Shots across the US/MEX border

The Economist ^ | Jan 12th 2006 | The Economist

[VU4G10]

Plans for a border fence spark anger among Mexicans

COUNTRIES that claim to be the best of friends do not normally shoot across their mutual frontier. But on December 30th, an agent of the United States Border Patrol shot dead an 18-year-old Mexican as he tried to cross the border near San Diego. The patrol says the shooting was in self-defence, and that the dead man was a coyote, or people-smuggler. Vicente Fox, Mexico's president, made a diplomatic protest, and called for an investigation into the shooting. At the other end of the border, in Texas, Border Patrol agents were reportedly shot at from inside Mexico.

These incidents could hardly have come at a worse time. On December 16th, the United States House of Representatives passed by 239 to 182 votes a bill sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. This would make illegal immigration a felony, create a crime of employing or aiding undocumented migrants, and order “physical infrastructure enhancements” (ie, a fence) along more than a third of the 3,100 kilometre (2,000 mile) border.

The Sensenbrenner bill stands little chance of passing in the Senate. It is not backed by the Bush administration, which has campaigned for tougher enforcement to be combined with a guest-worker programme. This would help give legal status to some of the 10m or so migrants who are in the United States illegally (perhaps 60% of whom are Mexicans).

Nevertheless, the Sensenbrenner bill has caused outrage south of the border. Mr Fox called it shameful. He said migrants were “heroes”, who will in any event find ways to cross the border. Luis Derbez, his foreign minister, called the bill “stupid” and “underhand”.

On January 9th, seven Central American countries, together with Colombia and the Dominican Republic, agreed to work with Mexico to defend their emigrants to the United States. Most of these countries have free-trade agreements with America. They are its closest allies in Latin America, where many governments are less friendly than they were a decade ago.

All this is a far cry from the warmth between Mr Fox and George Bush when both took office. Mexico had high hopes of negotiating agreements on migration. Then came September 11th 2001, and Mexico's opposition at the UN Security Council to the war in Iraq. Some Mexicans say the hopes were always unrealistic. Others say that Mexico—and Mr Derbez in particular—must shoulder much of the blame for them being dashed. Mr Derbez threw out a plan for immigration reform drawn up by his predecessor, Jorge Castañeda, largely out of personal animosity. He is widely seen as an unimpressive minister.

Perhaps Mr Fox's biggest mistake has been his failure to lobby effectively over migration on Capitol Hill. Andrés Rozental, who heads the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (and is Mr Castañeda's half-brother), notes that this contrasts with the effort made to secure passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, when Mexico used its network of over 40 consulates to lobby Congress. Another unused channel of influence is the one-in-12 people born in Mexico who now live in the United States (see chart). Most are there legally and many are eligible to vote.

Despite the public acrimony, Mr Rozental says that day-to-day co-operation between Mexico and the United States on matters such as public health, trade and law enforcement has never been greater. But he believes there is a minimal chance of significant progress on immigration reform under Mr Bush.

There is a broad political consensus that Mexico should push for a guest-worker programme and the regularisation of undocumented migrants in return for beefing up security on its side of the border. None of the candidates in a presidential election due in July is likely to use the issue as justification for anti-American rhetoric of the kind that has become common farther south. Mexico's ties to the United States are too important for that.

But migration will remain a running sore in relations between the two countries. Fences on urban stretches of the border in California and Texas have pushed migrants to the Arizona desert—but have not stopped them. Last year, some 400,000 crossed illegally, of whom over 90% had jobs in Mexico, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Centre, a think-tank in Washington, DC. But even unskilled jobs across the border pay much better. NAFTA was supposed to close that gap, but it has not done so yet.

More than 400 Mexicans died in 2005 trying to enter the United States (though in only two cases was the Border Patrol involved). That looms large in Mexican consciousness. Every Mexican knows someone who has crossed the border, if they haven't done so themselves. The harder and more dangerous it gets, the more Mexican public opinion may turn against the United States. The free movement of goods, but not of labour, across the border was always likely to cause problems.

[Dr. Marten]

But on December 30th, an agent of the United States Border Patrol shot dead an 18-year-old Mexican as he tried to cross the border near San Diego.

 

Good! Shoot a few more of those little b@$t@rd$ and just maybe they'll learn to stay on their own side of the darn river unless they want to come over the legal way.

[A CA Guy]

Throw the military there and pay the Mexicans to build the wall at 10 cents an hour while supervised.

[HiJinx]

Putting the NG on the border is a good idea, but it won't solve the problem. The MMP shut down crossings along the border for what - 30 miles? - in April. But it took a whole lot of people. Does that mean we don't put the Guard or other military on the border? No, it just means we don't rely on them alone.

Putting up a fence is a good idea, but it won't stop everyone. Does that mean we don't put up a fence? No, it means we couple the fence with increased manpower and effective electronic surveillance.

Folks, no one solution is the be-all end-all for controlling the border. And when we get wrapped up in trying to convince each other that one proposal is better (or worse) than another, we are engaged in a self-defeating exercise.

[John Jorsett]

COUNTRIES that claim to be the best of friends do not normally shoot across their mutual frontier. But on December 30th, an agent of the United States Border Patrol shot dead an 18-year-old Mexican as he tried to cross the border near San Diego.

The guy who was shot was reported to be on the U.S. side at the time, but don't let mere facts spoil your premise ...

[Sangey]

LEGAL Immigrants are important to the US. They come here to become part of America, not to be a drain on the system. People come here and work hard to become American citizens should be accepted as American citizens and have all the full rights and responsibilities of full American Citizens. Many of us love America enough to serve in the US Army and go to war for America. ((Sometimes I see Native born Americans who do not know how great this country is and I wish I could send them somewhere else for a year - -Bejing maybe.))

Besides this about ILLEGAL immigration Sensenbrenner is right. I think that 'copying'the Israeli wall/fence is a good idea, but it is insufficient alone. People are OK to like the idea, but they need to understand that it is not alone enough to do the job without more manpower than we currently have. We now have army technologies called Unattended Ground Sensors and Ground Surveillance Radar (17Kilo is the job) that would be force multipliers. These devices would let people monitor larger areas of terrain with fewer people. They are not hard to learn to operate.

But they still need more people than they currently have. I think that the Border Patrol may need to become more like the Coast Guard (Like Navy but not exactly - weapons and police power).

Please hope and pray that the American border patrollmen are safe from mexican enemies and from American liberal lawyers!!!!!!!


Buddha Bless the USA

[dalereed]

Until the employers of illegals are a major part of the enforcement and heavy fines and prison for repeat offenders they will keep trying to come.

If employers are targeted there won't be any jobs and they will go home or starve.

The BP should be split in half, half on the border and half going after employers.

Build the fence also, the whold 2000 miles wouldn't cost more than what the illegals cost California yearly.

[John Jorsett]

This is what I've seen along the border where the I-5 crossing is. Looks good, but it inexplicably ends at "smugglers gultch" about half a mile or so from the beach.

Not so inexplicable. The envirogits have blocked the extension of the fence in that area for years. That opposition was just swept away by a Congressional bill that the President signed, and DHS head Michael Chertoff has said that construction of the missing section is going to happen now.

[TheLion]

You are right....even with a wall, it will need to be patrolled with lots of personnel.

It does need doing, however, and pronto.

[HiJinx]

That's my point, Dale. There is no one solution...and you are absolutely correct, employer sanctions are a major component of solving the problem.

I don't mean token fines levied against the giants like Wal-Mart and ConAgra.

I mean shutting down Tyson plants, shutting down my sister's box company in Phoenix, shutting down landscaping companies in LA, shutting down construction companies in Vegas and Atlanta...

The problem is pervasive and the solution must needs be the same.

[Jhohanna]

Did anyone see any WMD's down there???

Just the beans and the water. Oh oh oh yeah... and don't eat the 'shredded meat' tacos. You don't know what you're gonna get. :P

All that being said, my last trip in July05 to MX was my last... and I was dragged along for that. Trust me, I never want to see that side of the border again, even if I do only live 12 miles from it! I can get Ortega's in San Diego now, thank you vewy mucho.

[Mack the knife]

Build the fence also, the whold 2000 miles wouldn't cost more than what the illegals cost California yearly.

---

I find it interesting that $2Billion for a fence is "insanely expensive", but $15Billion to rebuild portions of New Orleans that are below sea level is entirely acceptable.

[EequalsMC2]

In WWII, farmers would go to the concentration camps where Germans were being held (source: Farmers son, recollections of 1940 USA), and they would state how many workers they needed.

The prisoners would work the farm while armed guards stood by.

WHY not do this in a modified way now. Illegals who "just want to work" can be placed in guarded camps, employers would go to camps ans request workers..workers could works under guard, then get the heck home!!!

Mexicans want jobs? Fine. WORK. Don't rely on Medical, Social and political WELFARE..WORK, then GO HOME!

[Jhohanna]

I've been told that the ocean/beach eddies out there at the end of the 'fence' (it doesn't do anything where they can step over it anyways) is too dangerous to swim, and that people drown. I don't think that's true... I've only heard of 1 instance while living here... they were much more likely just to jump the fence and walk through the Tijuana Slough next to my apartment. God, I'm so glad I don't live in Venereal (Imperial) Beach anymore!

[calex59]

Could you be a bit more definitive on your description of Mexico?:)

[Terabitten]

The BP should be split in half, half on the border and half going after employers.

Bad idea. There are plenty of other agencies who can and should go after the employers - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, who is currently tasked with interior enforcement) and the IRS come to mind.

If anything, we need to demand that Border Patrol agents focus on their primary mission - patrolling the borders. USBP has extremely high supervisory and bureaucratic overhead. That needs to be reduced to put as many boots on the ground as possible.

[HardStarboard]

>>>"I vote for the National Guard on the border instead of a fence. <<<

You put troops on the border, you will eventually have controversial deaths, whining liberal groups, hand wringers, and chaos of one kind or another. Hard feelings on both sides of the border will escalate. The perpetual cost of maintaining troops on the border is huge. Not a win win situation.

A fence alters the current situation. It is no longer easy to cross - it takes an overt physical and criminal act. Nobody can claim he "just blundered" across the border. It makes those that attempt to cross think "these guys up North are really working to make it dificult" - as opposed to the present - "hey Paco - its just a short walk and your in." A fence changes their mindset!

Now you team the fence up with strong border enforcement for climbers and tunnelers (not necessarily troops but Border Patrol)....with aggressive "rules of engagement" and pretty soon the folks south of the fence get the idea that "it ain't happening no more."

Then, and only then, do you have border control.

[brushcop]

Man, I wish you guys would get off of this "cost prohibitive" crazyness. Just what is border (really NATIONAL) security really worth? Build a fence or wall AND patrol it effectively is the answer. Do both. With a well designed barrier coupled with sufficient Border Patrol (the barrier would reduce some of the need for BP numbers) and good patrol discipline you would be amazed at what effect it would have.

I'm from that country (border country--Texas), we USED to enforce immigration laws but when you allow illegal aliens to flood in and turn one's head, what do we expect?


Congress LOSES more $$ than a good security barrier would cost.

[Wil H]

Vicente Fox, Mexico's president, made a diplomatic protest, and called for an investigation into the shooting.

Great idea, just tack it on to the investgations into the hundreds of deaths every year in Nuevo Laredo, Vincente..

[Americanexpat]

How many troops would it take to secure a border that long?

______________________________

Exactly. There are not enough. You would have to place them at least within sight of each other to be somewhat effective and then they would have to work shifts. However, a good wall, with enough troops to properly patrol it with vehicles will do the job. Then we would have to deport the illegals already here which would be one hell of a job too. Once that was done the money saved the first year from over taxed hospitals and schools and social programs would pay for the wall.

[hillary's_fat_a**]

I say open season for hunters .. no bag limit! This is WHAT it will take to solve the problem, folks!