Border Groups Oppose Military Troops at the Border

Press Release

For immediate release: Monday, May 15, 2006

Presscontacts:

American Friends Service Committee (CA): Pedro Rios (619) 233-4114

Border Action Network (AZ): Jennifer Allen (520) 623-4944 or(520) 576-8076

Border Network for Human Rights (TX, NM): Fernando Garcia(915) 577-0724/(915) 204-0337 cell

Latin American Work Group (Washington, DC): Sean Garcia(202) 258-9763

Border communities and immigrant families used as political pawn byAdministration considering troops on border

Communities insist, “National security is community security”

US-Mexico Border –[On Thursday] the House ofRepresentatives approved a measure to authorize the Secretary of Defense toplace military troops along the southern U.S. border. Known as the GoodeAmendment for its sponsor Virgil Goode (R-VA), it was attached to the DefenseDepartment FY2007 Authorization bill. Anonymous sources also revealed a Bush Administration request for thePentagon to investigate plans to send military troops on the border. It isspeculated that Bush may announce this new proposal during his Monday eveningspeech.

Border communities are united in their opposition to theGoode Amendment, and fear that the placement of National Guard troops on theborder with Mexico will further exacerbate the state-of siege mentality thathas extended over the region since militarization of the region began, in thename of immigration enforcement, over a decade ago. Currently, border communities face a litany of arbitrarydetentions and arrests by the Border Patrol, racial profiling is rampant inheavily Latino neighborhoods, the presence of military vehicles andinfrastructure are pervasive, and the use of deadly force by Border Patrolagents claims innocent lives each year.

The border is often referred to as “porous”, implying thatit is a wide-open, uninhabited region. Yet, proposals to further militarize theregion ignore major population centers in the region such as San Diego, ElPaso, Brownsville, and many others. Sending the National Guard to patrol these areas will impact the sixmillion people that call the US-Mexican border home.

“Border communities are being used as political pawns forpoliticians using ‘get-tough on the border’ policies to bolster their electionyear approval ratings,” explains Jennifer Allen, director of the Arizona-basedBorder Action Network.

“We believe that we, as the people that live here, know thereality better than those in Washington. We should have a voice in the policiesthat impact our daily lives. We reject the placement of the National Guardalong the border, and strongly feel it would intimidate law-abiding residentsof our communities, creating a climate of fear. In the name of border security and homeland security, the BushAdministration is making border communities become more insecure,” continuesAllen.

During the Civil War Reconstruction era, Congress approvedthe Possee Comitatus Act, preventing the use of U.S. military on domestic soil.Over the last twenty years, Congress has been whittling away at the Act as theyhave approved greater military-style enforcement measures on the border.

With the 1994 implementation of the Border Patrol’sSouthwest Border Strategy, the border has been converted into a low-intensityconflict zone with increasing migrant death tolls every year. Nearly 20,000Border Patrol agents are stationed in the region. Fifteen foot tall solid metalwalls divide U.S. and Mexican border towns. Underground surveillance devicesand thirty foot tall camera towers are connected to observation rooms filledwith monitors. Military equipment, such as Kiowa and Apache helicopters andhumvees as well as military training in interrogation tactics have all beenincorporated into border enforcement agencies’ routines.

Border and immigrant community groups have been rallying forwhat they call “alternative guidelines for border enforcement”. This March, adelegation of 300 community members traveled to D.C. to talk with every Senateoffice and present recommendations for border security that upholds civil andhuman rights.

“As border communities, we need to be considered part of thesolution, not treated as the enemy,” adds Fernando Garcia, director of theBorder Network for Human Rights based in Texas and New Mexico.

“We will all lose if the Administration and the Congressfocuses on extreme enforcement-only measures and continues to use our backyardsas their political playground.”

“Whether we have five Border Patrol agents or fifty thousandtroops, there must be mechanisms for accountability, ongoing training andcertification in human and civil rights, credible and transparent complaintprocesses, consultations with communities, compliance with environmentalprotections, and other protections,” concludes Garcia.

Military operations are not new to the border region.Currently, Northern Command, Joint Task Force North and the National Guard havelimited missions on the border.

Critics of these operations say that the military is nottrained to be operating in the backyards of U.S. communities and point to the1997 shooting death of a Texas high school student, Ezequiel Hernandez, by aMarine operation while herding his family’s goats. The Marines determined thatthe 17-year old boy fit the profile of a drug smuggler and shot him. Shortlyafter the incident, the military’s role on the border was suspended.

“When policing is done by soldiers, our communities becomethe enemy. Ezequiel Hernandez’s case proves this. There was, and obviously still are, good reasons the PosseComitatus Act was passed 150 years ago,” said Pedro Rios, interim co-directorof the San Diego office of the American Friends Service Committee.

“The U.S. Border Patrol struggles with issues ofaccountability to constitutional rights, a lack of transparent complaintprocesses and insufficient community security. Placing soldiers that are nottrained in immigration or civil and human rights in our backyard will onlyexacerbate an already tense situation,” elaborates Rios.

The Goode Amendment makes no provisions for additionalaccountability of forces at the US-Mexico border. Rather, it continues the dangerous trend of creating zones oflow-intensity conflict on American soil. We strongly urge the U.S. Senate to reject this approach to bordersecurity, and call on all political leaders in Washington to discard policiesthat further militarize our border with Mexico.

bh