Tag Archives: drones

Drones, Floating Bodies, and Border Security

Thanks to the good folks at Kingwood Area Democrats for featuring my lawyer-sister Toni Medellin and myself on the issue of immigration reform last night. While Toni provided some legal and legislative background, I did more of a political talk, while also delving a little deeper on the realities offered by Senate Bill 744. I can tell you this much, it wasn’t a talk in line with what Democrats in DC are selling the people of the US of A.

It seems like both political sides continue their individual mantras of support vs opposition. (I mean, just check out Rep. Weber’s description of immigrants in this video.) Dems and pro-migrant  folks (and John McCain) talk about the political ramifications of CIR if the GOP doesn’t support it, or the economic impact of CIR, with the hopes that the other side will have some surprise buy-in. Frankly, it has tired me out, especially when our political leaders say S.744 is “not perfect,” yet should be he law of the land. The reality is that S.744 is as imperfect as they come–all sections of it. My colleague Dr. Rey Guerra began a series yesterday where he will be breaking apart S.744.

I have yet to hear from any Democrat or national “pro-migrant” group that has bought into the worst of S.744, the $46 billion border surge, a good reason to support S.744, as is. I mean, besides the selling point that it’s the only way Republicans would support it. 68 votes in the Senate later and the House Republicans are showing how much they care, especially their leader, the Boehner. All this talk of bipartisanship as a result of the border surge is a grim reminder of the human realities of “border security.”

Even Rep. Michael McCaul found out the grim reality of “border security” when the body of a Honduran migrant floated by him on the Rio Grande during another one of his fact-finding missions.

“My colleagues and I saw first hand the tragedies of this border and the loss of life when we saw a body floating just a few minutes ago on this river,” McCaul said. “And that is a sad fact of this border.”

Instead of backing away from “border security,” McCaul chooses to double-down.

His measure describes a list of metrics that homeland security officials would have to report to Congress, which would be used to determine what sort of resources work and what is needed where.

“Fencing alone is not going to solve this problem, it’s got to be a comprehensive strategy, a variety of assets whether they be fixed towers, mobile towers, (Defense Department) assets from Afghanistan, aviation assets to see on the ground what’s happening,” McCaul said. “Only by doing that can we really calculate with metrics if we’re being successful.”

The record number of bodies found in all border sectors is an indication that “border security” kills. Again, I’m reminded of my friend Roberto Lovato’s article, “Breathing in Our Dead…” about his trip to the Pima County Morgue’s freezer.

In the fight to end border militarization and what activists in Tucson and other border states call the “border overkill” at the heart of comprehensive immigration reform, nothing in Tucson or anywhere else matches the persuasive power of the smells emanating from the stiff, dehydrated and decomposing dreams stored in white body bags…

Perhaps McCaul and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle should pay a visit to Pima County, AZ and take a whiff of the effects of that which they so adamantly want and support.

It can’t be that those “non-lethal” weaponized drones Del Bosque at the Texas Observer tells us about are the only answer.

Although the Republicans are very much practicing the art of delay and kill when it comes to immigration reform, this recess is an opportunity for immigration activists to lobby their members of Congress against border overkill and militarization, and perhaps a better path to citizenship. The horror which Chuck Schumer has created in pushing Corker-Hoeven can still be fixed if our elected officials would just show an ounce of leadership, rather than political expediency.

Poll: Latinos Reject Border-First Approach to CIR

Latino Decisions and Presente.org just released the results of a poll that measures how Latinos are feeling about this latest attempt at immigration reform. Needless to say, they aren’t feeling the enforcement/border-first approach being pushed by the Republicans with little defense from the Democrats. Of course, in all of this, no one seems to be asking how Latinos, much less immigrants, feel about all of this, right? I’m glad Presente.org is doing it.

The survey of 500 Latino registered voters asked opinions on a wide range of specific policy measures that have been debated in Congress and finds overall that 81% of Latino voters reject the notion of “border-security-first” approach. Instead, Latinos prefer to see a path to citizenship unfold simultaneously with any border security measures.  Further, Latinos are firmly opposed to increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crackdowns against immigrants.  When asked if ICE should be asked to increase the number of immigrants detained 73% of Latino voters said no. When asked if ICE should be asked to increase the frequency of workplace raids 66% of Latino voters said no. Full topline results are posted here

So, one has to think that Chuck Schumer is complicit in this whole border-first strategy, and an article in Politico speaks to the division among Senate Democrats that hasn’t really boiled over, yet.

Sen. Chuck Schumer’s pitch to find 70-plus votes for a sweeping immigration overhaul is running into skeptics from his own party – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin.

The top two Senate Democrats believe that the push to win more GOP senators could significantly water down the measure, arguing their party should instead focus on the more achievable goal of securing the 60 votes needed to break an expected Republican filibuster. The Democratic leaders don’t believe they should make major concessions to conservatives — mainly on issues such as border security — in order to inflate the vote tally.

Schumer seems to think that inflated numbers will force the House Republicans to go along with a worsened bill. Meanwhile, Leader Reid and Dick Durbin fall more on the side of showing a little backbone and not allowing the Republicans to run over the Democrats, or in this case, immigrants.

Back to the poll, it would seem that Latinos are a-ok with LGBT immigrants being included in the bill.

In addition, 61% of Latino voters want to see LGBT family unification included in the immigration reform bill.  As the Williams Institute has noted, nearly 270,000 undocumented immigrant adults identify as LGBT and could be penalized and not allowed to sponsor their spouses for residency or citizenship under the current bill.

Family is family, obviously, and Senator Leahy filed his amendment today. Hopefully the evangelicals will get on board and not freak out. Still, it will be tough for the amendment to pass. But, let it  be heard that if it doesn’t pass, it will be because of homophobic members of Congress, and not Latinos.

And what about “Latino” Ted Cruz’s strategy of providing for legal status, but not citizenship?

 More than three-quarters oppose the option of providing legal status only without a path to citizenship, and a majority oppose excessive fines on undocumented immigrants.  A resounding 86% say the appropriate waiting period to apply for citizenship if 5 years.

So, Republicans, especially their whiny Latino in the room, continue to be disconnected from Latinos on immigration reform. If anything, both Republicans and Democrats have been effective at keeping the worst of the bill out of the ears of Latinos, since a majority didn’t know about the $6.5 billion border boon for contractors. And if Democrats don’t shape up and fight against enforcement-heavy initiatives, it seems no political party will gain much, especially trust, from Latinos (and I don’t mean the future citizens).

Want to find out where Latinos stand? Click on the link and read the results carefully.