Senators reinforce call for tightened borders as part of immigration reform

The Guardian
January 30, 2013
by Karen McVeigh

The citizenship ambitions of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US could rest on a fight over the definition of what constitutes a secure border, experts predict.

Barack Obama, in a milestone speech on immigration reform on Tuesday, echoed Republicans' tough language on border enforcement. But he did not go as far as a demand by a bipartisan group of senators that the US border be declared secure before people who are in the US illegally be given a "path to citizenship".

Those senators argue that a commission be set up to rule on whether the border is secure before a single undocumented immigrant is given a chance to move towards a fully legal status. Obama's failure to endorse explicitly that demand has already raised suspicions among Republicans.

Marco Rubio, a prominent Latino senator and one of the eight who set out their own proposals a day earlier, warned the president not to ignore his party's concerns about border security. "I think that would be a terrible mistake," Rubio told Fox News. "We have a bipartisan group of senators that have agreed to that. For the president to try to move the goalposts on that specific requirement, as an example, does not bode well in terms of what his role's going to be in this or the outcome." He added: "If that's not in the bill, I won't support it." 

Senator Jeff Flake, a newly elected Republican senator for the border state of Arizona, echoed Rubio's demand for a clear statement from an independent commission on border security. "This provision is key to ensuring that border security is achieved, and is also necessary to ensure that a reform package can actually move through Congress," he said in remarks quoted by Reuters.

The question of what constitutes a secure border is likely to be be crucial in determining the success of the latest plans to reform what is widely accepted to be a "broken" immigration system.

A framework set out by the bipartisan "gang of eight" senators on Monday talks about the need to "prevent, detect and apprehend every entry". But Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, said it would be impossible to meet that demand literally. "If it has to reach a point where there are zero illegal entrants – that is just not achievable," she said. "No police force could guarantee on an annual basis that there would be zero homicides or zero crimes of violence."

The demands for "enforcement first" stem from previous attempts at immigration reform. But despite the implicit suggestion that border security is lax, the opposite is true.

The number of border control agents has doubled in six years, and there has been a massive increase in federal spending on enforcement. Last month, a report by the Migration Policy Institute, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The rise of a Formidable Machinery, found that the Obama administration spent $18bn on immigration enforcement last year, significantly more than its spending on all the other major federal law enforcement agencies combined.

"We've sketched a dramatic transformation of the immigration enforcement system since 1986," said Mittelstadt. She said it had reached a "level unparalleled in this country's history".

Obama noted in his speech on Tuesday that the "tide of illegal immigrants" from Mexico had been stemmed by increased border security. "We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80% from their peak in 2000," he said. Obama also noted that deportations of criminals "is at its highest level ever".

But Thad Bingel, who was chief of staff, US Customs and Border Protection from 2005 to 2009, said the legacy of the last overhaul over the immigration laws, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, had created a generation sceptical of reform without border control.

"Even although we've seen significant progress, there's a recognition from the senators that the public need to be convinced that we have not done enough. I agree with that. You need to assure people." He agreed with the senators' proposal on how to define border security. "They want to have a commission made up of attorney generals, governors and leaders of the border states, and that makes sense. The sticking part will be the membership of that commission and what its powers are."

Bingel cited a doubling of border patrol agents, from 10,000 in 2004 to 21,000 today as one of many recent improvements. There had also been a drop in the number of people apprehended for attempting to cross the border illegally, from about one million a year in 2000 to 327,000 in 2011. "That is significant progress. But the debate now is what will be an acceptable number," he said.

He said that border security has a different meaning today, pointing out that 50% of those who are in the US illegally had entered the country legally, but overstayed their visas. That posed different challenges: "You need a mix of things, including technology on the border itself, employment verification and an exit control system on land, looking at documents that can be scanned when someone leaves the country."

Bingel also said border security had become more dangerous. "It's a different battle now. Because the border had become more difficult to cross, we have seen an increase in criminal organisations using more violent tactics to defeat border security. Organisations that used to smuggle narcotics have diversified into people smuggling. You need a different set of tools."

Mittelstadt, of the Migration Policy Institute, said that the answer to the question of border security was not more enforcement but to look at where the gaps were. "More enforcement of the existing system will not yield results. There continue to be gaps and one is in employment enforcement. What is needed is to address those gaps."

Mittelstadt welcomed the framework set out by the bipartisan group of eight senators as a "significant breakthrough". But she added: "It is, however, just a framework. There remains the filling in of details between the document and the legislative text."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/30/republicans-border-control-immigration-plan

Obama pushes Congress on immigration, split emerges

Reuters
January 29, 2013
by Matt Spetalnick

Just over a week into his second term, President Barack Obama took his fight for immigration reform to the West on Tuesday and pushed Congress to quickly find a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented residents.
But as Obama praised a bipartisan immigration plan during a speech in Las Vegas, disagreement emerged between the White House and Republicans that underscored the difficulty of resolving an emotive issue that has long defied a legislative fix.

"I'm here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said at a high school. "The time is now. Now is the time."

After years on the back burner, immigration reform has suddenly looked possible as Republicans, chastened by Latino voters who rejected them in the November election, appear more willing to accept a thorough overhaul.

Action on immigration was sidelined by economic issues and healthcare reform during Obama's first term but it is part of an ambitious liberal agenda the Democratic president laid out last week in his second inaugural address. That agenda also includes gun control, gay rights and fighting climate change.

Hispanic voters were crucial in winning Nevada for Obama in November and the crowd at the high school was supportive.

"Si se puede," yelled some, using a Spanish phrase that harked back to Obama's 2008 "Yes we can" campaign slogan. Some in the audience were brought to tears when he talked about the difficulties some immigrants have experienced.

In Washington, however, differences quickly emerged between what Obama would like and the proposals by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators, whose plan is heavy on border security.

Obama pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that is faster than the one the Senate group proposed.

Rather than emphasize border security first, he would let undocumented immigrants get on a path to citizenship if they first undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally.

"We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship," he said.

For Republicans, this is a sticking point. The Gang of Eight plan envisions first taking steps to toughen security along the U.S.-Mexican border before setting in motion the steps illegal immigrants must take to gain legal status.

That difference was enough to raise concerns among Republican lawmakers who are trying to frame a package that can pass the Republican-led House of Representatives.

RUBIO "CONCERNED"

A Hispanic Republican, Senator Marco Rubio, complained that Obama's speech neglected border security and left the impression that "he believes reforming immigration quickly is more important than reforming immigration right."

"I am concerned by the president's unwillingness to accept significant enforcement triggers before current undocumented immigrants can apply for a green card," he said. "Without such triggers in place, enforcement systems will never be implemented and we will be back in just a few years dealing with millions of new undocumented people in our country."

Republicans will likely oppose any immigration plan that doesn't put border security first.

"This provision is key to ensuring that border security is achieved, and is also necessary to ensure that a reform package can actually move through Congress," said newly elected Senator Jeff Flake of the border state of Arizona.

In addition, Obama made no mention of creating a temporary guest worker program geared to the low-skilled, labor-intensive agricultural industry. Labor unions do not yet support such a program.

Another point of contention is expected to be whether same-sex couples are granted the same benefits as heterosexual couples under immigration reform - something the White House says Obama will insist upon but which the Senate group did not deal with.

Obama's speech in Nevada, coming a little more than a week after his second inauguration, reflects the growing clout of Hispanic voters, as does Republican willingness to move on the issue.

The president said that if Congress is unable to act in a timely fashion, he will propose immigration legislation of his own and "insist that they vote on it right away."

Immigration reform could give Obama a landmark second-term legislative achievement, but the White House is mindful that success on such a divisive issue will require a delicate balancing act.

The last major attempt at an immigration overhaul was done by Republican President George W. Bush in 2007. It collapsed in Congress. Obama did not follow through with a promise to seek an overhaul in his first term, fearing a repeat of the earlier debacle.

"We can't allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We've been debating this a very long time. So it's not as if we don't know technically what needs to get done," Obama said.

Republicans who saw their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, receive only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in the election loss to Obama are adamant that steps must be taken to draw more Hispanics to their party's ranks.

This could be a slow process to change hearts and minds.

"I don't know about voting for them (the Republicans) yet but they definitely are starting to talk about things we want to hear," said Maxima Guerrero, 22, a community college student in Phoenix. Originally from Morelos, Mexico, she was brought to the United States at age five.

In addition to dealing with Republican demands, Obama needs to watch his left flank, where unions worry about temporary workers' programs.

And the American Civil Liberties Union warned against an erosion of rights under plans to tighten the employment verification system that determines whether a worker is in the United States legally.

"While there are components of the Senate plan that provide millions of aspiring citizens the legal status they deserve to live, work, and raise their families free of fear, others, such as mandating E-Verify and continued wasteful and unnecessary spending on the border, raise serious civil liberties concerns," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-immigration-obama-idUSBRE90S06U20130129

Want tighter border security? You’re already getting it.

Washington Post
January 29, 2013
by Suzy Khimm

Legislators have failed to pass a sweeping immigration overhaul for more than five years. But there’s one piece of the 2007 immigration reform bill that they’ve managed to accomplish: pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into border security.

Under the Senate’s new blueprint for reform, the legalization of undocumented immigrants would only happen if the government “finally commit[s] the resources needed to secure the border,” as well as strict visa enforcement for legal immigrants. It’s a provision that’s similar to Bush’s 2007 immigration bill, which also made legalization contingent on beefed-up border security.

The Senate’s language suggests that the government has held back from devoting money, equipment and personnel to border security. In fact, even though the 2007 immigration bill ultimately failed, we’ve nevertheless hit nearly all of the targets that it established for increased border security—except for achieving absolute “operational control” of the border and mandatory detention of all border-crossers who’ve been apprehended.

The 2007 bill sought to increase the number of Border Patrol agents to 20,000; in FY 2011, we hit 21,444 agents.

The 2007 bill proposed to erect 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, 105 radar and camera towers, and four drones; by 2012, we completed 651 miles of vehicle fencing—including 352 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299 vehicle barriers—300 towers, and nine drones, according to Customs and Border Patrol.

The 2007 bill asked for the resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain up to 31,500 people per day; ICE now has funding to detain up to 34,000 individuals at any time, per FY 2012 appropriations.

Finally, the 2007 bill also called for what’s known as “operational control” of the entire border, which the 2006 Secure Fence Act defined as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

Experts generally agree that “absolute” control of the border is practically impossible, so DHS has instead defined “effective” operational control as “the ability to detect, respond, and interdict illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States,” as a Congressional Research Service report explains. By that definition, the government had 57 percent of the southern border under “effective control,” up from 31 percent in 2007, due to the new border security measures that were implemented since then. (The 2007 bill also called for mandatory federal implementation of workplace immigration enforcement measures like E-Verify; these have only been put into effect by certain states.)

Such enforcement has come with a large price tag: Last year, Congress funded Customs and Border Protection at $11.7 billion—64 percent more than FY 2006 and $262 million more than in FY 2011, despite the new climate of austerity . And that doesn’t count the $600 million that Congress provided in a separate border security bill in 2010. But the Obama administration believes that it’s also paid dividends: In 2011, apprehensions at the border were at 340,252—the lowest level since 1971—while the Obama administration has deported immigrants at a faster rate than Bush.

Pro-immigration advocates believe that all this is proof that we’ve already done enough on the border security front. “The border security issue is, at this point, 90 to 95 percent solved,” says Frank Sharry, head of America’s Voice.

Republicans, however, contest the claim that border security has improved under Obama. They point out, for instance, that the drop in apprehensions simply reflects the fact that illegal immigration itself has fallen sharply since the U.S. economy has gone into free fall. Gordon Hanson, an economist at University of California, San Diego, disputes DHS’s definition of “effective control” of the border.

“I don’t think it has much scientific merit… It’s a measure of investment. It’s not a measure of return on investment,” Hanson told Politifact. He acknowledges, however, that increased enforcement has indeed contributed to at least half the drop in illegal immigration over the last five years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-2007-immigration-bill-set-border-security-targets-weve-hit-most-of-them/

US immigration plan 'a good start': Proposal's tie to El Paso border region security questioned

El Paso Times
January 29, 2013
by Diana Washington Valdez

Community leaders and advocates in the El Paso border region said Monday that they welcome the news that U.S. lawmakers are working to adopt new immigration legislation aimed at legalizing the status of more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country.   A group of U.S. senators on Monday announced their general framework for bipartisan immigration legislation. President Barack Obama plans to unveil his own proposal today in Nevada.

An estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States in 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported last year, at least half of them in California and Texas.

The Center for Border Farm Workers in El Paso estimates that up to 30 percent of the 5,000 to 14,000 migrant workers in West Texas and Southern New Mexico are undocumented. The higher number is the most usually hired during peak harvest seasons.


U.S. Rep. Robert "Beto" O'Rourke, D-El Paso, said, "I am encouraged that it looks like Congress is finally going to address this issue. It's a good start. I am happy to see that the proposal includes a path to citizenship for 11 million people who are here in an undocumented status. I am also glad to see a fast-track plan for the Dreamers," referring to youths who were brought to the United States by undocumented parents and remain in an immigration limbo.

O'Rourke also said he believes he can use his role on the Homeland Security Committee to help propel sound immigration legislation.


He and Ruben Garcia, executive director of the Annunciation House, which assists at-risk migrants, said they challenge the notion that immigration reform must be conditioned on first assuring that the border is secure.

"I am surprised at the extent that 'securing the border' is still such a big part of the conversation, and that reform is being conditioned on making the border safe," Garcia said. "These legislators need to look at what the U.S. has done in relation to enforcement over the past 10 years. However, I am glad to see that the momentum for immigration reform is building, and I'm very happy that President Obama will speak about this (today)."


In recent years, crime statistics compiled each year by the FBI indicate that overall crime is down in U.S. cities along the border with Mexico. El Paso continues to be ranked among the safest cities for its size in the United States, despite its proximity to Juárez, Chihuahua, which experienced extraordinary levels of violence during the drug cartel wars of 2008-2012.

Eight Republican and Democrat U.S. senators released a copy of their general framework for immigration reform that includes these goals:

Creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, contingent upon securing the border and better tracking of people who are here on visas.

Reforming the legal immigration system, including awarding green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from a U.S. university.

Creating an effective employment verification system to ensure that employers do not hire undocumented immigrants.

Allowing more low-skill workers into the country, and allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they were unable to recruit a U.S. citizen for the work; and establishing an agricultural worker program.

The senators who are expected to support these guiding principles for immigration reform are Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado. The Republicans involved in the legislation are John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

"While there are still many details to be worked out, I recognize that in order to address the many facets of immigration reform, it's going to take a bipartisan commitment. Yes, 'the devil's in the details,' and not everyone is going to like everything, but sitting idly by is not a responsible approach," Flake said in a statement that covered details of the senators' proposal.

"I have always insisted that any reform plan not include a blanket amnesty and these principles reflect that. I'm also particularly pleased that there is bipartisan support to include the input of border communities," Flake said. "Not only will security be strengthened according to Washington, D.C,. but border communities will have a say as well."

Under the senators' proposal, the undocumented immigrants would have to pass background checks and pay fines and taxes in order to qualify for a probationary legal status that would allow them to live and work here. And they could not qualify for federal benefits, including health care, before being able to apply for permanent residency, the step toward citizenship.

Once they are allowed to apply, they would be allowed to do so only behind everyone else who is already in line for a green card within the current immigration system.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said "I am very encouraged by the bipartisan framework that has been unveiled in the Senate to modernize our broken immigration system. Reform is long overdue. The proposal contains the elements necessary to overhaul the system, including securing our borders, a roadmap to earned citizenship and employment verification to hold employers accountable.

"I'm also pleased that it would provide further certainty for DREAMers and recognizes the importance of workforce stability within the agriculture industry. As a border state, this is good news for New Mexico," Udall said in a statement. "I look forward to reviewing the details of this legislation as it takes form and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give this issue the attention it deserves."

Besides politicians and advocates, religious leaders across the United States had called on Congress to adopt immigration reform.

In a statement, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "The senators have introduced principles for a bill that has a true chance of passing. I think they sense this is a real opportunity. Not only should we be encouraged but we should understand that this is truly what St. Paul would call a 'kairos,' or propitious, moment to be seized. The momentum needs to be used to pass significant and helpful immigration reform."

Carlos Marentes, director of the Border Farm Workers Center, which assists migrant agricultural workers in the region, and Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, a coalition of advocacy organizations, said they are glad to see U.S. lawmakers embark on immigration reform, but are troubled by some aspects of the senators' proposal.

"The Border Network recognizes this as a first and very important step to address the core issue of immigration reform, which is providing a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people living and working in the U.S.," said Garcia, who's unrelated to Ruben Garcia of the Annunciation House. "But we cannot ignore the problems within these principles. We are deeply concerned and disappointed that the senators would connect the much-needed legalization program to new border enforcement triggers and further militarization of our southern border.

The bipartisan proposal, Garcia said, calls for the deployment of more drones (unmanned aerial vehicles), more Border Patrol agents, more infrastructure and military technology, and for national, mandatory E-Verify, which would be very close to a national ID.

Marentes said he is concerned about the U.S. government might come up with a new "bracero-type" program for migrant farm workers that will permit employers to exploit them at will.

"We don't know what safeguards will be extended from this legislation to farmworkers," Marentes said.

"The new legislation, as proposed, is very different from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. I just can't see how you can end up with a just and humane law as long as immigration reform is being linked to the issue of national security."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_22470164/immigration-plan-good-start

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/

South Texas border fence in limbo amid flooding, wildlife worries

E & E News
January 23, 2013
by April Reese

In south Texas, where the Rio Grande divides the United States from Mexico, three of the last remaining sections of border fence -- approved more than five years ago -- remain unbuilt.

Unlike many existing sections, those in limbo would be constructed within the floodplain. They would stretch a total of 7 miles and skim the southern edge of three Texas towns -- Roma, Rio Grande and Los Ebanos.

Mexican officials, border town mayors, environmental groups, residents and some congressional leaders remain concerned that those projects could potentially push Rio Grande floodwaters into Mexican towns and block wildlife corridors.

After languishing on the back burner for several years, the projects have advanced recently after receiving a needed stamp of approval from an international governmental body. But as many opponents have made clear, the fence Congress authorized in 2006 will not be completed without a major fight.

"I've lived here all my life," said Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal, who has governed the city for five years. "The minute you manipulate anything along the river, it affects you, and how that will affect the community is a big concern. It's going to obstruct the natural flow of the water and obstruct wildlife."

If the sections in question are constructed, local officials and residents fear debris will build up along the fence, causing severe flooding and erosion.

At first, officials with the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), created to address water-related issues along the border, shared those concerns. But after alterations to the original plans, the agency has changed its mind, said Sally Spener, a foreign affairs officer with the United States' section of the IBWC, or the USIBWC.

"There was a new design that they came up with that did not cause a prohibitive obstruction," Spener said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with implementing the projects. "In other words, it wasn't a solid fence. It was a different design back in 2008."

The fence could also block wildlife from key migration corridors, environmental groups say.

Scott Nichols, who works for the Sierra Club's Borderlands Project and lives in the border town of McAllen, Texas, worries about the fence's impact on rare and endangered species, including the ocelot, whose population has dropped to about 100 breeding animals. If the fence is built, that will be one more barrier hemming in wildlife -- along with roads, buildings and other fencing.

The Department of Homeland Security has already constructed fence segments through prime wildlife areas, including the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area and the South Texas Refuge Complex, over the objections of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies, along with conservation groups, have worked for decades to purchase and restore habitat in the lower Rio Grande Valley, and the new fencing could severely undermine those efforts, Nichols and other conservationists say.

Villarreal said DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) haven't paid enough attention to what the people who live along the border want.

"At some point, stop asking Washington and start asking border residents, and you'll find a solution," he said, "because we live on the river."

In the end, opponents' best hope of killing the fence in south Texas may be the congressional funding crunch. CBP says it currently does not have the money to pursue the project.

"There is no funding to build any additional fence at this time," said Bill Brooks, a spokesman for CBP's south Texas office. But many locals worry the money will be found in the next few years.

Of rivers and boundaries

Concerns about the fence date back to the late 2000s. In 2008, the IBWC, a binational government agency that deals with water-related border issues, warned DHS that the fence segments in Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos could potentially cause flooding and shift the international boundary.

Under a 1970 boundary treaty, IBWC -- both the agency's Mexican section and the U.S. section -- must ensure that projects built in the Rio Grande floodplain do not obstruct or deflect the river's flows or exacerbate flooding. In particular, IBWC officials worried that during rainstorms, debris would build up against the fence and turn it into a dam of sorts, diverting flows into Mexican communities (Land Letter, March 27, 2008).
But after consultants analyzing the potential effects of the fence on river flows revised their original model, USIBWC dropped their concerns.

The Mexican section of IBWC, however, remained unconvinced.

"The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, Texas, the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing deflection of flows toward the Mexican side," wrote Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza, principal engineer for IBWC-Mexico, in a Dec. 13, 2011, letter to the USIBWC.

The fence would obstruct 60 to 70 percent of the hydraulic area, and considering the amount of debris that could pile up against the barrier, "the fence constitutes a serious obstruction and deflection of the Rio Grande flows toward Mexico," he wrote.

But last year, engineers for the USIBWC cleared the way for the project to proceed, concluding that the fence would not violate the 1970 boundary treaty.

"After an in-depth and thorough review, the USIBWC has concluded that the proposed fence project(s) will not cause significant deflection or obstruction of ... flood flows of the Rio Grande," USIBWC engineer John Merino wrote in a Feb. 3, 2012, letter responding to the concerns of the Mexican section of IBWC.

The fence would be constructed of 6-inch vertical bollard posts with 4-inch spaces in between. Computer models show that the amount of water that would be directed into Mexico by the fence is "within the threshold limits," partly because some of the flow would pass through the fence, Merino said.

Based on that information, the USIBWC notified the Department of Homeland Security that it had no objection to the three fence projects -- a necessary step for DHS to move forward.

Multiple attempts to reach a DHS representative familiar with the projects garnered no response. DHS has told IBWC it would come up with a plan to keep debris from piling up against the fence during storms.

It is unclear whether the Mexican section of IBWC remains concerned about the project. In a brief phone conversation, Mendoza referred an inquiry from Greenwire about Mexico's position on the project to a spokesperson, who did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

Despite the USIBWC's assurances, local opposition in the United States remains strong. At a meeting held by USIBWC in Rio Grande City late last summer, the majority of the crowd of residents and local officials questioned the agency's conclusions.

"How can you really tell us it's going to work 100 percent?" said Aleida Garcia, of Los Ebanos, a small community that lies within the floodplain, according to an Associated Press account of the Aug. 29, 2012, meeting. "Because we're talking about people, communities, families."

Jose Nuñez, supervisory civil engineer with USIBWC, said in response that "whether the fence is there or not, you're still in the floodplain," according to AP. He reiterated that the computer model used by the agency's engineers to analyze the project's hydrologic effects suggests that the fence will not create a significant obstruction.

The fence is unpopular in other areas of Texas, as well. In places where CBP tried to avoid building in the floodplain, the new 18-foot barrier has cut off landowners from some of their private property, including farmland. Some landowners have sued over DHS's use of eminent domain to allow construction through private property.

Securing the border?

The fence projects in limbo were authorized as part of a larger border reinforcement effort mandated under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It called for construction of a total of about 700 miles of fence along sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, which spans 1,954 miles from Texas to California. The barrier was needed to "make the border more secure," President George W. Bush said in signing the legislation into law on Oct. 26, 2006.

Around the time the Secure Fence Act was passed, Congress also gave its stamp of approval to the Real ID Act, which allowed more than 30 environmental and cultural laws to be waived by the DHS secretary to expedite construction of the ambitious project. But the south Texas projects still have to comply with international treaties governing actions along the section of the Rio Grande that serves as the border there.

Critics maintain that in south Texas, there is no need for the fence in the first place. Nichols of the Sierra Club points to a June 2008 document drafted to address community concerns as evidence that the CBP itself believes the fence projects planned for south Texas would be overkill. CPB said in the document that at that time, it was able to "effectively control" that section of the border with boots on the ground.

But the agency went on to say it believed further reinforcements would be necessary if illegal activity increased in the Rio Grande Valley sector.

The number of apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley actually dropped in the ensuing years, however.

According to data provided by CBP, apprehension of illegal border crossers has decreased almost every year since 2008. Apprehensions in the Rio Grande sector went from 134,186 in fiscal 2005 to 59,243 in fiscal 2011.
Some local officials, including Mayor Villarreal and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district includes some of the area slated for the projects, have called for alternatives to the fence to secure the area, primarily by expanding the law enforcement presence.

"Let's get more money for our local sheriffs and police," Cuellar said in a video posted on his website after a DHS hearing on border security.

Villarreal, however, remains convinced the fence will be built within the next few years.

"I think we'll have to deal with the strong possibility that we'll have a fence to contend with," he said.

The Quest For A Secure Border

KPBS
January 24, 2013
by Michel Marizco

ARIVACA, Ariz. -- Border security first. That’s the rallying call of many political conservatives who see 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country as clear evidence that the federal government has failed the job of border enforcement.

And they say, before we reform the immigration system, and offer a path to citizenship to those who came here illegally, we need to secure the border.

Here in the communications room of the U.S. Border Patrol’s station in Nogales, Ariz., two men sit facing a wall of computer screens. Amid the scratch and static coming from the radios of agents in the field, the two men move joysticks back and forth, watching the displays. They see what the massive cameras mounted along the Mexico border see. A single figure is standing near the looming border wall that separates the two countries. That makes the camera operator suspicious.
"He’s talking to someone to see if the coast is clear,” the operator said.

This is the modern face of high tech border security. It’s become a massive slice of federal law enforcement spending -- $18 billion was spent last year on immigration and port security. That was more than on drug enforcement, the FBI and gun investigations combined. The Border Patrol alone more than doubled in size in the last decade to more than 21,000 agents. The Homeland Security Department has built 652 miles of steel barriers all along the border.

Is it working? And if so, how do we define that?

Andy Adame is a spokesman for the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector. On a cold January morning, he’s driving on a dirt trail set against a backdrop of yellowing grasses and looming mesquite trees toward the border fence -- no longer strands of cheap barbed wire dividing the two countries.

"You don’t see that anymore," he says. He points to the fence. "This, in order to cross this, you better be 18 to 40 years old and in good physical condition."

It’s called the PV-1, thirty feet of diamond-shaped steel bars above ground and six feet more below. It can absorb a pickup truck ramming into it at 55 miles an hour.

"I think we have reached that point where we have a significant amount of fencing where it does now have an impact on illegal immigration and drug organizations trying to bring their illicit cargo across," Adame said.

Here’s one measure of success: Apprehensions across the entire border have dropped. Some places like San Diego have reported arrests have dropped to a third of what they were.

But the numbers don’t tell the full story. For example, recividism rates only declined about 6 percent from 2008 to 2011. And the agency’s Tucson Sector remains the busiest in the country, accounting for more than a third of illegal traffic.

The numbers can be confusing, too. Arrests of illegal immigrants drop and that’s called a success. But the amount of drugs seized goes up and that’s also called a success. While 2011's apprehension numbers dropped compared to 2008, drug seizures went up by 20 percent.

Both were called a success.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked about that juxtaposition last summer by a member of a Homeland Security Oversight congressional committee.

"The apprehension numbers are used as a proxy for how many are attempting. We actually think that we are now picking up almost everybody that is trying to cross that border illegally," she said.

That created a stir. Members of Congress wanted to know, where?

“Oh, I would have to give you a list. At least one of the Arizona sectors, I think we are getting virtually everybody," she said.

The question of success has continued so long that Congressman Ron Barber in Tucson finally asked the Government Accountability Office to study what’s been spent and what’s been accomplished.

"What they found was that there really is a plan without goals, without measurements, or an evaluation function. Which means, we really don’t have a plan," Barber said.

His proposal: Ask the people who actually live on the border.

"They’re going to tell me if they see a lower number of people coming through. They’re going to tell me if they can go to town without taking their kids with them. If they can go to the clothesline without wearing a weapon because they feel more secure and safe on their own land," Barber said.

One of those border residents is Jim Chilton. He lives 19 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border in the small town of Arivaca. His cattle ranch runs all the way down to Mexico and he’s seen it all. Dozens of people arrested just back behind his house. Spotters working for drug runners laying up in the hills on his ranch watching for agents.

Despite Napolitano’s claims, Chilton says the job isn’t done.

"A secure border means to me that the United States government is protecting me from foreign threats," Chilton said.

For its part, Customs and Border Protection agreed with the GAO’s audit. It has said it will design a plan that finally defines for itself what border security actually means. That answer will come next November. Congressman Barber says he’s going to hold a series of public meetings in the border region to develop an answer now.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jan/24/quest-secure-border/