Author: mopress

Among Democrats widely quoted as opposing Bush’s plan to send National Guard to the border is Sylvestre Reyes, Democratic Congressman from El Paso and a 26 (and 1/2) year veteran of the border patrol.

During congressional debate last week on the National Defense Authorization Act, Reyes spoke favorably of “close cooperation” between the military and the border patrol, but he drew the line against deploying troops.

Reyes, who once served as Sector Chief of the El Paso border patrol, praised Defense Department contributions to “Joint Task Force North” along the border, “in specific consortium projects such as building roads, building infrastructure support such as strategic fencing in certain parts of the border area.” But when it came time to vote on authorization to send troops (in the form of the paradoxically titled Goode amendment) Reyes was strongly opposed:

“The reality of this amendment is that it is very expensive. It provides authority to the Department of Defense that already exists with the President of the United States should an emergency come up or an emergency exist. It is a bad idea because we need trained, experienced professionals on that border. That border is way too dangerous for us to be sending troops that are trained primarily for combat into a law enforcement situation, understanding that that capability is in reserve, because the President of the United States has that authority.”

Joined by Ortiz

Joining Reyes in opposition to a militarized border was Rep. Solomon Ortiz:

“I have been a law enforcement officer, and served in the Army,” said Ortiz, who once served as Sheriff of Nueces County. “We are talking about two vastly different things–protecting the borders–and using the military in law enforcement.”

Ortiz favored other plans endorsed by Bush during Monday night’s speech, such as more detention centers for OTMs (other than Mexicans) and more border guards.

“Even if we caught every single illegal immigrant crossing our border, we would still have no place to hold them, and we would be forced to release them–as we are doing now,” said Ortiz.

“We should be focused on the need for professional law enforcement officers/intelligence associated with knowing who is coming across our borders … and providing funds to hold them,” concluded Ortiz in extended remarks inserted into the Congressional Record of May 11, 2006.

Hypocrisy as Crisis

Hypocritical is a word that Reyes used to discredit the push for troops when other measures would deflate the “pull” to which illegal immigrants respond.

“One of the things, an observation that I will make about us is that oftentimes we are very hypocritical about the things that we say versus the things that we do in the people’s House,” said Reyes.

“In 1986, we passed employer sanctions to address the pull factor in the issue of illegal immigration and immigration reform. This Congress failed to fund employer sanctions, failed to fund the very vehicle that would have addressed the pull factor.

“For the last 10 years that I have been in Congress, we have been debating troops on the border. I would say to my good friend from West Virginia, my good friend from Arizona, my good friend from California, if we are interested in controlling the border, if we are truly interested in doing a good job for the American people, then let’s fund employer sanctions. And short of that, let’s fund H.R. 98, which gives us a fraud-proof Social Security card and a system where employers would be accountable. You would eliminate the pull factor. We wouldn’t need to have this useless debate on troops on the border.”

Reyes’ approach to border security earns the veteran border patrol officer a ranking of zero percent from the hard-line immigration watchdogs at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Nukular Sanity, Too

Among his more interesting rankings is a 78 percent record from SANE, “indicating a pro-peace voting record.” Reyes voted against authorizing an invasion of Iraq in Oct. 2002.

As ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, Rep. Reyes on May 10 addressed nuclear war policies, and indicated that Congress is charting a less hawkish trajectory than one recently revealed by Pentagon watchdogs.

In the short time that I have, I want to highlight three areas of bipartisan agreement: ballistic missile defense, conventional global strike capability, and operationally responsive space.

H.R. 5122 redistricts missile defense funding from longer-range programs, such as a multiple-kill vehicle, to near-term needs, such as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can protect our servicemembers and allies today.

While we might disagree about whether further adjustments or reductions are possible from within the $10.4 billion for missile defense programs, I commend the subcommittee chairman for this good-faith effort and great work on this bipartisan agreement. This bill clearly reflects a bipartisan desire to obtain effective missile defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.

The bill also slows down development of an dvanced global strike capability using the Trident missile in a conventional capacity. While not precluding development of this capability, the subcommittee has concerns that basing a conventional Trident missile on a traditionally nuclear platform could lead to misinterpretation by both our friends and potential adversaries of a launch of a conventional missile. There are real strategic implications of pursuing this capability. We must ensure that we have done all we can to avoid the potential for conflict escalation through misinterpretation.

Finally, the bill as reported contains a $20 million add for operationally responsive space to encourage the Pentagon to pay more attention to the potential of smaller and less expensive satellites that might complement or supplement current expensive satellite systems designed for both military and intelligence purposes. We cannot expect small satellites to meet all mission requirements, but we need a more robust, focused effort to seriously explore their potential given the spiraling acquisition costs of our major satellite programs.

Mr. Chairman, there are differences in the way we approach some of these issues, but as we have seen this afternoon everyone gets an opportunity to express their views. Time does not permit me to describe in detail the rest of our subcommittee’s mark and important issues, but I again want to thank our chairman, Mr. Everett, for his bipartisan leadership, our chairman of the committee and ranking member, and I commend this bill to my colleagues and hope that everyone will support this.

As with his hard-earned background in border enforcement, Reyes drew praise from a colleague for having been “to the warfighting theaters more than any other Member of either body in this Congress.”–gm

‘Serious Questions’ posed by Congressman Reyes in a May 12 Press Release:

• Which troops will be deployed and how will this deployment affect the ongoing commitment of 24,000 Army National Guard troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? How will this affect the 24-month call-up restriction?

• Under what authority will troops be deployed?

• What is the projected cost of a troop deployment to the Southern border, and have funds been identified for allocation to this new mission?

• What are the rules of engagement under which these troops will serve?

• Which agency will lead the operations? Will military troops be under the control of the civilian leadership of the Border Pa
trol which has the primary responsibility for securing our nation’s borders?

• What provisions have been made for the detention of persons in the border region by military members?

• What plans have been made to ensure that interoperable communications are available to allow military and civilian law enforcement personnel to communicate?

• Will Air Force or the other military branches provide air support? Has the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for aerial surveillance been coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration and will UAV aircraft including the Air Force’s Predator be available to support this troop deployment in light of the shortage of these air vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan?

PS: a footnote on the temptations of border technology.<

Greetings all. The very latest monthly information on the criminal enforcement of immigration cases shows that January prosecutions were almost 18% higher than they were in December and over 100% higher than they were five years ago. TRAC’s January Monthly Update Bulletin also provides specific data on the most frequently used laws, busiest districts
and most active judges. To see this timely report go to http://trac.syr.edu/immigration and click on “Reports and Bulletins.”

Also note the two reports on Protecting the Borders. Both provide insights about President Bush’s immigration plan. One report, for example,
shows that in the last ten years Border Patrol agents have more than doubled but “apprehensions” of aliens declined by about ten percent. A second report shows that Border Patrol staff increased at a faster rate
under President Clinton than in the Bush years. Both reports have sector-by-sector data.

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University

Jennifer L. Pozner
WIMNonline.org

As I write this, I’m watching an important segment on “To The Contrary,” PBS’s weekly women’s political and current affairs debate show, on the underreported issue of sexual assault as an exceptionally regular aspect of border crossing for women immigrants.

According to T.O.C. host Bonnie Erbe:

“New studies by the United Nations Development Fund for Women show sexual abuse on the rise among women illegally crossing the U.S. border from Mexico. Rape is so common it’s viewed as the price of admission to America. Some even take birth control before crossing to avoid pregnancy… So-called ‘border bandits’ prey on those crossing the U.S. Mexican border illegally. Women are more vulnerable because their percentages have risen among illegal immigrants. They’re also leaving behind more children in Mexico and Central American countries. If caught and returned, they’re often physically abused again in the Mexican border towns where U.S. agents leave them.”

To give viewers a deeper understanding of the impact of immigration on undocumented women, Erbe interviewed Marijke Velzeboer-Salcedo, chief, Latin America and the Caribbean section of the U.N. Development Fund for Women, who explained that:

“Between 60 % 70% of women do experience some abuse, of the women who cross the border alone (because some of the women do cross the border with their husbands or their families). But many of the women do go alone and we know that among the Mexican nondocumented immigrants, 45% are women. And in Guatemala it’s 35% and it’s rising.”

With some exceptions, much immigration coverage in recent months has focused on male activists leading protests, undocumented men working as day laborers, male DJs at Spanish-language radio stations informing listeners about the importance of attending immigration demonstrations, and the like. But as this To The Contrary segment illustrates, there are serious reasons why women’s perspectives are needed in immigration coverage–and serious ways to frame immigration as specifically relevant to women.

View original

Of course, it’s a perfect two-step of decadence. Now that the Texas legislature has shuffled away from its historic chance to enact an educational renaissance, exactly at a moment in history when an important tide of children could be best served, here comes the Congress with boots and bullets. We’ll take our news from the horse’s mouth at the American Forces Information Services (AFIS) as posted at the Army National Guard website (–gm):

House Votes to Allow Military to Assist in Border Security

5/12/2006 – American Forces Information Service (AFIS)

By Kathleen T. Rhem

Army National Guard Offical Logo-Centered on a light blue disc edged red, a representation of the Minute Man Statute by Daniel French in bronze detailed black facing to the right, all enclosed by a blue border bearing the words ARMY NATIONAL GUARD at the top and five stars below all in white

WASHINGTON – The U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to allow military forces to be used in border-security operations under certain circumstances.

In a 252-171 vote, House members agreed on an amendment to the Sonny Montgomery National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Representatives also voted yesterday to name the bill after Montgomery, a retired congressman and tireless veterans advocate. Montgomery died today at age 85.

The act gives authority to the Defense Department to assign military members to assist Homeland Security organizations in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens into the United States and in inspecting cargo, vehicles and aircraft entering the United States to prevent weapons of mass destruction or other terrorist or drug trafficking items from entering the country.

The act specifies that such a move must be made at the request of the secretary of Homeland Security, who must certify that the action “is necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed by the entry into the United States of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens.”

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman stressed that the military already has been helping other government agencies in some border-security functions, namely surveillance with unmanned aerial vehicles. “I think it’s important to understand that the United States military does provide some assistance to the states currently,” he said.

Governors in some border states use National Guard servicemembers in border-security missions, as well.

Whitman said it’s important to remember that governors have authority to mobilize their National Guard forces as they see fit as long as they pay for the mobilization from within state budgets.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 largely forbids the U.S. military from becoming involved in domestic law-enforcement actions. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act, however.

“This country has always had a certain level of discomfort with military doing things that are law enforcement-type activities,” a senior official said on background.

Critics of such military use point to the case of 18-year-old Ezequiel Hernandez, who was shot and killed by a U.S. Marine patrol near the Rio Grande River at Redford, Texas, in 1997. The Marines said Hernandez fired at them, and the corporal who pulled the trigger was not charged with a crime. But the case brought about widespread attention to and debate on the role the U.S. military plays in border enforcement. Similar issues have been raised about the military’s role within the United States since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The federal government also can pay for governors to mobilize their National Guard forces in the case of national emergencies. This mechanism was used during recovery efforts for Hurricane Katrina. Activated Guard forces remained under their governors’ operational control, but federal funds were used to pay for the operation.

In addition, National Guard forces can be federalized then used in the same manner as active-duty forces.

Press reports today state that Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense Paul McHale has asked defense leaders to devise options for use of military forces in border-enforcement activities. Defense officials today did not specifically confirm this, but said such a move would be consistent with contingency planning that goes on every day in the Pentagon.

“This is a building that develops options and potential courses of action,” the official said. “This is not a decision the Defense Department would make, though. Border security (and) policing are not the primary role or mission of the United States military.”

Language in the bill refers to allowing military members to assist Homeland Security assets in preventing terrorists from entering the United States. Officials have long recognized that illegal trafficking in people and weapons through Latin America poses a threat to the United States.

Rumsfeld and his Central American counterparts discussed this issue at a conference in Miami in October. All in attendance agreed that porous borders to the south can contribute to international terrorism.

“Drug traffickers, smugglers, hostage takers, terrorists, violent gangs: These are threats that are serious,” Rumsfeld said at the conference Oct. 12.

Whitman said today that the United States stresses to South and Central American neighbors the importance of border security. Ungoverned spaces and available funding for illicit activities certainly can have a relationship with terrorism, he said. “That’s why we should be concerned,” he said.

Whitman also said that today’s meeting between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mexican National Defense Secretary Gen. Gerardo Ricardo Vega is “unrelated to any current speculation that I see in current press reporting.”

“This has been on the schedule for quite some time,” he said.