagrave, Vice President, Raytheon Homeland Security, Raytheon

-- Julie Myers Wood, President, ICS Consulting; former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

"It gives me great pleasure to serve as Chairman of the Border Security Expo Conference Advisory Board, working alongside such esteemed colleagues and industry leaders, including former commissioners, directors, university professors and industry leaders," said Ahern. "We all bring passion and different perspectives to this dynamic Board, and we all understand the challenges and opportunities in an ever-changing and complex landscape."

"This Board represents a distinguished group of the most knowledgeable and dedicated individuals from government to academia to industry, who will direct the development of what is unquestionably the most important conference on the subject of border security and facilitation in the world," said Paul Mackler, President & CEO of Eagle Eye Expositions, LLC, the company that produces Border Security Expo. "The composition of this Board assures that every critical issue from security to international commerce will be discussed and debated by leading experts on these topics."

"The Border Security Expo Conference Advisory Board is committed to developing a content rich conference with a preeminent faculty to address the thousands of local, state, federal and international law enforcers and policy-makers charged with protecting our borders, while keeping the flow of goods and services moving through our ports of entry facilitating international commerce," said John Moriarty, Vice President/Show Director, Border Security Expo.

The 2012 Border Security Expo sold out several months prior to the event, noting a 24 percent increase in exhibit space with a waiting list of more than 70 companies unable to participate. Attendance was up 21 percent with event participants from 40 states and 10 countries. The 2013 exhibit hall has been expanded to accommodate the increased demand for exhibit space. With more than nine months until the 2013 expo, it is already over 60 percent sold.

The Border Security Expo conference and exhibition focuses on issues of terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking and a technological and physical infrastructure that must be upgraded, heightened and enhanced. It provides opportunities to listen and learn about today's most complex security challenges and to help identify smart, cost effective security solutions that can combat current and future security threats facing our borders.

Border Security Expo is scheduled for March 12-13, 2013 at the Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix, Arizona. The National Center for Border Security and Immigration at The University of Arizona will again serve as the Official Academic Organization for Border Security Expo.

For more information, visit www.bordersecurityexpo.com

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Nicol backs call for investigation of DPS' border security contracts

Rio Grande Guardian
March 18, 2012
by Raul de la Cruz


McALLEN, March 17 - Scott Nicol, a founder of the No Border Wall coalition, has backed calls for an investigation into the contracts between the Texas Department of Public Safety and Abrams Learning and Information Systems.

The request for the investigation has come from state Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso.

In a letter sent last Friday to Comptroller Susan Combs, Rodriguez said the outsourcing of Texas border security operations to Abrams Learning & Information Systems (ALIS), a private consulting firm based in Arlington, VA, have raised “significant concerns” about the transparency of DPS' bidding and procurement processes as well as DPS' management of millions of state and federal taxpayer dollars.

Nicol welcomed the development.

“It is great that this may finally be receiving some well-deserved attention. State and federal governments should be outsourcing only those functions which they are incapable of accomplishing themselves, and certainly not asking contractors to develop their mission for them and sell it to the public,” Nicol said.

Nicol said a number of reports have come out over the years indicating that the Department of Homeland Security does much the same thing, and that in their tactical infrastructure office, in other words border wall contractors, outnumber federal employees.

“In Texas border security is apparently nothing more than a cash cow for contractors and a way for ambitious politicians to get their names in the papers,” Nicol said.

In his letter to Combs, Rodriguez pointed to a State Auditor's February 2012 report (SAO Report No. 12-019) of DPS. He also referenced recent media reports on the outsourcing of Texas border security operations to ALIS. He said the reports have raised significant concerns about the transparency of DPS' bidding and procurement processes as well as DPS' management of millions of state and federal taxpayer dollars.

“According to records from your office, ALIS has received nearly $20 million in payments from the state. After this initial review, numerous questions arose regarding the determination of ALIS as a "sole source vendor" as well as the lack of any meaningful performance or accountability measures,” Rodriguez wrote.

“Furthermore, the issues surrounding these contracts bring to light a serious public policy consideration of whether the state of Texas should have outsourced the bulk of border security operations to a private company with negligible experience in international border operations.”

Rodriguez said that in an attempt to clarify the parameters of DPS's relationship with ALIS and to determine exactly what ALIS's contract deliverables were, he has posed several follow up questions and requested additional information from DPS in a letter to DPS Director Steve McCraw.

“In addition to the issues surrounding DPS's contracts with ALIS, the State Auditor's report raised numerous questions about DPS's procedures regarding procurement contracts. This independent report indicates that, on at least three occasions, DPS was unable to document why "emergency" action was necessary,” Rodriguez said.

“Not only was there pervasive abuse of the "emergency" contracting procedures by DPS, this appears to be part of a larger failure to open contracts to competitive bidding as required by state law. A startling 83 percent of the contracts reviewed by the State Auditor in the cluster of federal grants for homeland and border security were not bid competitively as required by state law.”

Other disturbing findings by the State Auditor, Rodriguez said, include duplicate payments made by DPS to sub-grantees and that DPS has no process in place to track federal sub-grants, in some cases paying for one program with federal funds intended for another.

“Given your agency's purview over the state bidding and procurement processes, I ask you to conduct a full investigation of DPS's contracts with ALIS as well as DPS's general policies for bidding and procurement. As the elected chief steward of the state's finances, I trust that you will share my concerns that Texans' taxpayer dollars are not being spent in an accountable, transparent manner,” Rodriguez said.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Photographing the American Wall

Los Angeles Times
January 28, 2012
by Liesl Bradner

An ominous barrier meanders through a remote landscape appearing to float across the desert sands, reminiscent of a stark, modern-day Great Wall of China. The structure is not filled with ancient wonder but rather conjures up the controversy and hostility associated with the Berlin Wall. This barricade is the American wall that divides the U.S.-Mexico border.

Since 2006, fine art photographer Maurice Sherif has spent sweltering days documenting the wall that hopscotches 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean in California to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. His collection of 96 photos, along with essays from scholars, can be viewed in his giant two-volume book, "The American Wall" (MS Zephyr Publishing).

Sherif, who was born in France, attended the University of San Francisco. The recurring theme of silence and large spaces is evident in his work, which includes photographs of glaciers in Patagonia and architecture in Paris.
For some, Sherif's dreamy photos of the border fence are an eye-opener, illuminating a subject that was an abstract idea, a topic of political discourse. Published in December, the book was ranked by L.A.-based think tank Zócalo Public Square as among its top 10 best nonfiction of 2011.

The black-and-white minimalist photos reveal a fragmented wall in various stages, styles and materials. Eastward from San Diego, the structure snakes through a variety of landscapes, including rugged backcountry, populated towns and isolated backyards. No life forms are seen. Instead, the images show deterrents such as high-powered klieg lights, cameras, warning signs and X-shaped metal beams similar to those seen on the beaches of Normandy, France, on D-day.

Using Polaroid PN 55 film, Sheriff would venture out between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. to get more abrasive lighting that creates sharp-edged shadows.

In its fourth generation since 1969, the wall has gone through several transformations, including the addition of electric fencing, barbed wire, concrete and steel. The pictures are already obsolete, however, as a new, uniform upgrade is in the works.

A self-described social documentarian, Sherif believes the barrier is a misguided project driven by fear. "It's built like a prison," he noted.

Sherif believes that the billions spent on the wall could be put to better use. "I wanted to bring attention to people's consciousness what was going on," Sherif said of his motivation. On a visit to Albuquerque, New Mexico he was shocked to find everyone so detached to the situation.

"There's so much irony," said Sherif. "In the '80s, you have President Reagan telling Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall'; at the same, time he's building one in his own country."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/photographing-the-american-wall.html

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Crossing Over, and Over

New York Times
October 2, 2011
by Damien Cave


AGUA PRIETA, Mexico — "My wife, my son — I have to get back to them," Daniel kept telling himself, from the moment he was arrested in Seattle for driving with an expired license, all the way through the deportation proceeding that delivered him to Mexico in June.

Nothing would deter him from crossing the border again. He had left his hometown at 24, he said. Twelve years later, he spoke nearly fluent English and had an American son, a wife and three brothers in the United States. "I’ll keep trying," he said, "until I’ll get there."

This is increasingly the profile of illegal immigration today. Migrant shelters along the Mexican border are filled not with newcomers looking for a better life, but with seasoned crossers: older men and women, often deportees, braving ever-greater risks to get back to their families in the United States — the country they consider home.

They present an enormous challenge to American policy makers, because they continue to head north despite obstacles more severe than at any time in recent history. It is not just that the American economy has little to offer; the border itself is far more threatening. On one side, fences have grown and American agents have multiplied; on the other, criminals haunt the journey at every turn.

And yet, while these factors — and better opportunities at home — have cut illegal immigration from Mexico to its lowest level in decades, they are not enough to scare off a sizable, determined cadre.

"We have it boiled down to the hardest lot," said Christopher Sabatini, senior director for policy at the Council of the Americas.



Indeed, 56 percent of apprehensions at the Mexican border in 2010 involved people who had been caught previously, up from 44 percent in 2005. A growing percentage of deportees in recent years have also been deported before, according to Department of Homeland Security figures.

For the Obama administration, these repeat offenders have become a high priority. Prosecutions for illegal re-entry have jumped by more than two-thirds since 2008. Officials say it is now the most prosecuted federal felony.

President Obama has already deported around 1.1 million immigrants — more than any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower — and officials say the numbers will not decline. But at a time when the dynamics of immigration are changing, experts and advocates on all sides are increasingly asking if the approach, which has defined immigration policy since 9/11, still makes sense.

Deportation is expensive, costing the government at least $12,500 per person, and it often does not work: between October 2008 and July 22 of this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent $2.25 billion sending back 180,229 people who had been deported before and come back anyway. Many more have returned and stayed hidden.

Some groups favoring reduced immigration say that making life harder for illegal immigrants in this country would be far more efficient. They argue that along with eliminating work opportunities by requiring employers to verify the reported immigration status of new hires, Congress should also prohibit illegal immigrants from opening bank accounts, or even obtaining library cards.



"You’d reduce the number of people who keep coming back again and again," said Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The alternative, says Doris Meissner, the country’s top immigration official in the mid-1990s, is to accept that illegal immigrants like Daniel "are people with fundamental ties to the United States, not where they came from."

"Our societies are so deeply connected," Ms. Meissner said, referring primarily to the United States and Mexico, the main source of illegal immigrants. "And that is not reflected at all in policy."

The administration acknowledges that immigrants like Daniel are rooted in the United States and typically have otherwise clean criminal records. But under its new plan introduced in August — suspending deportations for pending low-priority cases, including immigrants brought to the United States as children — repeat crossers are singled out for removal alongside "serious felons," "known gang members" and "individuals who pose a clear risk to national security."

Administration officials say they are trying to break the "yo-yo effect" of people bouncing back, as mandated by congress when it toughened laws related to illegal re-entry in the 1990s.

But some experts argue that this commingling actually undermines security. After a decade of record deportations, critics argue, it has become even harder to separate the two groups that now define the border: professional criminals and experienced migrants motivated by family ties in the United States.

"If you think drug dealers and terrorists are much more dangerous than maids and gardeners, then we should get as many visas as possible to those people, so we can focus on the real threat," said David Shirk, director of the Transborder Institute at the University of San Diego. "Widening the gates would strengthen the walls."

Crime and the Border

The border crossers pouring into Arizona a decade or two ago were more numerous, but less likely to be threatening. David Jimarez, a Border Patrol agent with years of experience south of Tucson, recalled that even when migrants outnumbered American authorities by 25 to 1, they did not resist. "They would just sit down and wait for us," he said.

Over the past few years, the mix has changed, with more drug smugglers and other criminals among the dwindling, but still substantial, ranks of migrants.

The impacts are far-reaching. In northern Mexico, less immigration means less business. Border towns like Agua Prieta, long known as a departure point, have gone from bustling to windblown. Taxis that ferried migrants to the mountains now gather dust. Restaurants and hotels, like the sunflower-themed Girasol downtown, are practically empty. On one recent afternoon, only 3 of the 50 rooms were occupied.



"In 2000, we were full every day," said Alejandro Rocha, the hotel’s manager.

New research from the University of California, San Diego, shows that crime is now the top concern for Mexicans thinking of heading north. As fear keeps many migrants home, many experienced border guides, or coyotes, have given up illegal migration for other jobs.

In Tijuana, across the border from San Diego, one well-known coyote is now selling tires. In Nogales, the largest Mexican city bordering Arizona, power has shifted to tattooed young men with expensive binoculars along the border fence, while here in Agua Prieta — where Mexican officials say traffic is one-thirthieth of what it once was — the only way to get across is to deal with gangs that sometimes push migrants to carry drugs.

It is even worse in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Tex. Just standing at the border fence brings out drug cartel enforcers demanding $300 for the right to pass. Migrants and the organizations that assist them say cartel lieutenants roam the shelters, looking for deportees willing to work as lookouts, earning $400 a week until they have enough to pay for passage north.

"I was thinking about doing it, too," said Daniel, looking down. "But then I thought about my family."

American law enforcement officials say the matrix of drugs, migration and violence has become more visible at the border and along the trails and roads heading north, where more of the immigrants being caught carry drugs or guns — making them more likely to flee, resist arrest or commit other crimes.

"There’s less traffic, but traffic that’s there is more threatening," Mr. Jimarez, the border agent, said.

Larry Dever, the sheriff of Cochise County, Ariz., which sits north of Agua Prieta, agreed: "The guys smuggling people and narcotics now are more sinister."

His county, 6,169 square miles of scrub brush, ranches and tiny towns in the state’s southeast corner, has been an established crossing corridor since the mid-1990s. Since 2008, the police there have tracked every crime linked to illegal immigrants, in part because state and federal officials frequently requested data, treating the county as a bellwether of border security.

Indeed, when a Cochise rancher named Robert Krentz was killed in March 2010 after radioing to his brother that he was going to help a suspected illegal immigrant, the county quickly became a flash point for a larger debate that ultimately led to SB 1070, the polarizing Arizona bill giving the police more responsibility for cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Yet, crime involving illegal immigrants is relatively rare (5 percent of all local crime, Sheriff Dever said). Mostly it consists of burglaries involving stolen food. And, public records show, in 11 of the 18 violent crimes linked to illegal immigrants over 18 months, immigrants were both the victims and attackers.



This is not the portrait given by Republican border governors, including Rick Perry of Texas, a presidential candidate who recently said that "it is not safe on that border." But while Mexican drug cartels have increased their presence from Tucson to New York — sometimes engaging in brutal violence after entering the country illegally — Americans living near the border are generally safe.

A USA Today analysis of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California in July found that crime within 100 miles of the border is below both the national average and the average for each of those states — and has been declining for years. Several other independent researchers have come to the same conclusion.

But the border is not safe for people crossing or patrolling it. The number of immigrants found dead in the Arizona desert, from all causes, has failed to decline as fast as illegal immigration has, while assaults on Border Patrol agents grew by 41 percent from 2006 to 2010, almost entirely because of an increase in attacks with rocks. The heightened risks have stimulated a debate: Has the more aggressive approach — bigger fences, more agents and deportations — contributed to, or diminished, the danger?

Sheriff Dever, lionized as an "illegal immigration warrior" by immigration opponents, says that increased enforcement has made Americans safer and should continue until his neighbors tell him they are no longer afraid.



But some immigration advocates contend that the government’s approach is too broad to be effective. "We have to really separate out the guy who is coming to make a living with his family from the terrorist or the drug dealer," said Peter Siavelis, an editor of "Getting Immigration Right: What Every American Needs to Know."

Home Is Where the Children Are

Deportations have muddled that delineation. In a recent line of deportees piling off a bus on the San Diego side of a metal gate leading to Tijuana, all were equal: the criminal in prison garb with the wispy goatee; the mother averting her eyes; and longtime residents like Alberto Álvarez, 36, a janitor and father of five who said he was picked up for driving without a license.

"Look, I’ve been in the U.S. 18 years," he said, slinging a backpack over his Izod shirt. "Right now, my children are alone, my wife is alone caring for the kids by herself — they’ve separated us."

During the immigration wave that peaked around a decade ago, deportations often meant something different: many deportees had not been in the United States for long; they were going home.



But now that there are fewer new arrivals, the concept of home is changing. Of the roughly 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, 48 percent arrived before 2000. For the 6.5 million Mexicans in the United States illegally, that figure is even higher — 55 percent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. There are now also 4.5 million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents.

Experts on both sides of the debate say this large group of rooted immigrants presents the nation with a fundamental choice: Either make life in the United States so difficult for illegal immigrants that they leave on their own, or allow immigrants who pose no threat to public safety to remain with their families legally, though not necessarily as citizens.



Steven A. Camarota, a demographer at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said the government should revoke automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, and seize assets from deported illegal immigrants so they have fewer incentives to return.

President Obama, having made no progress on getting his legalization plan through Congress, has instead been trying to make enforcement more surgical. Under the new guidelines, officials will use "prosecutorial discretion" to review the current docket of 300,000 deportation cases, suspending expulsions for a range of immigrants.

Several factors prompt "particular care and consideration" for a reprieve, including whether the person has been in the United States since childhood, or is pregnant, seriously ill, a member of the military or a minor, according to a June memo that initiated the change.

The issue of "whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child or parent" appears in the memo’s secondary list of factors to consider. But it is not clear how broadly leniency will be applied. Repeat crossers are given a special black mark, and the administration has already deported hundreds of thousands of minor offenders, despite claiming to focus on "the worst of the worst."

Several Democratic governors and law enforcement officials are particularly angry about Secure Communities, a program to run the fingerprints of anyone booked by the police to check for federal immigration violations. A large proportion of those deported through this process — 79 percent, according to a recent report by the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University — were low-level offenders, often arrested for traffic violations.

Administration officials dispute that, saying the ratio of serious criminals is increasing, and that ultimately they must enforce immigration law against all violators. They have mandated that the program be used nationwide by 2013.



Mexico’s border cities offer a portrait of what that could mean. Nearly 950,000 Mexican immigrants have been deported since the start of fiscal 2008. And in Tijuana — a former hub for migrants heading north, which now receives more deportees than anywhere else — the pool of deportees preparing to cross again just keeps growing.

Maria García, 27, arrived here after being deported for a traffic violation. She said she had spent six years living in Fresno, Calif., with her two Mexico-born sons, 11 and 7. She was one of many who said that without a doubt, they would find their way back to the United States.

"They can’t stop us," she said.

The constant flow of deportees has become a growing concern for Mexican officials, who say the new arrivals are easy recruits, and victims, for drug cartels.

One former deportee was arrested this year for playing a major role in the deaths of around 200 people found in mass graves. In Tijuana, a homeless camp at the border has swollen from a cluster to a neighborhood, as deportees flow in, many carrying stories of being robbed or kidnapped by gangs who saw their American connections as a source for ransom.

Minutes after he arrived, Mr. Álvarez, the janitor, said he was worried about surviving — "you’re playing with your life being here," he said. But his twin sons would turn 2 in a few weeks, and like many others, he said that no matter how he was treated in the United States, he would find his way back.

"I feel bad being here, I feel bad," he said. "I’ve got my kids over there, my family, my whole life. Here" — he shook his head at the end of his first day in Tijuana — "no."

A version of this article appeared in print on October 3, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Crossing Over, and Over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/world/americas/mexican-immigrants-repeatedly-brave-risks-to-resume-lives-in-united-states.html?_r=2

Thursday, September 29, 2011

U.S. denies border-fence plan, despite report

Globe and Mail
September 29, 2011
by Tu Thanh Ha and John Ibbitson

The United States government insists it has no plans to put up a fence along parts of the Canada-U.S. border, despite a report that contemplates exactly that.

The report from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency put forward the possibility of fencing the border to deter illegal crossings. But a statement from the agency insisted that “a border fence along the northern border is not being considered at this time.”

The study that proposed the fence was intended to put forward options that could be considered “if additional manpower, technology, and infrastructure were employed,” the statement said.

There is no suggestion as yet that Congress or the Obama administration are planning to substantially increase border-protection funding.

The issue of a possible fence emerged as both countries prepared to release their Beyond the Border joint initiative that aims, in part, to improve border security through co-operation.

The possibility of the fence was brought up in a draft environmental impact study released two weeks ago seeking input from American communities along the 6,400-kilometre border from Maine to Washington State. The fencing would be far less extensive than that of the U.S.-Mexico border. Other tools could include deploying more remote sensors and upgrading checkpoints.

“While fencing has played a prominent role in CBP’s enforcement strategy on the Southern Border to deter illegal border crossings, it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role on the Northern Border, given the length of the border and the variability of the terrain,” the document says.

“CBP would use fencing and other barriers to manage movement (e.g., trenching across roads) in trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control; the resulting delay for cross-border violators would increase the rate of interdiction.”

An accompanying table shows there would be about five major projects, either upgrading access roads or building fences of more than 400 metres in length in each of four geographic areas: the border west of the Rockies, the Prairies, the Great Lakes and New England.

The proposal does not involve the border between Alaska and Canada.

The document outlines five alternatives to help the border agency “protect the Northern Border against evolving threats over the next five to seven years”:

- Maintaining the status quo. The study warns that “this alternative would not fully meet the need for the program because it would not allow CBP to improve its capability to interdict cross-border violators or to identify and resolve threats.”

- Upgrading current facilities such as border-patrol stations and ports of entry and providing more housing for personnel. “These facilities, built for a different era of operations, are poorly configured to support CBP’s evolving trade facilitation and antiterrorism mission,” the study says.

- Increasing detection by fielding more patrols and deploying more high-tech hardware, such as body and container scanners, remote sensors, microphones and cameras and radar.

- “Tactical security infrastructure,” meaning expanding access roads and “constructing additional barriers, such as selective fencing or vehicle barriers, at selected points along the border to deter and delay cross-border violators.”

- A mix of the last three options.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-denies-border-fence-plan-despite-report/article2184300/

Monday, August 8, 2011

Illegal Border Crossings Fewer But Just As Deadly

National Public Radio
August 7, 2011
by Ted Robbins

Over the last decade, the U.S. government has spent billions beefing up surveillance, manpower and fencing along the border with Mexico. Fewer people are attempting to cross, but hundreds of migrants still die every year, and not a day goes by without a rescue by border patrol agents.

Officials and humanitarian groups are ramping up efforts to find illegal crossers before the worst happens, and they're hoping new deterrents convince people not to cross in the first place.

Catching The Crossers

Robert Kiernan is one of the agents assigned to help track down those trying to cross. Kiernan is a Border Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR) agent working in an area southwest of Tucson, Ariz.

On a recent evening, he scans the desert for signs that people have been here. It's nearly sunset, so the long shadows highlight any footprints in the dirt. It's also when border crossers start getting active. Sure enough, a call comes over the radio: I got two bodies walking northbound from the 34 road. They're maybe a mile north.

A border patrol truck loaded with radar and cameras spotted them. Kiernan turns around and drives to the location. After a short hike, he sees two men hiding under brush next to a dry wash. The men could have been part of a larger group that scattered. They give up quietly. Agent Kiernan looks through their pockets and their backpacks and finds wire cutters, a steak knife, a pencil, toilet paper, snacks and water from a nearby cattle tank.

After a walk back to the road, other border patrol agents give the men fresh water, which they gulp down.

Kiernan says most crossers are unprepared for the journey.

"They're often lied to by the smugglers," Kiernan says. He says smugglers tell crossers that Phoenix — where these two say they were headed to find construction work — is just a day's walk. It actually takes a week.

"Most of them wouldn't sign up for something if they knew they were crossing into a region that could possibly take their life," Kiernan says. "Business wouldn't be that great for the smugglers, so they gotta lie to them to get them to take that hike."

Agent Eric Cantu says these crossers were probably trying to make it to a highway a few miles away where they'd get picked up. He asks the men how long they'd been walking. They say they crossed the border about a day and a half ago and made it 30 miles north before being caught. In some ways, they're lucky.

The Fate Of The Unlucky

Dr. Greg Hess, the Pima County medical examiner, opens the door to a refrigerated morgue. Inside are those who ran out of luck. White plastic body bags are stacked on shelves up to the ceiling.

"We probably have about 250-ish people in there," Hess says, guessing that almost all of them are undocumented migrants.

These are just the migrants who haven't been identified. Someone from the Mexican consulate comes to the facility's other morgue several times a week, trying to ID bodies and then notify relatives back home. In this morgue, each bag has a John or Jane Doe tag. Some bags contain just a few bones. Some have been here years. In another room, small lockers contain baggies filled with migrants' personal effects. Hess examines one collection.

"This is Case 1501. And you can see we have a Mexican identification with a name. We also have a piece of paper with phone numbers, CDs and a portion of a watch, which is still running," Hess says.

The ID shows a healthy-looking young man, but his remains are likely just a skeleton, so there are no fingerprints. Efforts to trace him through DNA haven't been successful. His remains will stay here until someone claims them or he's cremated.

Taking Steps To Reduce Deaths

Though there are fewer people crossing the border illegally and there's more security than ever, border deaths aren't dropping. Hess says southern Arizona is still on pace to reach 150-200 deaths this year — the average yearly total over the last decade.

No one knows for sure why deaths aren't dropping, but research from one humanitarian group suggests that people are being found in more remote places. That coincides with the buildup of enforcement in urban areas, where people used to cross.

To combat the problem, the Border Patrol says it's put 40 BORSTAR agents and 200 emergency medical technicians in the Tucson sector. It's also training two new classes of agents. Humanitarian groups continue to patrol areas, but they want more help, like rescue beacons, water stations and better access. That's going to take more cooperation from federal and state land managers, as well as the Border Patrol and Native American tribes that own the land.

There's also a push to get phone companies to have more cellphone coverage for 911 calls in these remote areas. Warnings about the dangers of crossing are broadcast on TV and radio throughout Mexico and Central America.

New Penalties For Illegal Crossing

As for the two men Kiernan caught, they face a new punishment. Less than five years ago, they likely would have been put on a bus and sent back to the Mexican border where they could simply try to cross again. That "catch and release" policy, as President Bush called it, has virtually been ended.

These men were taken to Tucson, processed as any other arrestee and prosecuted. They were charged with illegal crossing under Operation Streamline, which has a near-100-percent conviction rate. The first conviction is a misdemeanor, usually punishable by time served. Offenders get a deportation on their record, and if they try to cross again, they can be charged with a felony.

Those efforts may be working, but they are long-term fixes. Generations of families have been crossing the southern border for years, and it could take as long as a generation to discourage them. Until then, people will continue to die.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/07/138959162/illegal-border-crossings-fewer-but-just-as-deadly