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.

[Thunder90]

And now most Mexicans want to put in a Communist...

[SauronOfMordor]

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

As long as there is no severe penalty for trying to enter the US illegally, people will just keep trying until something works

[El Gato]

So what does DHS buy, a 14 million dollar Predator UAV designed for a completely different mission.

A predator doesn't seem like the right tool for the job. Something smaller and shorter legged (and cheaper) would be better. It would be under the control of local BP agents, not some remote "Surveillance section". Plenty of those sorts available. Some not much larger than a hobby model airplane, but still able to carry IR or Video cameras, with the required downlink.

[mtbopfuyn]

Perhaps Mr Fox's biggest mistake has been his failure to lobby effectively over migration on Capitol Hill.

He's been too busy drawing comics.

[StoneColdTaxHater]

Fence? Hell NO! 20 foot high, steel reinforced, 3 ft thick concrete wall with 6 foot deep footings.

[MarkL]

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...

If not shutting them down, make the fines so onerous that employers will NOT hire illegals. For instance, for a first offense, fine the employer (who would be forced to do a social security check on a new employee) $1000.00 per illegal caught on their payroll. Give them a break for a first offense. Second offense, fine them $10,000 per illegal. Third offense, the fine would be $100,000 per illegal. Somehow I doubt that any business would be caught more than once.

Mark

[Americanexpat]

I don't think even that would work because of the distances between reaction forces, it would still require too many troops.

On top of that we don't have the politicians with the bullocks to put the troops there or build a wall.

[usurper]

A predator doesn't seem like the right tool for the job. Something smaller and shorter legged (and cheaper) would be better.

I agree, for years the mainstay of the BPs flight operations has been light helicopters. They are versatile, relatively cheep to fly and can get down in the weeds and work traffic.

One of the best things they can do is to put a group down with their high intensity spotlight. The aliens have nowhere to run and try to brush up and hide from the light and it gives the ground agents time to go in and arrest the group.

That 14 million dollars spent on one UAV could have purchased a fleet of 6 to 8 new helicopters and provided much more coverage.

I guess it’s the same at DOD, they are always complaining that they don’t need any more C-130s but congress keeps buying them anyway. Beltway BS.

[El Gato]

He made some comment about they weren't worried about being invaded because Canada was our friend and Mexico was impotent. It struck me that we did not consider Mexico a friend even back then, and now Canada fits that description, not our friend but impotent.

I guess he didn't know any of the Mexicans who came over to serve in the US armed forces so they could fight Nazis. Some were even pilots and went back to serve in the Mexican Air Force or for Mexican airlines. Many more were line Grunts.

But the Mexican ruling class is another story of course. Talk about a bunch of left wing racist elitists. I think when you look up Elitist, you see a picture of the head of PRI. As far as the Canadians not being our friend. The Canadian liaison officer to the Army unit I support as a contractor seems pretty friendly, as was his predecessor. The predecessor is a crack shot and used to go shooting with the military, civilian and contractor personnel. I wouldn't go generalizing from a few whacked out left wing politicos, nor from the Quebecois.

[El Gato]

That 14 million dollars spent on one UAV could have purchased a fleet of 6 to 8 new helicopters and provided much more coverage.

In general helicopter are expensive compared to comparable payload and endurance fixed wing aircraft. However I was thinking of something unmanned, with some rotary wing assets to carry the quick reaction teams to the site.

[yarddog]

A few individual contacts are basically meaningless, although I will have to admit when I was assigned to interview campers, who were mostly Canadians, at a Gulf Coast State Park for a college project, they were uniformly friendly. I think the fact that they were all older ones made a difference too.

I have heard some bad stories about the Dutch Army but the only Dutch officer I ever met was conservative and straight as an arrow. Oddly enough I also met him at a State Park on the Gulf coast although under different circumstances.

[junta]

That's putting it mildly.

[ApplegateRanch]

considering that troops on the border would eliminate the problem with much less trouble.

Si, senor...100 years ago.

2009 Border ROE Per President Hitlery:

1.No ammunition shall be issued, except upon confirmed hostile border crossing by armed regular troops of a foreign military force;

2. No member of US military forces may detain, apprehend, arrest, harass, or inter fer with the free movement of any suspected illegal border crosser(s) before notification and arrival of an accredited ACLU attorney to oversee and record such action, and to advise said crosser(s) of their rights;

3. Prior to arrival of such attorney, military personnel will take whatever action is necessary to prevent engagement, consistent with #2 above...

[brushcop]

I always enjoy a good point. I have a good friend who served in our Army's Infantry in Vietnam in order to be ABLE to apply for citizenship, which he did after he was discharged. I stood as his sponsor, loved every moment of it. He and his wife are the types I enthusiastically hold up as a standard.

Juan spoke better English and KNEW Am. history better than most college grads, he put many of us to shame. Lordy Juan, would that there were many more of your kind...

[houeto]

I believe personally that the military would solve the problem. A fence or wall would be too costly and hard to build...considering that troops on the border would eliminate the problem with much less trouble.

I respectfully disagree...we have spent over a TRILLION dollars to 'liberate' the mohammedans in Iraq. We can spend a few billion dollars securing our border.

[Tammy8]

There are so many sections of the border that are extremely remote and rough terrain that the military could not stop illegal immigration without a fence. It would take too much manpower, and the most they could hope for is to slow it down. It is hard to understand the situation without seeing first hand the problem areas.

Any plan that has a chance of succeeding will have to start with a major barrier/fence. If a proper fence were in place; then the border could be properly protected with a reasonable amount of manpower.

In the area I live this point was essentially proven in October when the Minutemen were here patrolling. When the Minutemen arrived, LE was expecting issues so they added more Border Patrol, put the sheriff's Dept and the State Police on OT and transferred more LE from other locations. With all the LE and the Minutemen, there were many times the normal amount of bodies to find illegals. About two weeks later the military sent in around 300 troops to do training/backup with the Border Patrol. The last two weeks of October there was more manpower than could possibly be maintained long term. Yet illegals still managed to get through. Protecting the border as it is now is pretty much impossible, you would literally need men standing side by side. With a serious barrier in place, I believe it would be possible to stop illegal entry, without one I think any other plan is doomed to fail.

[Tammy8]

Some laws will have to change. Right now many employers are caught between a rock and a hard spot. Many laws on discrimination and privacy do not allow employers to make sure a person is legal. I talked to a business owner a few days ago about this. He became suspicious that 3 employees were using fake Social Security numbers. He called Social Security to see if he could get them verified and they told him no. He was told he did not have the right to have that information. He let the men go on the suspicion they were illegal, personally he was convinced. The employees filed a suit against him for discrimination and at no point were they required to be verified as legal, he had to give them their jobs back to settle. Other employers have refused to hire on the grounds they thought the applicants were illegal and they were sued for descrimination. Yet if the government chooses to enforce laws already on the books against hiring illegals an employeer can be fined a lot of money for hiring them.

This business owner told me the only way he could really protect himself is to require ALL applicants/employees to pass an extensive background check; at his or their expense. His business cannot possibly afford to carry that burden, and his employees are not paid enough for them to shoulder the burden. If a business singles out certain employees for scrutiny that is discrimination.

Of course some employers seek out illegals and even help them get false documents; so there would have to be a way to punish the guilty employers without punishing the innocent ones too. It really is a tangled web we have woven in this country in regards to illegals over the past 35 or so years.

[Tammy8]

I totally agree!!! The biggest problem we face in getting the border under control is that people who don't live near the border just can't comprehend the reality of the cost to this country of illegal immigration and the problems with most of the solutions proposed.

[Tammy8]

Who cares what Mexico thinks about the fence?? Anyone with 1/2 a brain would understand the difference between a country fencing it's population in compared to a country fencing out the citizens of another country.

[Tammy8]

Yes!! You understand that any real solution will have to have more than one step. But step one has to be a serious fence/barrier.