troung

Mexico: Plan for border fence 'deplorable'

POSTED: 1:48 p.m. EDT, October 6, 2006


TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico lobbied for six years for a comprehensive immigration reform that would allow millions to cross into the United States legally. Instead, they're getting a fence.
Mexicans, from leading politicians to migrants preparing to cross illegally, consider the U.S. plan to fence off much of the border shameful, offensive and ill-conceived.
President Bush on Wednesday signed a bill that would allot $1.2 billion for hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border and for more vehicle barriers, lighting and infrared cameras.
But migrants resting at a Tijuana shelter after being deported from the United States said more walls wouldn't deter them. Alfonso Martinez, a 32-year-old from southern Mexico, had been working as a farmhand for six months in Vista, California, when he was arrested and deported last week.
"Wall or no wall, I will try at least three times," said Martinez, who said he would try to cross by himself through Tecate, a mountainous town about 35 miles east of Tijuana. "I have three girls that I have to support, and in Mexico there is no work."
The Mexican government and Mexican immigrants in the United States have lobbied lawmakers for more ways to cross the border and work legally.
While Bush had proposed a temporary worker program, it did not garner enough support in Congress for passage. The idea has been dropped by Washington, at least until after the November congressional elections.
Congress focused on security over immigration, arguing the porous border could be used by terrorists who want to sneak into the United States undetected. There is no evidence that has happened, however.
The Mexican government this week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez called it an "offense" and said Wednesday his office was considering taking the issue to the United Nations.
But Ruben Aguilar, the spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox, said Thursday that Mexico had ruled out that possibility. He added he was "confident" the additional fencing would never become a reality because an immigration accord would eventually replace it.
President-elect Felipe Calderon Thursday criticized the U.S. plan, but said the case is a bilateral issue that should not be taken to any international organization.
"I think it is a deplorable decision that has been made by the United States Congress for the construction of this wall, and it does not solve our common problem, which is emigration," Calderon told a news conference in Santiago, Chile.
Guillermo Alonzo, a migration expert at the Tijuana-based Colegio de La Frontera Norte, said fences will force migrants to look find new routes into the United States through more dangerous terrain.
"When migrants are determined to cross, they find a way to jump the fences," Alonzo said. "Walls don't stop anything."
Alonzo cited the construction of a fence between Tijuana and San Diego, known in Mexico as "the tortilla wall." It was completed in the 1990s and forced migrants into the sparsely populated and dangerous Arizona desert.
While there are walls at various points along the border, the one in Tijuana is the longest stretch, running 14 miles west from the Otay border crossing to the Pacific Ocean.
The wall is a symbol of the divisive immigration issue. It has become a kind of shrine marked with graffiti, crosses, photos and remembrances of those who have lost their lives trying to sneak into the United States. Some families divided by the border even meet at the fence, talking through the metal wires.
While the wall reduced the amount of illegal migration from Tijuana, migrants continue to use the city as a jumping-off-point when crossing the border, Alonzo said.
"Now smugglers hide migrants in trunks of cars or get false documents," he said.
Luis Kendzierski, a priest who directs a Tijuana migrant shelter, said building a wall is an unfriendly gesture that will lead to a hike in smugglers' fees and more migrant deaths.
Between 2001 and 2006, almost 2,000 migrants died while trying to sneak into the United States, according to El Colegio de la Frontera Norte.
"We are supposed to be neighbors and friends, and instead of building bridges and doors, we're building obstacles," Kendzierski said.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

troung

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15149231/

In border fence’s path, legislative roadblocks
Loopholes mean fence may never be built, at least not as advertised
By Spencer S. Hsu
The Washington Post

Updated: 5:25 a.m. ET Oct 6, 2006
No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.

GOP leaders have singled out the fence as one of the primary accomplishments of the recently completed session. Many lawmakers plan to highlight their $1.2 billion down payment on its construction as they campaign in the weeks before the midterm elections.

But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."

The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said.

"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The fine-print distinction between what Congress says it will do and what it actually pays for is a time-honored result of the checks and balances between lawmakers who oversee agencies and those who hold their purse strings.

Political calculations
In this case, it also reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government -- oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.

President Bush signed the $34.8 billion homeland security budget bill Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz., without referring to the 700-mile barrier. Instead, he highlighted the $1.2 billion that Congress provided for an unspecified blend of fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting and technology such as ground-based radar, cameras and sensors.

"That's what the people of this country want," the president said. "They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border."

Bush and Chertoff have said repeatedly that enforcement alone will not work and that they want limited dollars spent elsewhere, such as on a temporary-worker program to ease pressure on the border. At an estimated $3 million to $10 million per mile, the double-layered barrier will cost considerably more than $1.2 billion.

Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who chairs the Senate subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security, said that before the legislation was approved, the department had planned to build 320 miles of fencing, secure 500 miles of hard-to-traverse areas by blocking roads and monitor electronically the rest of the 2,000-mile-long southern frontier.

"I think there'll be fencing where the department feels that it makes sense," Gregg said, estimating that "at least 300 to 400 miles" will be built.

Congress withheld $950 million of the $1.2 billion, pending a breakdown by Chertoff of how he plans to spend the money. It is due in early December, after the midterm elections.

'Virtual fence'
Asked whether Homeland Security would build 700 miles of fence, department spokesman Russ Knocke would not say. Instead, he noted that department leaders announced last month that they will spend $67 million to test a remote-sensing "virtual fence" concept on a 28-mile, high-traffic stretch of border south of Tucson over eight months, and then adjust their plans.

"We plan to build a little and test a little. . . . Stay tuned," Knocke said. "We're optimistic that Congress is going to provide the department with flexibility."

The split between GOP leaders hungry for a sound-bite-friendly accomplishment targeting immigration and others who support a more comprehensive approach also means that the fence bill will be watered down when lawmakers return for a lame-duck session in November, according to congressional aides and lobbyists.

The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) yesterday released a letter from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) promising to ensure that Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options. Homeland Security officials must also consult with U.S., state and local representatives on where structures are placed.

The letter was inserted in the Congressional Record on Friday night because Congress ran out of time to reach a final deal, aides said.

"State and local officials in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should not be excluded from decisions about how to best protect our borders with their varying topography, population and geography," Hutchison said in a statement added to the record.

Congress also hedged on when a fence would be completed. The law mandating it said Homeland Security officials should gain "operational control" of the border in 18 months. But the law funding it envisions five years. Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after completion of an immigration overhaul.

Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15149231/

Anon

Fukk mexico.

astralis

m21,

you can't mean that. i like my fish tacos and coronas, thank you very much!

durtyburd

Mexico, like everyone, knows that nation-states have the obligation to seal up leaky borders. Vicente Fox is just blowing steam out of his head holes because it makes him a little bit more popular at home (more importantly, it makes his political party a little bit more popular). It's the sort of thing that a politican like Fox pretty much has to say in order so that his party doesn't get trounced next elections (and the last ones were "oh so close"). Don't hold it against Fox that he spouts this nonesense, he pretty much has no choice about it. He has to say what he has to say. That's democracy for ya!

Now if Mexico wasn't becoming more democratic with each election cycle, like, say for example if Mexico was some sort of absolute monarchy, then Mexican leaders wouldn't have to speak such nonesense. Look at Morrocco. Spain put up two 10' tall razor-wire fences along the Ceuta and Melilla borders with Morrocco. It's not just a fence...it's a razor-wire fence. People have bled to death on those fences. Do you see the Morroccan government complaining? Not really. In fact, due to deals that Spain made with Morrocco, the Morrocan military shoots at people who they suspect of attempting to cross into Ceuta or Melilla (several have died). Morrocco actually puts a genuine effort into patrolling and securing its side of the border (and they do so with brutal effeiciency). Why? Well, Morroco is an absolute monarchy in which the King basically "is the state". In such an environment, public opinion matters very little and the military is free to take any action that their king finds to be politically expedient. If Morrocco was a true democracy, the Spanish would never hear the end of constant Morrocan complaints about the "cruelty & inhumanity" of the the razor-wire fences.

Now, a razor-wire fence runing the length of the Mexico-US border might be a better idea than the fence that we're going to build (albeit expensive).

durtyburd

I say that if you don't want people to walk over a certain bit of land, then razor wire and land-mines is a good bet.

jame$thegreat

+
Sounds about right.

Julie

Ditto that.

Alot less time consuming and less cost too.

gunnut

What? We can't build a fence on OUR side of the border to keep people OUT? Let's march some troops into Mexico and then tell them they can't keep us out.

I say we march some troops into Mexico and then sell some of their land to our developers.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Jay

I dont think we can match them in numbers

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Goatboy

I don't mind Mexican's working in America at all, it's good for our economy, it keeps prices low -- of course there's negatives, but the benefits to our economy outweigh the bad. I do mind vast numbers of illegals intending to stay on US soil permanently however. We need some way of allowing more Mexicans to work in the US, but also guarantee that a far greater percentage than now, go back home once their visa expires. Is there an ideal solution? nope, no silver bullet here.

What we need is a plan to increase the guest worker program, that's right, I said "increase" -- WHILE documenting each person who comes across, perhaps require a bi yearly "update" from the Mexican guest worker to a "guest working agency" to keep tabs on the status?

They're going to come anyway, (unless we build a gigantic and very expensive version of the Berlin Wall along the border -- although I don't see a problem with a "small wall", as a poignant symbol of what not to cross illegally). Then when their work visa expires they can go back home, and perhaps apply for another one. The critical element here is "they go back home".

Increasing the guest working program (what Bush intended to do in a more limited sense) gives Mexicans the opportunity to do it legally. What Mexican (cept for criminals) would rather hike across the Arizona desert for days in the hot sun than flash a work card/registration card at the border crossing. And no crossing the border except through certain entry places, or your name gets blacklisted from future employment for a certain period (maybe 1st violation = no entry for 5 years, second = ban for life? i dunno).

Wooglin

Care to qualify that statement? Can you show me just how there's a net benefit to our economy?

Swift Sword

I was under the impression that effectiveness of fortifications was in direct proportion to the quantity and quality of the personnel manning them.

I can see this coming down to building a token fence and not funding upkeep or enough Customs and Border Patrol agents properly enforce our sovereignty. Afterall, Democratic and Republican political perogatives trump national securtiy.

Alas, poor Mexico: "so far from God and so close to the United States".

Perhaps we ought to look into the land mine idea a little further.

We could declare large swaths of of our frontiers special military reservations with multi lingual signs alerting passers by that tresspassers will be shot and that ongoing live fire mining exercises are held in the area.

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

GSpot

I think it would be pretty hard to show that immigration creates a net gain or net loss to our economy as a whole- theres just too much to take into account. But that doesnt mean I disagree with the gist of Goatboy's statement. There are definite benefits to having a plentiful and cheap labor force present in the U.S., and we need to modify our border security programs in order to capitalize off of the benefits that do exist. That means letting in the immigrants that contribute. So yeah, cheap labor is a boon for our economy, and razorwire and landmines are not.

Goatboy

Without going into great detail -- quoting Adam Smith, Hayak, even Bush etc, laissez faire economics, the perils of protectionism and so on, I'll give you "a" benefit: The bundle of $20 bills you saved last month in grocery bills since you aren't being forced to subsidize Americans who will only pick lettuce for $12 an hour, that is, if there's enough American citizens who'd be willing to pick lettuce in the first place.