THE BORDER REPORT

So says the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol's Laredo Sector, speaking at a community meeting in that city.

The quote, from the Laredo Morning Times, is quite likely the most blasphemous statement ever made by a public border official. In this political climate, it's akin to an American general saying we're losing in Iraq.

Unfortunately, as you'll see in a little while, it's also one of the most honest.

Read the full post

THE BORDER REPORT

Several months ago, Arivaca residents woke up to find that their little town had become a front-line in an experimental border force-field. There was little input, some say, little choice. Now, Cochise County residents may be about to get the same treatment.

Guest Commentary

by Rocio Magaña

The Border Patrol held a public meeting last night and had us. A few days ago, I received an email announcing a three-hour public meeting on the “spy towers coming to Douglas/Naco.”  On Tuesday night, from 7 to 10, people were to gather in one of Tucson’s Holiday Inns and give their input on whatever they could imagine the environmental impact of SBInet (Secure Border Initiative) would be. As one of those people who follow, observe, and try to make sense of this border, I have come to enjoy the intensity of these public Border Patrol meetings. The agents always try to remain sensible as they face everything from mundane accusations (BP vehicles kicking rocks onto privately grated roads) to outrageous proposals (deploying snipers to shoot at border crossers as a solution to the immigration problem). So, I prepared myself to witness a three-hour exchange over technology, enforcement, and environmental issues. I could not have been more disappointed. Sharply at seven, John Fitzpatrick, Assistance Chief for the Tucson Border Patrol Sector, welcomed the fifty or so people in the audience and asked them to hold its comments and submit them at the end of the meeting. After an intervention that lasted less than 2 minutes, Paula Miller, Environmental Planner for SBInet, took over the microphone and  imparted a quick lesson on Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Miller went from the obvious — the mission of the Border Patrol is “to prevent the illegal entry of terrorists, contraband, and, and illegal aliens into the United States” — to the cryptic. “Tonight, we are seeking your input for any matters or concerns that we haven’t previously looked at or considered. That’s why we asked you here for. Hopefully that will help us refine the scope and definition of this project,” she concluded. A couple of activists sitting in the row in front of me looked at each other perplexed at Miller’s abrupt presentation ending. We were all hoping she would elaborate on such matters and concerns the agency was looking into, but she didn’t. With only a little more than 15 minutes into the projected three-hour event, the “meeting” part of the meeting had come to its end to everyone’s surprise. Fitzpatrick thanked the audience and pointed to a table in the back on which writing instruments could be found. For those with a weak wrist, friendly stenographers awaited to type away people’s insightful comments and concerns. Furthermore, we were informed the agency would not accept any mailings related to the meeting, but they would take any written statements from those savvy enough to have prepared. All I could think at that time were two things.  First, the author of the email announcing the meeting had forgot to mention to bring blue books, No. 2 pencils, and cheat-sheets.  Oh, how much better would my two little paragraphs have been with some pre-meeting studying. Then, it occurred to me: We had been used. “Public meeting: Check.” A few months or years from now, complaints about the project’s implementation or it’s (cryptic) scope might be met with today’s sign-up sheet and brief comments.  “This was done with the public’s input,” they might say waving my two unfocused, brief paragraphs in the protester’s face. And, frankly, that’s just not right. Rocio Magaña is a PhD candidate from the University of Chicago. Her research focuses on border safety and border security. She can be reached at magana@uchicago.edu

by ALAN WALLEN

"C Hues has vowed to moon it," read the lede in the U.S. News and World Report border story. What in the the world could we be talking about? The Strategic Border Initiative, SBInet, of course. This is just one of the truly amazing story lead offs in the recent string of articles in the press covering the dissent of Arivacans over the Boeing towers. These national stories focus on the "quirkiness" of our town rather than our real concern: the SBInet towers are not going to stop illegal immigrants. Instead, the focus is on one person's threat to moon the camera. Here's another telling quote, this one from The Washington Post, "It turned out to be much more than that to this quirky desert community of 2,500 residents, who learned from an environmental assessment study that they were in the cross hairs of the Bush administration's high-tech plan to use a "virtual fence" to stop illegal immigration." Although this one at least gives a hint as to the feeling "in the crosshairs", it also ends up sounding as if the residents are crazy, quirky, and maybe don't know what's good for themselves. It is, after all, a plan to stop that big scary monster, illegal immigration. National Public Radio's coverage of the first tower meeting with BP and Boeing started with a novel twist: "There was a lot of gavel banging... mostly to stop the crowd of about 50 residents from interrupting a panel of Border Patrol officials ... " In the background someone yells, "we know you lied to us about Iraq!" The story keeps going on and on about how Border Patrol wants make us safer. Again the focus doesn't seem to be on the real concerns of the residents, but of how crazy and quirky we are! I am very aware that without these reporters' hard work on this issue, there would be very little dialogue, and we owe them much thanks for getting this story out there. But as one reads the stories about the towers, it always seems like a side-bar to the "real story" of mayhem and disaster, the impact of illegal immigration on the border. These people seem to love to confuse the issues, but, which parts of the "border war" actually cause mayhem? Interesting how the words "Illegal immigration" have come to mean the border war, and is now synonymous with drug smuggling, human smuggling, and terrorism. After reading hundreds of articles on this topic, I found a gem: "The towers, many Arivaca residents contend, will not solve the economic, social and political problems behind illegal immigration." There it is, one sentence, simple and to the point. Maybe in the future we can get over how quirky we are and start looking at the real problems we face. Do you really think that some people looking for jobs are really ruining our country? Do you think the war on drugs is winnable? And do you really think some cameras can defend you from a terrorist plot? Maybe better questions are needed instead of commentary on the idiosyncracies of a small town.

Alan Wallen is a life-long Arivaca resident.

Read the full post

THE BORDER REPORT

Read the full post

What’s the big deal? Well, aside from the obvious issues regarding sovereignty, waste of tax dollars, and the unavoidable border politicking, this raises fundamental issues about our understanding and management of the border and its problems. If the erroneous erection of this vehicle barrier was an isolated event in history, it would be easier to turn the page on the incident after all the appropriate corrections. However, the history of this border is plagued with mistakes of this nature. Most of us know that the border as we know it today results from the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the 1853 Gadsden Purchase. Well, the exact delimitation and demarcation of the boundary line is the product of continuous encroachment in both directions, diplomatic negotiations, binational mapping commissions, and the establishment and constant readjustment of border monuments and markers taking place between 1821 and 1897. All this had to happen in order for both countries to get it together and figure out precisely where the boundary would sit. Throughout the 19th century, the border rocked north and south on the local’s whim. Sometimes, border markers were moved to justify land use, other times to appropriate it. Finally, in the late 1800s the International Boundary and Water Commission produced and mapped the border to the agreement and satisfaction of both countries. They also provided geographic coordinates, which enable both countries to abandon their reliance on topographic markers such as rivers, canyons and mountains. Not knowing or not agreeing on the location of the international boundary is a serious issue. It was a “misunderstanding” of this nature which launched the Mexican American war in 1846. Mexico recognized the Nueces River as Texan boundary, while the United States insisted it was the Rio Grande several miles south. When Mexico send troops to its understood border with Texas, President Polk considered it an invasion of newly designated American soil. We all know what happened next. A very famous thinker and theorist once said that history tends to repeat itself, “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” The history of the border now qualifies as a several-act farce. It is difficult to understand how, after making such a big deal and a media spectacle of these efforts to secure the border, an American vehicle barrier would end up being built in Mexico. In an age in which the topographic map and compass have been substituted by significantly more reliable GPS technologies, it is inconceivable that due care, attention, and precaution are not being put into building border infrastructure. If, when dealing with the border, we cannot even get its location right, what else are we getting wrong? Since the border is that elusive, perhaps it is time we stop what we are doing, take a look at where we have been and done, and finally put some brainpower into the management of our border. Rocio Magaña is a PhD candidate from the University of Chicago. Her research focuses on border safety and border security. She can be reached at magana@uchicago.edu Have an idea for a guest commentary? Let me know.