Border Communities Decry Senate Approval of Yet Another Expansion of Border Militarization, Including Fencing Expansion and Increased Border Patrol

US-Mexico Border – Today, in two separate amendments, the U.S. Senate approved funding the construction of 370 miles of walls in California and Arizona, and increasing Border Patrol personnel by 1000 new agents. By a vote of 83-16, the Sessions Amendment, though less extreme than fencing provisions in the Sensenbrenner bill passed by the House of Representatives in December 2005, signals agreement between both chambers that the states of Arizona and California should be completely sealed off from Mexico. President Bush signaled his support for the amendment shortly before the vote. The latter amendment, presented by Senator Kerry, passed by voice vote, and reinforces the militarization process underway in the border communities since the mid 1990s.

“We are not only at peace with our Mexican neighbors, but many of our families live on both sides of the border – putting a wall between us and increasing Border Patrol personnel negates the fact that we live in binational communities. We will be physically divided – kept from seeing each other, visiting each other, and maintaining our family ties. This is an affront coming from an Administration that constantly touts family values,” said Jennifer Allen, of the Arizona-based Border Action Network.

The fencing that has been approved would replicate the “triple fence” model used in the San Diego area, which uses three layers of 15-foot-high solid walls to seal the border. Despite President Bush’s promise not to militarize the border, residents in Southern California would argue that such militarization has already taken place.

We have a security zone hundreds of feet wide that is patrolled 24 hours a day by armed Border Patrol agents, with the assistance of stadium-style lighting, tactical military equipment, video surveillance, and guard dogs. Anyone approaching the area is subject to questioning and detention, and the Border Patrol follows military protocols within that zone. We have had numerous incidents where they have shot to kill,” said Pedro Rios, of the San Diego based American Friends Service Committee. “Additional fencing and increased Border Patrol places border communities under a further state of siege.”

Residents of New Mexico and Texas, which will remain open under the provisions of the Sessions Amendment, also expressed concern over the effects of fencing to their west. “When walls went up in San Diego, we saw a shift of migrant traffic to Arizona. The numbers of migrants didn’t go down, but their routes changed. The biggest result of this shift was that over 2,300 people have died in the past five years coming through the more dangerous terrain in Arizona,” said Fernando Garcia, of the El Paso based Border Network for Human Rights. “While the deserts of Arizona are harsh, the deserts in New Mexico and Texas are even more remote and just as hot. We’re worried that we’ll see the number of migrants dying skyrocket.”

Statistics support those concerns. When the triple fence went up in San Diego from 1994-1998, the numbers of migrants decreased from roughly 450,000 apprehended migrants per year in 1994 to 100,000 migrants in 2004. However, migrants in unfenced parts of Arizona rose from 160,000 per year in 1994 to 690,000 in 2004. Numbers of apprehensions overall across the entire border have stayed constant during that entire time. With fencing proposed for California and Arizona, a similar shift into the deserts of New Mexico and Texas can be expected.

While border residents are concerned about the Sessions Amendment, recent polling indicates the U.S. public also oppose constructing walls at the border. A recent New York Times/CBS poll published on May 14 showed that 66% of the U.S. public opposes using fencing to control immigration – only 29% are in favor. With such strong opposition to fencing, the Senate’s vote in favor of fencing is very disappointing.

“The U.S. Congress and President Bush are making a dog-and-pony show out of the border. Rather than addressing real security concerns, like how to identify and apprehend terrorists, they have decided to support highly visible, but ultimately ineffective projects like fencing to mollify public opinion. When will they realize that the U.S. public wants results, not fearmongering?” said Sean Garcia of the Washington D.C. based Latin America Working Group.

The cost of the Sessions fencing will be significantly higher than expected. While current estimates used by the amendment’s supporters range around $1 million per mile, previous experience with fencing shows otherwise. Based on the real costs associated with the San Diego fence, taxpayers can expect to pay between $4 million and $12 million per mile of fencing. With 370 miles planned in the Sessions Amendment, these costs will range between $1.48 billion and $4.44 billion. At a time when the national budget is skyrocketing, these costs pose a serious challenge to appropriators.

Real comprehensive immigration reform needs to include, among other things, a path to permanent residency for undocumented migrants, a legal form of entry that includes worker rights for future migrants, and respect and protection of civil and human rights for all migrants and border communities. Immigration is a social and economic issue that cannot be dealt with through only military responses. Until such plans are put into place, Congress is sacrificing the 6 million U.S. residents who call the border home with draconian security plans in order to look tough to the U.S. public.