Reality at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

For Immediate Release

June 8, 2010

Reality at the U.S.-Mexico Border:

Experts Describe the Real Sources of Violence and How We Can Best Respond

Washington D.C. - On Monday, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) hosted a teleconference with border and national-security experts who dissected the myths linking immigration and border violence. These experts shared their analyses of the reality of crime and violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, what the real sources of violence are, and how the U.S. should respond. They all made the point that nearly twenty years of immigration policy focusing on "securing the border first" has failed to address the underlying issues and criminal cartels that are the real cause of violence along the border. The experts noted that immigration laws and policies of the past two decades have, ironically, made the border less safe and have actually benefitted the traffickers and smugglers who operate at the border.

Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Council stressed the need to disentangle unauthorized immigration and border violence as a means for solving both problems, noting that "we are pursuing a lopsided approach of border-enforcement only and placing the highest priority on prosecuting nonviolent border-crossers rather than dangerous criminals. Everyone wants an easy solution to solving our problems at the border, but the reality is a simple solution does not exist for complex problems."

According to David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego, "the Border Patrol has doubled to 20,000 agents, there are also more than 3,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, 300 National Guard troops (with 1,200 more on their way), and a significant surge in the number of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel. However, border security-only advocates say that this is still not enough. Further saturating the border is costly and ineffective. Indeed, the border-centric approach has encouraged drug trafficking organizations to evolve from relatively small-scale, low-level operations in the 1980s into the highly sophisticated, heavily-armed criminal organizations that are today seriously undermining the Mexican state. The flow of drugs and immigrants continues practically unabated, despite these very costly investments in border security."

He added, "the argument that can be made is that we have gone as far as reasonable to secure this part of the comprehensive approach. We have entered into a free trade agreement with Mexico that allows the flow of goods and capital, but we have not figured out how to manage labor. Border security is made difficult by the creation of a haystack of people; 200,000 people were apprehended at the border last year and 200 were found to have criminal histories. In my view, we need to figure out how to get the 99% of people who don't pose a threat out of the way through work-visa programs or other means. This would make the Border Patrol's job much easier by shrinking the size of the haystack."

Jennifer Bernal Garcia of the Center for New American Security explained, "it's true that the U.S. faces a problem of national security relevance at its border. However, focusing on the problem of crime rather than crime and immigration is needed. When you build a fence, you are pushing immigrants straight into the arms of criminal cartels. There hasn't been enough of a focus placed on prosecution and enforcement measures against criminal cartels. Many think that the border is the 'choke point,' but drug cartels are sprawled out. We must think beyond the border. Going after scapegoats at the border does nothing to change or deter the criminal element." She explains, "what is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign governments, not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on reducing criminal groups' ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their social base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social programs)."

Aarti Kohli of the Warren Institute at California State University at Berkeley noted that programs like Operation Streamline, which places all illegal border crossers in federal criminal proceedings in certain regions, are examples of a misdirected policy. "All border crossers regardless of their criminal history are pushed through federal district courts rather than through the civil immigration court. One of the unintended consequences is that resources are taken from prosecuting higher-level offenses. In 2009, federal prosecutors in border districts turned away 1,800 drug prosecutions mostly because they did not have enough investigative and prosecutorial resources. We have created an environment where non-violent border crossers are being prioritized over more dangerous criminals like kidnappers, drug smugglers, and others." In a recent report she found that "between 2002 and 2008, federal magistrate judges along the U.S.-Mexico border saw their misdemeanor immigration caseloads more than quadruple. Criminal prosecutions of petty immigration-related offenses increased by more than 330% in the border district courts, while smuggling and drug trafficking charges were brought less frequently or remained flat."

The panel made the compelling point that "border security first" as a policy choice long ago reached the point of diminishing returns. Reducing illegal immigration will not be accomplished solely by securing the border, but by a coordinated and comprehensive strategy. Creating sensible immigration policies, while simultaneously and comprehensively addressing the criminal issues that are at the heart of border violence, is the only way to provide genuine security along the border and throughout the United States.

To hear a recorded version of the call click here or go to:

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/7REALITY%20060710.mp3

To read further information see:

• Throwing Good Money After Bad: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn't Work (IPC Fact Check, May 26, 2010)

• U.S. Border Enforcement Prioritizes Non-Violent Migrants Over Dangerous Criminals (IPC Press Release, May 20, 2010)

• New Data on Federal Court Prosecutions Reveal Non-Violent Immigration Prosecutions Up (IPC Fact Check, February 4, 2010)

###

For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

Border Out of Control?

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

When the issue of protecting one’s home or neighborhood comes up, the first thing we say as homeowners is we should have the right to determine what we want done to protect our quality of life.

If there is one thing home owners despise, it is having outsiders telling them what they think is the best approach to dealing with any safety issues. We have heard the heated arguments and the local refrain, “We live here and we know what is best for our area.”

An article in the Texas Observer explains how border communities are finally uniting to fight militarization of the border and determine what the best policies are to secure their communities.

The main complaint residents along the border have is that they have become the victims of politicians’ hateful rhetoric bent on perpetuating the fear about undocumented immigrants.

One of the main culprits is Arizona Senator Jon Kyl who tried to get an amendment passed that would throw undocumented immigrants in jail for two weeks before deporting them back to Mexico. Kyl said this would be a deterrent to them trying again. This is just another scheme to criminalize undocumented immigrants.

According to the Observer, border communities are concerned once the Democrats realize a lot of horse trading with the GOP is going to be necessary to push immigration reform forward, “Residents are already bracing to become the sacrificial lamb for Democrats desperate for Republican buy-in on immigration reform. They're already seeing it with the 1,200 guard troops and a Predator Drone dispatched to El Paso.”

Arizona Senator John McCain is so desperate to get re-elected; he has pushed aside his personal values and political beliefs and has become one of the strongest proponents of harsher laws against undocumented immigrants.

McCain attempted to have the Senate pass an amendment sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border. Even after losing that vote, he still managed to sneak his amendment back in a defense bill that comes up for a vote later this year.

One of the leaders of the effort to unite border communities puts the nasty debate about border safety in perspective. Louie Gilot, director of the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso told the Observer, “We’ve got to separate border security from immigration reform. We need to have an independent voice for the well being of the communities and so the border isn’t sacrificed the next time immigration reform is taken up.”

Gilot went to mention she is a resident of El Paso, Texas, and according to the latest FBI crime statistics just released; El Paso has the second lowest level of violent crimes per capita among the top 25 most populated cities. In plain language, El Paso is the second safest city in the USA!

Putting those statistics in better perspective, El Paso with a population of about 612,000 residents had 4 homicides last year. Our nation’s capital, with a smaller population of about 592,000 had 66 murders last year.

Yet, the people leading the effort to unite border communities rightfully complain that the border area is often described by the news media and the politicians that rarely venture out of the belt way in D.C. as “a war zone.”

Gilot says one of the main problems is that these politicians have a misperception about the border, and so when they discuss border options, they are made from a “border perceived to be a war zone.”

In March 2010, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a press release outlining the border security initiatives.

“Over the past year, our unprecedented cooperation with the Mexican government and sustained security efforts along the border have resulted in major progress in combating the ruthless cartels that threaten the safety of both our nations.”

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has also taken a tougher enforcement approach in trying to secure the border, but has focused on capturing undocumented immigrants instead of closing the border to the drug cartels and gangs that are involved in human trafficking.

But as one reviews the press release, one has to wonder why an additional 1,200 National Guard troops are needed at the border at this time? Ordering troops to border is just another example of how political rhetoric and bad policy decisions are meant only to exploit the politics of immigration reform, and create more fear and hate.

Texas Senator John Cornyn perhaps best exemplifies how the fear sound bite works to stall any efforts to move immigration reform forward by exploiting the issue of the border. "Until we deal with this broken border, we are not going to be able to deal with other aspects of our broken immigration system."

If the border is still considered “a war zone,” by the politicians back in Washington, D.C., we need to demand answers from them why all of the border initiatives Napolitano claims have made it safer are not working.

The DHS press release touts the facts about border improvements that are simply hard to rationalize. “Since last March, DHS has doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces; tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts working along the U.S.-Mexico border; quadrupled deployments of Border Liaison Officers; and begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs and cash—for the first time ever.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. Tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts working along the U.S.-Mexico border. DHS quadrupled deployment of Border Liaison Officers.

Most startling to me is the fact that for the very first time ever, the U.S. government has “begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs and cash - For the very first time ever!”

This means that for years, our government simply ignored the fact that shipments of weapons, drugs and cash were probably being shipped across the border without any threat of government intervention. Outrageous if you ask me!

The Border Patrol in its 85 year history has doubled its agents from 10,000 in 2004 to over than 20,000 agents in 2009.

A question that must be asked is that if the Department of Homeland Security is accomplishing all of these goals and making the border safer, why it is even necessary to talk about the border as “a war zone?” Why is Senator McCain still talking about adding 6,000 more National Guard troops to militarize the border?

It is time that the President along with his Department of Homeland Security and every elected politician in D.C. stop viewing the border as “a war zone” and need to demand accountability of all the high priced technology and border personnel being sent to the border.

It is also time to listen to the people living along the border who know better than anyone else what is actually happening at the border and stop this rhetoric of fear and panic the politicians use to politicize the immigration reform movement.

Lobbying for more troops on the border, Arizona Senator John McCain said, "The borders are broken. We have an obligation to our citizens to secure our border and allow them to lead lives where they not live in fear."

If anyone knows what border policies may actually allow residents to lead their lives where they are not living in fear, it is the residents who live on the border.

So why aren’t our politicians and President listening to these people? Militarizing our borders is bad public policy. We must stop paying attention to news media reports, politicians, and opinion pundits that claim the border is out of control.

For once, why don’t we let the people most affected by the impractical border initiatives from uninformed politicians in the DC beltway have a say in what is best for their communities?

El Semanario  http://www.elsemanario.net/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H. S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council of the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~