How Many Troops Are Really Needed At The Border?

Much like the federal debt, the number of troops that the Trump Administration is deploying to the Mexican border keeps rising. Speaking to reporters outside the White House yesterday, President Trump said yesterday that he would increase the number of active-duty soldiers on the southern border to between 10,000 and 15,000. This would more than double the number of soldiers on the border.

“As far as the caravan is concerned,” Trump said, “our military is out. We have about 5,800. We’ll go up to anywhere between 10 and 15,000 military personnel on top of Border Patrol, ICE, and everybody else at the border.”

“Nobody’s coming in,” he continued. “We’re not allowing people to come in. If you look at what happened in Mexico two days ago with the roughness of these people in the second caravan that’s been forming and, also frankly, in the first caravan. And now they have one forming in El Salvador and we are thinking very seriously, immediately, of stopping aid to those countries because frankly, they are doing nothing for the American people.”  

“Immigration is a very, very big and very dangerous – a really dangerous – topic,” Trump added. “We’re not going to allow people to come into our country that don’t have the well-being of our country in mind.”

The Trump Administration seems to have found a strategy to keep Republican voters excited after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings with its plan to fortify the southwestern border. The deployments began a week ago with Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ announcement that 800 regular army soldiers would join 2,100 National Guardsmen deployed to the border ahead of a migrant caravan last spring. A few days later, that number was increased to 5,000 support troops tasked with assisting federal law enforcement agencies.

Now, apparently seeing the popularity of the previous moves among Republican voters and deciding that more is better, President Trump is increasing the deployment by a factor of three to 15,000. To put that number in perspective, a brigade is typically composed of 3,000-5,000 soldiers. The three brigades worth of soldiers that President Trump is ordering to the border are equivalent to an entire infantry division. This is almost twice as many soldiers as the US has in Afghanistan. The thought of the US border fortified like the Maginot line against an “army” of migrant workers and women and children is, frankly, amusing.

Estimates of the size of the caravan vary, but most analysts put the number at 5,000-7,000. At the upper end of the scale, some sources estimate the group was as large as 14,000 people. The second caravan is reported to number about 2,000. In any case, the numbers are dwindling as the first group, last reported in Juchitan, in extreme southern Mexico, walks north. Contrary to reports in the conservative media, Mexico has denied the group’s requests for buses. At 30 miles per day, the walk to Tijuana, the apparent destination, would take 72 days.

Aside from pushing across the Mexican border from Guatemala, the caravans appear to be largely nonviolent. One person was reportedly killed in clashes with Mexican police two days ago, which is apparently the event that President Trump referred to in his comments. Most of the refugees are actually fleeing political violence in Honduras and are coming to the United States to ask for asylum.

“How many soldiers does it take to keep a caravan of migrant workers from crossing the border?” may seem like the setup for a joke, but the question has serious implications for federal spending and military readiness. Even before the latest announcement of troop increases, the plan to deploy 5,000 soldiers to the border was estimated come with a $50 million price tag. The large number of soldiers now being considered may well affect the ability of units elsewhere to do their jobs.

David Lapan, a former Marine who served as the DHS spokesman under President Trump, tweeted, “A military strained by 17 years of war and sequestration doesn't need this.”

While some military support for border enforcement agencies is warranted, we have now reached a point of diminishing returns. The soldiers being deployed are not combat troops that would confront the unarmed migrants. Instead, they are military police, engineers, and technicians who would provide infrastructure support, such as building fences and tent cities, and command-and-control assistance to law enforcement. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said last week that there is no “intention right now to shoot at people” from the caravan even if they cross the border illegally, no matter how much some social media trolls may claim to desire this outcome.

The US has the right and the duty to defend its borders and to control immigration, but President Trump has moved from defense of the border to political posturing for his base. The president’s political overkill is set to cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when the federal deficit is projected to top $1 trillion.

My prediction, as I have written previously, is that the entire situation is much ado about nothing. Few refugees from the caravan that caused a panic last spring ever made it to the US border. Those who did mostly sat in Mexico and waited for their turn to apply for asylum. The right to petition for asylum is guaranteed under US law. Ironically, the DHS inspector general reported that the Trump Administration’s policy of metering the processing of asylum-seekers led to an increase in illegal border crossings. In other words, Trump’s policy of slow-walking legal asylum requests led to more illegal immigration.

Americans should rest easy. The migrant caravans are thousands of miles away and only a small percentage of the refugees will ever reach the US border. Of those who do, the evidence points to the vast majority only wanting to seek new lives and economic opportunity in the United States, the same as previous immigrants have done throughout our history. Border security forces, with a ratio of more than one federal agent per refugee, should be able to handle the minority who are looking for trouble.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Border Patrol Agent Killed In Texas Attack

A US Border Patrol agent was killed and another injured Saturday morning in Texas. A press release from US Customs and Border Protection said that Agent Rogelio Martinez and his partner were “responding to activity” along Interstate 10 near Van Horn, Texas when the second agent reported that both men were injured and in need of assistance. Other Border Patrol agents responded and transported both wounded men to the hospital, where Agent Martinez died of his injuries. The second agent was reported to be in serious condition.

No details were initially given about the incident or who might have been responsible for Agent Martinez’s death. The press release reported that “the Border Patrol’s Special Operations Group and agents from CBP’s Air and Marine Operations are searching the area for potential suspects or witnesses.” CBP also noted that Culberson County, Texas Sheriff’s Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Inspector General, and CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility were all investigating the incident.

A local CBS affiliate reported that President of the National Border Patrol Council Brandon Judd characterized the incident as an attack. Judd, who is also a Border Patrol agent, said that the two agents were tracking a group of illegal aliens when they were attacked with rocks. CBS notes that the report has not been independently verified.

Jeanette Harper, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s El Paso office, did confirm to Fox News that the agents were not shot, saying, “They were not fired upon.”

Van Horn is located in Culberson County in West Texas. It is in the Border Patrol’s Big Bend Sector. The mountainous terrain there makes border crossings by illegal aliens difficult.

Rogelio Martinez, 36, was four-year veteran of the Border Patrol. He was a native of El Paso and is survived by his fiancé and son.

President Trump responded to the attack with a tweet, “Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!”

Originally published on The Resurgent

TSA allowed illegal aliens on airliners without valid IDs

In July, Breitbart issued an exclusive report that alleged that the Transportation Security Administration was allowing illegal immigrants to travel on airline flights without proper identification. According to the story, Border Patrol officers claimed to have witnessed TSA agents permitting illegal aliens to board domestic airline flights with only a Notice to Appear, a federal citation for illegally crossing the border. To determine whether these allegations were true, Examiner contacted the National Border Patrol Council, a union for Border Patrol officers, and the TSA.

For those unfamiliar with a Notice to Appear, also called Form I-862, Nolo.com explains that it is a charging document that signals the initiation of removal proceedings and means that the recipient must appear in immigration court. The document lists the recipient’s name, aliases, address, alien registration number and date of birth, but does not include a photograph and is easy to duplicate. A sample Form I-862 is available on the Justice Department’s website.

In response to a query from Examiner, the TSA Media Team issued a statement via email which declared, “A Notice to Appear, issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), is not an acceptable form of ID at the TSA checkpoint.”

The TSA went on to explain that “for Mexican nationals without a passport who are returning to Mexico” an alternate procedure exists. The Mexican national can apply for a Certificate of Presumptive Nationality of Mexico (CPNM), which is issued by the Mexican government. The CPNM includes a photograph of the traveler and the TSA’s Identity Verification Call Center (IVCC) authenticates the certificate before the traveler is allowed through the TSA checkpoint.

The CPNM must be provided by the Mexican government in PDF form 24 hours prior to the flight and the passenger must undergo enhanced screening. The travel must be completed on the same day and Mexico must be the final destination. According to TSA, about 1,900 CPNMs are issued annually.

The same IVCC can also verify the identities of U.S. citizens who have lost or forgotten their identification. The TSA website lists other acceptable forms of identification.

Shawn Moran, media contact for the National Border Patrol Council, stands by the original allegations made by Hector Garza, a spokesman for Local 2455. Moran told Examiner that Border Patrol officers observed TSA agents allowing illegal aliens to board flights in Laredo, Tex. with only a Notice to Appear as identification. When asked if these were international flights that would return the aliens to their countries of origin, Moran answered, “These were solely domestic flights.”

Moran was unaware of the CPNM procedure that was touted by the TSA. He noted, “At the time our agents observed this, there was no procedure. There may be now.”

A crucial distinction is that the CPNM procedure, according to the TSA, is for foreign nationals “returning to their own country.” The claim made by the Border Patrol officers is that foreign nationals were flying, not only without a CPNM, but on domestic flights traveling to points within the United States. If true, this would not be permissible under the TSA policy.

Moran claims that the “TSA flat out lied when the story broke” about the policy of allowing aliens to fly with a Notice to Appear. “They have since changed the policy,” he says.

When asked if there is evidence to the claim beyond the testimony of TSA officers, Moran answers, “I’m sure there is, but it would all reside with TSA. They wouldn’t have gone out of their way to clarify this if it wasn’t happening.”

The smoking gun in the allegations is a letter from the TSA to Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Tex.). The letter, first reported by the Gateway Pundit and dated August 7, 2014, explicitly says that passengers with only a Form I-862 can fly under certain conditions, such as with confirmation “that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided”:

“If a passenger can only present a Form I-862, TSA will attempt to establish the passenger’s identity through DHS partner Components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If other DHS Components are able to provide corroborating information (such as that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided) to permit TSA to verify an individual’s identity when taken together with all other information available, the passenger is permitted into the screening checkpoint to undergo screening.”

The full letter can be viewed on the website of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

When Examiner asked the TSA about the letter to Marchant, a spokesman replied, “The letter is very clear regarding the other verification methods used. The letter speaks for itself.”

After receiving the TSA letter, Rep. Marchant introduced the VALID (Verified and Legitimate ID) Act on Sept. 10. The bill would “prohibit the TSA from accepting Notice to Appear Forms as valid personal identification for clearing airport security,” according to Marchant.

It appears that the TSA was allowing illegal aliens to board domestic airliners with only a Notice to Appear at one time. The TSA has apparently now changed that policy and requires further documentation from the alien’s home country. If Rep. Marchant’s bill becomes law, this change would be made permanent.

Read the full story on Aviation Examiner

Republicans are wrong on immigration

When the discussion about securing the border started five years ago, it was tied to national security concerns. In the midst of a global war against Islamic terrorists, it seemed unwise to many to leave our long borders with Mexico and Canada unmanned and undefended for much of their length.

Some of the concerns were prompted by Ahmed Ressam, the attempted Millennium bomber from 1999, who attempted to enter the U.S. from Canada where he had refugee status. Ressam, an Algerian, was arrested by alert border guards in Washington state.

There have long been similar worries about terrorist groups seeking to enter the U.S. through Mexico. A 2003 report by the Library of Congress Federal Research Division noted that a Mexican national security advisor and U.N. ambassador had stated “Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.” These fears may have come close to realization recently. On October 11, 2011 the U.S. government reported that it had disrupted a plot by the Iranian government to use Mexican narco-terrorists to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.

While the threat is real, the Republican reaction is misguided. The “secure the borders” movement quickly turned into an anti-immigrant movement in some quarters. Illegal aliens were portrayed as people who snuck across the border to take American jobs and government benefits. Harsh rhetoric allowed the left to paint Republicans as racist and may have helped to tip the scales toward Obama in the 2008 election when Hispanics voted Democratic by more than two-to-one. That image was reinforced when a handful of states, including Georgia, passed state laws to further restrict illegal immigration in response to a perceived failure of the federal government to address the problem.

In reality the federal government began cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants under the Bush Administration. Under President Obama, the federal government has deported over one million illegal immigrants, almost as many as during George Bush’s two terms according to Reuters.

Further, as the economy crashed and jobs disappeared, illegal immigration began to disappear as well. CNN reports that arrests of illegal immigrants at the border dropped by 58 percent between 2006 and 2011. This was largely due to fact that the economy and increased numbers of border patrol agents deterred would-be immigrants from attempting to cross the border in the first place.

Now the effects of these policies are becoming evident. Georgia farmers were short by as many as two-thirds of their normal number of hired hands according to the Atlanta Journal. Farmers attempted to replace immigrant labor with unemployed local workers but had little luck because the work was temporary, hot, and physically demanding. Some farmers resorted to paying signing bonuses to pickers. Farmers in California, Idaho, Oklahoma, Washington, Vermont and Alabama have similar problems.

A recent Wall Street Journal article cites a University of Georgia study which found that Georgia lost $391 million and 3,260 full-time jobs that were dependent upon the crops harvested by the illegal immigrant laborers. These jobs were in industries such as food production, packaging and transportation. Factcheck.org cites several studies that show that immigrants – legal and illegal – create as many jobs as they occupy and actually have an upward impact on the wages of American citizens.

Nevertheless, in the Republican debates immigration remains a big issue even though illegal immigration is on the decline. The preoccupation with illegal immigrants may cost the Republicans the votes of many conservative Hispanics who would otherwise vote against President Obama and his failed economic initiatives.

Republican candidates should refocus the debate toward national security and away from the otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. Like the ancestors of most natural-born U.S. citizens, immigrants, legal or otherwise, merely want to come to the United States to make better lives for themselves. Many come from countries where there are even fewer jobs than in the U.S. and where the political climate is one in which policy debates turn violent easily and often.

Waves of anti-immigrant opinion have periodically swept through America. At one time or another, the Irish, the Catholics, the Chinese, Japanese, Eastern Europeans and others have found cold receptions in the U.S. These immigrants gradually gained acceptance by assimilating into the “melting pot” of cultures. A major problem today is that the diversity movement actually discourages assimilation and promotes maintaining separate cultures.

Much of the anti-immigrant fervor will likely fade as the economy recovers and unemployment declines. This will not resolve the national security issue, however. It is this aspect of the border issue that the Republicans should focus on.

The best solution to the border issue seems to be a multi-faceted solution. In some areas, a fence is needed. In others, where terrain makes a fence impractical, remote sensors can monitor and alert Border Patrol agents to human activity.

The farm situation from 2011 shows that just staunching the flow of illegal immigrants is not enough. The economy has grown dependent upon labor from migrant workers, many of whom are in the country illegally. If these jobs cannot be filled by Americans when the unemployment rate is over nine percent, they likely will not be filled by Americans at all. A similar gap exists with high end, skilled labor jobs where immigrants come to the U.S. to study but have difficulty getting a visa to stay and work after they graduate. These American educated, highly skilled workers often end up working in other countries for companies that compete with American business.

A lesson of the Georgia farm labor fiasco is that restrictions on illegal immigration must be accompanied by immigration reforms that make it easier for workers to come into the U.S. legally. In this situation everyone would win: The foreign workers could earn money to support their families, American employers would have workers, and the government would be able to keep track of who was entering the country. Additionally, this would expand the tax base by bringing the black market wages for illegal immigrant labor into the light.

Attacking immigrants is likely to backfire on Republicans. A better alternative is to propose a revamped immigration system that will bring much needed workers into the U.S. economy while at the same time securing our national borders against terrorists.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/republicans-are-wrong-on-immigration

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration has been on a lot of people’s minds lately. Recently this issue resurged with the passage of a new law in Arizona designed to give local and state law enforcement more tools to combat illegal immigration. Some on the right sound almost xenophobic in their opposition to immigration. On the other hand, some on the left seem to want totally open borders and no enforcement of immigration law.

Regardless of the ultimate fate of the Arizona law, the federal government does need to step up and enact immigration reform. If the current system were working, Arizona would not have felt the need to enact legislation to do what is the federal government’s role. In spite of the media firestorm, the law has strong support among Arizona’s voters [4].

Most of us would agree that even in our current recession the United States remains an attractive alternative to many other countries. Who among us can blame immigrants for wanting to better the lives of their families by coming to the United States? The economic opportunities and freedom found in the US are unparalleled anywhere else on earth. The truth is that most immigrants, legal and illegal, are decent people who only want to make life better for their families.

I have had personal experience with illegal immigrants as an Athens, Georgia insurance agent. We routinely sold auto policies to men with Mexican driver’s licenses since we were one of the only agencies in town that represented a company who would insure a driver with a foreign license. The men often worked in the chicken processing plants around Athens and would usually pay cash for a six-month policy. Several months later, when they had earned enough money, they would sell the car to another immigrant and return to Mexico.

The fact is that the current situation is our own fault. Yes, it is illegal to sneak into the country, but by ignoring the problem, we have given tacit approval to the practice. Illegal immigration is similar to speeding. Driving too fast is illegal, but since it isn’t taken seriously, it is a frequently broken law. If you get caught, expect only a slap on the wrist. And so many people are doing it that the chance of getting caught is miniscule.

The first step to reaching a common sense solution would be to eliminate the extremes. First, we must acknowledge that we are not going to stop all immigration, illegal or otherwise. Immigrants bring a lot of new talent and ideas to the US and have throughout our history. We are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Even American Indians migrated here from Asia in prehistoric times. We should also acknowledge that we are not going to round up and deport all illegal aliens. The public would not stand for splitting up families and placing otherwise innocent people into internment camps to await deportation. Nor should they.

On the other end of the spectrum, we are also not going to leave the border undefended and ignore the potential threat to national security of having millions of unknown people within our borders. Additionally, public opinion dictates that the US can no longer ignore with a nod and wink the fact that employers are skirting tax and employment law by hiring and paying illegal aliens under the table.

The first step in any immigration fix must be to secure the border. This is a national security imperative. The 9/11 attacks are almost a decade behind us yet it is still commonplace to have people cross into the US illegally. This is inexcusable. It would be absurdly easy for terrorists to enter Mexico or another Latin American country legally and then use the services of a “coyote,” human trafficker, to cross into the US illegally. If people and drugs can be smuggled into the US, so can weapons and terrorists.

Securing the border should also done to protect the immigrants themselves. The illegal journey across the southern border into the US is fraught with danger [3]. Many illegal immigrants die each year in the attempt. Some starve or die of thirst in the harsh climate of the southwestern desert. Others fall victim to the very coyotes to which they had paid an exorbitant fee to guide them into the US. Coyotes routinely rob or murder their charges. Sometimes the immigrants are held captive until their families pay additional money to the coyotes in exchange for their release. In other cases, the illegal immigrants enter the US to life of virtual slavery working for unscrupulous employers or illegal businesses.

The process of securing the border was begun by President Bush who dramatically increased the number of Customs and Border Protection agents [1]. President Bush also began construction of a fence along the US border with Mexico and stepped up enforcement of laws banning the employment of illegal aliens.

The second step, which should be taken after the border is mostly secure, is to deal with the issue of those immigrants who are already here illegally. To deport these people would cause a host of problems. First and most obvious is the expense and cost of locating, detaining and deporting them. This would be hugely expensive and a drain on law enforcement resources that are needed elsewhere. It would also be a public relations nightmare.

Mass deportations would also cause significant difficulties to American businesses. Even though unemployment is at a very high rate currently, many of the unemployed American citizens do not want to work at the jobs that illegals routinely perform. This is especially true since congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits. Deportations would stress the many segments of the economy, significantly food production.

A better alternative would be to focus enforcement efforts on illegal aliens who are caught committing other crimes. If immigrants, legal or illegal, are found to be guilty of crimes such as murder, robbery, or drug trafficking then they should be deported.

The only realistic course for illegal immigrants is to bring them into the light. In aviation, a common procedure in a malfunction is to match the switch position to the condition. For example, if an item is switched, but not working, often the procedure will call for turning the switch back off. Similarly, if aliens are already here and working, we should acknowledge that reality by having them register as guest workers, pay a fine, and become legal aliens. This would not make them citizens or grant them amnesty, but it would allow them to stay here and work legally.

When this process is complete, the federal government should begin requiring employers to verify citizenship and immigration status for prospective employees. Employers that continue to knowingly hire illegal aliens should face stiff penalties.

Another following step would be to deal with the problem of “anchor babies.” Current law gives illegal aliens an incentive to come into the country illegally and have a child. When a child is born within the United States, it automatically becomes a citizen and its family is allowed to remain in the country to care for it. Congress should pass legislation that stipulates that citizenship is only granted in cases where aliens are within the US legally. This may require a constitutional amendment, or at the very least a favorable interpretation of current law by the Supreme Court. Sealing the border and enforcing visa time limits would also help to resolve the issue of anchor babies.

We also have to realize that the Mexican border is not the whole immigration problem. A more insidious problem is the number of people who enter the US legally on a temporary visa and then remain past the visa expiration date [2]. The list of people who overstay visas is long and is made up of citizens of countries all around the world, including four of the 9/11 hijackers. Additional oversight and follow up of visa visitors to the US is needed to make sure that people don’t enter the country legally and then remain illegally.

Finally, to complete the reform, the US needs to make it easier for immigrants to come here legally. The US is an immigrant nation and we should continue to welcome the “poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Immigrants built this country and made it prosper. They are also important for its continued success. We should welcome legal immigrants and help them to assimilate into the American melting pot.

There are also a few things that we should definitely not do with respect to the immigration debate. First, we should not allow racist language or beliefs to shape what is essentially a national security debate. Immigration reform is not about keeping out people who look or speak different from us; it is about keeping out people who want to kill us. Second, we should avoid any attempts to extend federal benefits to those who are here illegally and who refuse to come into the open when reform is passed. Likewise, the right to vote, even in local elections, should be reserved for citizens, not mere residents. We should also not push immigrants into separate ghettos or barrios or cater services to a dozen different languages. We should encourage them to assimilate into society and learn English. Speaking English is and always will be a key to success in the US.

Most importantly, the American people have to make sure that the politicians don’t let the politics of competing for Hispanic votes obscure the need for true immigration reform and border security. Hispanics have nothing to fear from legitimate reform and will even benefit from the opportunity to work and live in the US legally.

Sources:
1 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1066122/posts
2 http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back208.html
3 http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17768
4 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/poll-most-az-voters-support-states-immigration-law/1

Chicago IL
May 7, 2010