A colleague forwarded me an interesting article from the Brownsville Herald that asked a question I’ve being secretly dying to know: what is border security, really?

The U.S. Mexico Border is the most secure it has ever been, with taxpayer-funded fences, more security personnel, and new technology. But "despite those efforts, calls for increased border security are elbowing out cries for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and inducing Congress and the administration to spend even more money on border enforcement."

That’s a big, big problem. Because while Democrats, Republicans, and just about everyone else agrees that border security is critical, there is no real quantifiable definition of what that means and how much it will cost to get there. The article speculates what "securing the border" may really mean.

"Is it when the entire southern border of nearly 2,000 miles is fenced, or double-fenced? Is it when illegal immigration arrests are at zero or close to it? Is it when everyone who crosses the border can be identified? Is it when Army troops are sent to the border, as they were after Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa raided a New Mexico border town in 1916, or when the number of Border Patrol agents has quintupled?"

Ironically, this article was released on the same day that Homeland Security Janet Napolitano spoke on the topic of border security. Her remarks, given at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, centered around the Department’s ongoing efforts and new efforts "to bolster security along the Southwest border."

Her full remarks are on the Homeland Security web site:

As interesting as this all sounds, aren’t we forgetting something? We need Comprehensive Immigration Reform that treats border security as only part of the solution, not THE solution.

An LA Times blog alerted me to the Saturday passing of one of Mexico’s greatest:

"He was known as Mexico’s finest chronicler, its "last public intellectual," its "conscience," and as the only literary figure around who was said to be recognized by regular folks on the street. With the death on Saturday of Carlos Monsivais, Mexico lost a voice that for nearly 50 years was considered unrivaled in his ability to cut to the core of the issues and personalities of his day...

Monsivais was a journalist, a critic, a cinephile, a collector of historical and pop ephemera (which led eventually to the founding of a museum) and a tireless activist for minority rights and the political left. In hundreds of articles and columns, more than two dozen books, countless appearances on television and radio, at conferences and demonstrations, Monsivais represented for many Mexicans an enormously erudite man of letters who never lost touch with ordinary people, or with the tragicomic nature of life here."

If you are not familiar with Monsivais or his work, it is because he is not well known outside his home country. And his scope of work revolved around his hometown, Mexico City, which he even gifted with the

Museo del Estanquillo

, a space that houses his abundant collection of images and other cultural mementos.

Mexico’s leading newspaper, El Universal, dedicated it’s entire "Cultura" section to

the author,

calling him "El Escritor del Pueblo" and including a

touching photo gallery

in addition to numerous articles and commentaries on the lost icon.

The 

AP

noted his political leanings: "Examining his own country like a pop anthropologist, Monsivais chronicled Mexico’s historic upheavals, social trends, and literature for over 50 years. He was also known as a tireless and ubiquitous activist for leftist causes."

Even President Felipe Calderon’s office issued a statement, summarizing his passing as follows: "He was a chronicler and witness for his era...We Mexicans will miss his critical, reflective and independent vision."

Perhaps I’m way behind and simply stating what everyone else already knows, but I’m starting to think that the World Cup could very well be bigger than the Olympics. Every time I am on facebook, a flurry of statuses in my news feed tell me that this is all anyone cares about right now. Today I read "All I have to say is: MEXICO,MEXICO,MEXICO!!!!". Another friend posted this image as his profile pic:

ESPN’s online coverage is phenomenal, and I found myself getting sucked into the Mexico page, which also includes a comprehensive history of the country at large, news feeds from major Mexican newspapers, and much more.

Nike has once again gone above and beyond with one of the most incredible, emotional ads of all time. If you aren’t a fan now, you will be after watching this one:

Viva el fútbol!

Yesterday 8,000 Texas Republicans wrapped up a two-day convention in Dallas, with part of the outcome being the decision to get tough, really tough, on illegal immigration. According to an article in the San Antonio Express News:

The platform encourages state lawmakers to create a Class A misdemeanor criminal offense “for an illegal alien to intentionally or knowingly be within the State of Texas.”

It opposes amnesty “in any form leading to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

The platform also emphasizes border security, encouraging “all means” to “immediately prevent illegal aliens.” Texas Republicans also want to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a U.S. citizen, “with no exceptions.” And the platform calls for an end to day-labor work centers.

The proposed proposal also requires law enforcement agencies to verify citizenship when a person is detained.

This tough stance could hurt the party when it comes to garnering Hispanic support. Minorities make up 66 percent of the state’s public school enrollment, demographers predict that Hispanics could outnumber Anglos in Texas by 2015. Of particular concern is the opposition to "any form leading to citizenship for illegal immigrants", which closes the door on the path-to-citizenship component that is a major component of comprehensive immigration reform proposals.

But according to the article, Republicans feel they are just getting back to their core values of limiting government and enforcing existing laws.

Another report in USA Newsweek described Republican Governor Rick Perry’s reaction to the immigration crackdown:

Long-time Republican strategist Lionel Sosa has also expressed his concern for his party’s tough stance. Sosa, who has led the Hispanic advertising and marketing effort for seven GOP presidential campaigns, starting with Ronald Reagan’s in 1980, has been a life-long Republican, always stressing that "Latino values are Republic values."  But according to the Houston Chronicle’s

report,

he is worried that the party may be ruining all the progress it has made with Latinos over the past two decades:

The party must do a better job of drawing Hispanics or what is now “a serious problem,” Sosa said, could turn fatal.

Within a dozen years, Latinos could be electing Democrats “because Democrats have the right message and Republicans have the wrong message,” Sosa said. “I don’t think it will happen. If it happens, then Texas will turn into a Democratic state and once Texas turns Democratic … We’ll never elect a Republican president again.”

“But I’m not gloom and doom about that. I believe that survival drives the culture. Things will change when more Republican candidates get it,” he said. “They won’t have to make a false choice between security and humanity.”

Sosa has always advocated for comprehensive immigration reform, and distills the issue down to it’s simplest core. "The immigration problem can be solved by issuing enough work visas to fill jobs that U.S. citizens don’t want...When that happens so much of this emotional rhetoric will subside, and we will be able to carry on a more civil conversation."

But with Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 setting off a a national firestorm, it appears that we are smack dab in the middle of the emotional roller coaster. I sincerely hope the civil conversation comes sooner rather than later. We need common sense immigration reform at the federal level, not a hodgepodge of state laws putting band-aids on the issue.

What’s happening on the border?

Just last week we reported on the brutal beating and subsequent death of Anastasio Hernández Rojas, who died a few days after being beaten by U.S. Border Patrol agents.  Today, a CNN article explored the events that led up to the death of a 14-year-old boy who was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent after throwing rocks at the officer. The teen’s death marked the second at the hands of U.S. border authorities in less than two weeks.

Now the Mexican government has gotten involved:

Mexican officials complained Tuesday that they see an increasing trend.

"The growing frequency of this type of event reflects a worrisome increment in the use of excessive force on the part of some border authorities," the Foreign Ministry said.

According to the ministry, the number of Mexicans who have been killed or wounded by U.S. border authorities has increased from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009 and 17 so far this year.

The article also followed up on the Rojas case:

San Diego police, who are investigating the death of Anastasio Hernandez, said he was beaten with a baton and shot with a stun gun after he became combative. California medical officials ruled his death a homicide.

The investigation in that case continues.

What does the Border Patrol have to say in light of these recent events?

Rock-throwing can be considered a dangerous assault, Qualia said: "They’re not chunking pebbles."

 To resist deportation, as Rojas did, and throw rocks at agents, as Sergio Belmonte did, can both be considered acts of wrongdoing. But regardless, one thing is clear: neither deserved to be killed.

A new Rasmussen report provides insight into how Americans really feel about immigration. The telephone study, conducted earlier this month, found that a majority (58%) of U.S. voters believe that a child born to an illegal immigrant should not automatically become a U.S. citizen; only a third (33%) felt that the child should get automatic citizenship by virtue of being born in the U.S.

But while most Americans may disagree with the automatic citizenship law, they nevertheless support a welcoming policy towards new immigrants. According to a summary:

Still, there is a huge distinction in the minds of voters between dealing with illegal immigrants and overall immigration policy. Sixty percent (60%) of voters favor a welcoming immigrant policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system. Twenty-six percent (26%) disagree with such a policy, and 14% more are not sure.

On the surface, these attitudes may seem contradictory. But upon closer inspection, they make perfect sense. America is a country of immigrants, and Americans intuitively appreciate and understand this fact. We are a nation built by immigrants and continual enriched by them.

Nevertheless, the survey revealed Americans’ frustration with the current broken system, with three out of four feeling that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the border:

Among voters who are angry about immigration, 83% are angry at the federal government.  Only 12% direct their anger at the immigrants.

The growing frustration is also evident in the fact that respondents expressed support for Arizona’s controversial new immigration bill:

Arizona officials say their recent adoption of a tough immigration enforcement law is due to the federal government’s failure to enforce federal immigration policy. While President Obama, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and others have complained that the state’s law could lead to racial profiling, 58% of voters nationwide favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state. 

It’s clear that Americans are fed up with the broken immigration system and want the federal government to get serious about border control now. But they also believe that immigrants should be welcomed here and treated fairly. 

So what’s the solution?

Piecemeal legislation like SB 1070 is nothing more than a band-aid approach that will do nothing to address the push-pull factors that create America’s migration patterns. This being the case, all signs point to comprehensive immigration reform legislation as the only long-term solution that will address the situation in a practical manner.

Earlier today, President Obama met with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to talk about the state's controversial immigration law, SB 1070 and discuss solutions for reforming our nation's broken immigration system. The White House issued an official release after the meeting. The official readout is as follows:

The President had a good meeting with Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona at the White House today to discuss a range of critical issues of mutual interest, including the President’s comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border and the unprecedented resources his Administration has devoted to that effort. The President and Governor Brewer also discussed the President’s decision to deploy up to an additional 1,200 requirements-based National Guard troops to the border and his upcoming request to Congress of $500 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities as part of that integrated strategy.  The President listened to Governor Brewer’s concerns, and noted that the Administration’s ongoing border protection and security efforts have increased pressure on illegal trafficking organizations through record seizures of illegal weapons and bulk cash transiting from the United States to Mexico, resulted in significant seizures of illegal drugs headed into the United States, lowered the average violent crime statistics in states along the Southwest Border, and reduced illegal immigration into the United States.

Despite the significant improvements, the President acknowledged the understandable frustration that all Americans share about the broken immigration system, and the President and Governor agreed that the lack of action to fix the broken system at the federal level is unacceptable.  As he did at the recent meeting with Senate Republicans, the President underscored that security measures alone won’t fix the broken borders, there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform that includes:  lasting and dedicated resources by which to secure our borders and make our communities safer; holding unscrupulous employers accountable who hire workers illegally and exploit them and providing clear guidance for the many employers who want to play by the rules; and requiring those who have come here illegally to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get right with the law.  The President urged Governor Brewer to be his partner in working in a bipartisan manner on comprehensive immigration reform to implement the type of smart, sensible, and effective solutions the American people expect and deserve from their federal government. Regarding Arizona law SB1070, the President reiterated his concern with the measure, including that a patchwork of different state immigration regulations around the country would interfere with the federal government’s responsibility to set and enforce immigration policy.

What I'd like to know is this: did Governor Brewer agree to work with the President towards achieving bipartisan, comprehensive reform? How did Brewer react to cirticism over SB 1070? Where do we go from here?

Despite these unanswered questions, I am glad that the two leaders met face to face to discuss what has become one of the most pressing national issues.

Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, and Archbishop Rafael Romo Muñoz of Tijuana, Mexico, head of the Mexican Episcopal Conference Migration Commission, issued May 19, a joint statement on Mexican President Felipe Caderón’s recent visit to the White House.

Both bishops urgeed Presidents Obama and Calderón to focus their conversation on the need for immigration reform that upholds a respect for human rights and dignity of migrants and citizens alike while protecting their nation’s borders. They also iterated the need to implement fair trade and development policies that would stem the need for migration,, while making sure the immigration system provides sufficient legal visas or legal status for immigrants to work in jobs that are important to the U.S. economy.

You can read the full statement in btoh English and Spanish below:

Statement of Most Reverend John C. Wester
Bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah
Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration

And

Most Reverend Rafael Romo Muñoz
Archbishop of Tijuana, Mexico
Chairman, Mexican Episcopal Conference Migration Commission

On

The State Visit of Mexican President Felipe Calderon to the United States
En Ocasión de la Visita del Presidente Felipe Calderón a Estados Unidos

May 19, 2010

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Mexican Episcopal Conference (CEM), we welcome the visit of Mexican President Felipe Calderon to the United States.   The relationship between the United States and Mexico is extremely important, with mutual cooperation and understanding paramount.   We pray that this visit will strengthen the political and policy-based relationship of the two leaders and their countries.

La Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de Estados Unidos (USCCB) y la Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano (CEM) vemos con satisfacción la visita del mandatario mexicano Felipe Calderón a Estados Unidos. La cooperación y el entendimiento mutuo son de suma importancia en la relación de ambos estados. Elevamos nuestras oraciones para que esta visita fortalezca la relación política de ambos líderes y las naciones que gobiernan.

Specifically, we urge both leaders to focus upon the issue of immigration and how it impacts the most vulnerable: the migrant worker and their families.  While we respect the obligation of both countries to ensure the integrity of their borders and the security of their peoples, we believe they can achieve these goals without sacrificing the basic human dignity and rights of the migrant. 

Particularmente, urgimos a ambos líderes a centrar su atención en la migración, y cómo ésta afecta a los más vulnerables: al trabajador migrante y su familia. Si bien respetamos la obligación de ambos países de garantizar la integridad de sus fronteras y la seguridad de sus pueblos, también creemos que estos objetivos se pueden alcanzar sin sacrificar la dignidad humana básica y los derechos de los migrantes.

This requires both countries to examine critically their immigration policies, both in the areas of legal immigration and enforcement, and their adverse impact on human beings.

Esto requiere que ambos países, examinen con ojo crítico tanto sus políticas migratorias como la aplicación de sus leyes y el impacto adverso en los seres humanos.

With regard to the United States, it is essential that immigration reform legislation become a priority.  Currently, the U.S. immigration system does not provide sufficient legal visas or legal status for immigrants to work in jobs that are important to the U.S. economy. A system which provides legal avenues for migration would reduce the exploitation of migrants by human smugglers and the number of migrant deaths in the desert.  Reform must also bring migrants out of the shadows, so that they can live with their families without fear.

Con respecto a Estados Unidos, es necesario que el gobierno dé  prioridad a una reforma migratoria integral. El sistema migratorio actual de Estados Unidos no proporciona suficientes vías legales o estatutos jurídicos para que los inmigrantes obtengan trabajos claves para la economía del país. Un sistema que proporcione vías legales para la inmigración reduciría la explotación a la que los trabajadores están sujetos por traficantes de personas y el número de  migrantes que perecen en el desierto. Una reforma integral, además sacaría de la sombra a miles de inmigrantes indocumentados, para que puedan vivir con sus familias sin temor. 

With regard to Mexico, changes must be made to ensure that migrants are not abused and subject to exploitation by criminal elements and corrupt officials.  More attention should be paid to the creation of living-wage employment for low-skilled workers, so that they can stay at home and support their families in dignity.  This would help reduce illegal immigration over the long-term, a goal which both nations share.

Respecto a México, los cambios deben garantizar que los migrantes no sean objeto de abusos ni sujetos de explotación por parte de bandas criminales y funcionarios corruptos. Es necesario prestar atención a la creación de oportunidades para sus ciudadanos en sus lugares de origen, que les permitan vivir en condiciones dignas en su país. Esta situación ayudaría a reducir la migración indocumentada a largo plazo, un objetivo que ambas naciones comparten.

The United States and Mexico have an opportunity to work together to prevent illegal immigration in a humane manner, not in a way which places total emphasis on enforcement measures.   While both countries exchange commerce, information, and capital on a regular basis, the movement of labor has yet to be regularized, to the detriment of the basic rights of human beings.

Estados Unidos y México tienen la oportunidad de trabajar juntos para prevenir la migración indocumentada de forma humana y no sólo aplicando medidas restrictivas. Mientras que ambos países intercambian comercio, información y capital con regularidad, el movimiento de mano de obra entre ambos países aún no se regulariza, en detrimento de los derechos fundamentales de muchos seres humanos.

Over the long-term, cooperation and aid agreements as well as trade and economic pacts considered by both nations should address the movement of labor and the impact such agreements may have on the migration of peoples between the two countries. 

A largo plazo, el comercio, la cooperación y los acuerdos económicos considerados por ambas naciones deberían abordar el tema del flujo de trabajadores y el impacto que tales acuerdos pueden tener en la migración de personas entre los dos países.

The United States and Mexico face a crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border, with drug cartels and human smuggling networks battling with law enforcement and placing citizens of both sides of the border at risk.   Repairing the immigration laws in both countries would help take migrants out of the enforcement equation and would permit law enforcement to focus their limited resources on criminal networks.

Estados Unidos y México enfrentan una crisis a lo largo de su frontera común, en la lucha contra de carteles de la droga y redes de contrabando humano, que pone en riesgo a los ciudadanos que residen en ambos lados de la frontera. Reparar las leyes migratorias de ambos países, ayudaría a sacar a los inmigrantes de la ecuación  y facilitaría que las fuerzas de seguridad enfoquen los  recursos limitados de que disponen en el combate contra redes criminales.

In conclusion, we urge both President Obama and President Calderon to work cooperatively toward the mutual goals of creating a safe border and a humane and fair immigration system.  Only through bi-national cooperation will this issue be solved in a manner which serves the interests of both nations, upholds the rule of law, and respects the rights of both U.S. and Mexican citizens.  

En conclusión, rogamos  tanto al Presidente Obama como al Presidente Calderón que trabajen en conjunto hacia un objetivo común para crear una frontera segura y un sistema de inmigración humano y justo. Solamente a través de la cooperación binacional este problema se resolverá de una manera que sirva a los intereses de ambas naciones, respete sus leyes y los derechos de sus conciudadanos.

The Mexican newspaper "El Universal" reported on the tragic death of Anastasio Hernández Rojas who was beaten on Friday so badly by U.S. Border Patrol agents that they rendered him brain dead. The beating occurred at the San Ysidro-Tijuana border crossing, just five meters from Mexican soil:

Tragically, the father of five died today.

Rojas had lived in San Diego, California for over twenty years with his wife and children, cleaning swimming pools to make a living. On the day of the beating he had resisted deportation and instead asked to be taken to the hospital for treatment of the injuries he sustained from being hit by a Border Patrol agent that morning. The Border Patrol claimed that Rojas became argumentative and that additional force, including the shocks, were administered to protect the officer.  But an eyewitness alerted the National Migration Institute to what was occurring, reporting that they "were half killing a person."

As if this story were not shocking enough, it seems that this case has been ignored by the U.S. media; in fact, it’s almost like it never happened. I attempted to find U.S. newspapers and/or English-language media reports of this case, but had no luck.  A bit odd to say the least considering the level of violence and brutality involved.

The case is currently under investigation, according to the article:

El comisionado para Asuntos Migratorios del Comité de Amigos Americanos de Estados Unidos, Christian Ramírez, presentará una denuncia ante los departamentos de Seguridad Nacional y de Justicia de EU, por el acto de “barbarie”.

Dijo que espera un informe del Departamento de Policía de San Diego, California, para complementar el recurso que llevará hasta Washington.

La agresión es prioritaria porque es una muestra del clima violento y hostil contra la comunidad migratoria, que pudiera ser generado por las propuestas antiinmigrantes recientemente promulgadas.

El Consulado General de México en San Diego se sumó a las muestras de repudio y pidió la colaboración de testigos para que aporten sus testimonios.

No human being deserves to be treated the way Rojas was, but sadly his is not the first report of anti-immigrant violence. A

follow-up article

in the Universal cited other similar cases. His is a story that must be told, and this case must be investigated fully so that justice may be served.

On Monday we will come together to honor those who have fought to make this nation the great country that it is. As we reflect on the sacrifices that veterans have made to defend us all, we must not forget the important role than immigrants have played and continue to play in shaping our nation.

I came across an article in the New York Times that highlights the story of one such immigrant: Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who moved with his family to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico when he was a teenager and joined the marines as soon as he legally could.

Six years ago Peralta’s mother Rosa was informally told that her son would be nominated for America’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor. But that day never came, stunning his family and the soldiers who had witnessed his bravery firsthand.

Read the article

to find out the rest of his story.

It also delves into the controversy surrounding how and when Medals of Honor are now awarded:

THE AMERICAN MILITARY has dozens of medals that can be awarded for performance or participation in various endeavors, but only a small handful, known as “valor awards,” are given for acts of courage. The highest and most revered of these is the Medal of Honor. (It is sometimes mistakenly called the Congressional Medal of Honor, presumably because, unlike other military decorations, the Medal of Honor is awarded in the name of Congress.) According to military regulations, the Medal of Honor is awarded to a soldier who performed a deed of “personal bravery” that was “beyond the call of duty” and “involved risk of life.” The heroic actions of Medal of Honor winners are frequently cited by military instructors, and their names are even on occasion chanted in cadences during boot-camp training runs. By custom, all service members, regardless of relative rank, salute a Medal of Honor recipient.

Despite its symbolic importance and educational role in military culture, the Medal of Honor has been awarded only six times for service in Iraq or Afghanistan. By contrast, 464 Medals of Honor were awarded for service during World War II, 133 during the Korean War and 246 during the Vietnam War. “From World War I through Vietnam,” The Army Times claimed in April 2009, “the rate of Medal of Honor recipients per 100,000 service members stayed between 2.3 (Korea) and 2.9 (World War II). But since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, only five Medals of Honor have been awarded, a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 — one in a million.”

In response to criticism over this turn of events, the Pentagon is now reviewing its criteria for Medal of Honor awards and will release a report on July 31. Is heroism really dwindling or has modern warfare changed what it means to be a war hero?