TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmakers consider using military to seal U.S. borders
After demonstrating in Arizona that a presence of people along the border can curb illegal immigration, border-control proponents came to Washington to try to win over the minds - and money - of the federal government.
On Wednesday, supporters of tighter border controls presented lawmakers with their ideas, which include deploying the military to the borders, authorizing $12 billion in emergency funding, and merging two Homeland Security Department bureaus.
The two main organizers of a group in Arizona that set up citizen camps to stop illegal immigration during April met with members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.
"The time for hand-wringing, the time for worrying about hurting people's feelings, is long past," said Chris Simcox, one of the organizers, during a press conference in Washington. "Will it take the blood of an American citizen being spilled on that border, perhaps an 80-year-old great-grandmother sitting in a lawn chair, to get the attention of the president? We hope not."
The group, organized as the Minuteman Project, set up citizen camps along a 20-mile stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border. Participants in the all-volunteer project were prohibited from making contact with illegal immigrants, but only observed and reported activity to the Border Patrol. Organizers said that illegal immigration had been almost stopped in their observation area, showing that a physical presence on the border can work.
The group wants foreigners coming into the United States to do so through legal immigration channels and official U.S. ports of entry.
Simcox said the citizens' effort will now continue under the name Civil Homeland Defense. He said his group has about 15,000 volunteers ready to set up camps along U.S. borders, and will continue to do so until the federal government orders the military to the regions.
"I'm here this week to bring a very simple, blue-collar message to our elected officials," Simcox said. "... the people are going to pick up the slack from this point on. We must take care of our own property. We must secure our borders. We must protect our neighbors and our families and our way of life."
"While our soldiers, men and women, are fighting for the cause on foreign soil, it's time we begin fighting for the cause here in America on our own soil," he added. "My message is direct and is simple, and it's a challenge. We challenge the federal government to relieve us from duty."
Simcox said the group will start in New Mexico, and then move to California and Texas, and also to northern border states.
"We're going to seal that border as citizens, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean," he said. "There's no compromise. That's my message."
Members of the immigration reform caucus also heard from Charles "Chuck" Floyd, a retired U.S. Army officer and former manager for the State Department's Overseas Buildings Operations. Floyd presented the caucus with a four-page plan that calls for a multilayered, integrated security system for the borders, including $12 billion in emergency spending.
The plan also calls for DHS to merge the bureaus of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement "so one agency is responsible for the total illegal immigration services issue." Such a merger has been suggested by some lawmakers, as well as current and former DHS officials.
Floyd said he is hoping to be appointed by Bush to an open slot within DHS, hopefully in the area of border security.
Some lawmakers in the caucus expressed support for sending the military to the borders.
"I support utilizing troops on the border to supplement the U.S. Border Patrol," said Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. "I think it would send a strong message that the United States means 'no' to illegal immigration."
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., agreed.
"National security dictates protection of our borders," he said. "This is the irony. In this war on terror, we have put in place elements of our military on the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are willing to help protect those countries' borders, shouldn't we do the same in America?"
Critics, however, think that efforts such as the Minuteman Project are distorting the image of immigrants in the United States.
Priscilla Monico, a student at George Washington University in Washington, came to Wednesday's press conference out of concern that rhetoric against illegal immigrants is dehumanizing those in the Hispanic community.
"I think our community is hard-working and I think that they deserve a right to come here," she said, adding that her mother migrated here from Colombia. "I'm concerned that it's going to come down to people having misinterpretations of what the Latino community is."
She said she knows immigrants who are in the country illegally, and they mean no harm.
"It's a matter of feeding your family, and I think that Americans sometimes forget the humanistic aspect of this," she said. "You have to understand that people are trying to live; they're just trying to survive. It's not like they're trying to scam the United States or anything like that."
COMMENTS
- Here we go again...Mr.True Patriot thinks that anyone disagreeing with him isn't a patriot? That's the feeling I get here. True, most of us are immigrants, usually within 3-4 generations, but our forefathers came in through the FRONT door. Illegal infiltration is not immigration, it is a FEDERAL crime, period. After 9/11 we cannot afford the soft, feel good liberal mantra of helping the entire third world. Illegal infiltrators here in New York are taking jobs away from poor Americans, getting free services, and running down any community that they inhabit (e.g. Farmingville, Southampton). If you want absolute freedom, find a desert island somewhere. Despite our many problems, America IS still the best, 'cause everyone else is trying to get in. Let's train the Minutemen to work with the Border Patrol, enforce fair immigration laws, and pray that it's enough. GovExec.com reader Posted May 7, 2005 12:03 PM
- I understand what you're saying about the threats to individual liberty, True Patriot, but that is a separate issue from preventing illegal invasion from Mexico, Canada, or any other country. I simply am disgusted with other nations that export their problems to the U.S., and I am disgusted with a border that is so open that anyone who isn't a total idiot (and even most who are total idiots) can easily sneak in. You can't equate the monitoring of aliens who cross our border to the issuance of national ID cards and threats to the privacy of U.S. citizens. GovExec.com reader Posted May 6, 2005 5:15 PM
- The quote is from Benjamin Franklin, who lived in a totally different time and place than what exists today. Back in Ben's time, the U.S. needed and sought immigrants, as we were a small nation of perhaps 10 to 15 million clustered in towns and cities along the East Coast. Now, we have been attacked in a way Franklin and the other Founding Fathers would have found unimaginable, and I think if they were alive today, Ben and his colleagues would be in agreement with controlling our borders, as different times call for different measures. I congratulate you and your family on your service, but still must disagree with you on your premise. We need to know who is in this country, whether or not they are terrorists. Illegal aliens were coming here before 9/11, which only served to put the spotlight on a problem that few Americans outside the southwest border even gave much thought to. To paraphrase a previous poster, do you leave your front door unlocked at night, so that just anyone could come in and say they have a right to be there? I'm sure you don't. That is precisely the situation facing our country today. We can't admit the world, but have been and will continue to be generous with those who follow our laws, and enter this country legally. I'm sure Ben Franklin would agree wholeheartedly with this concept, as we are a nation of laws. GovExec.com reader Posted May 6, 2005 3:17 PM









