Guest Column: Compassion disappearing from immigration policy
Web-posted Thursday, June 1, 2006 Amarillo Globe News
By David Almager | Opinion
DALLAS - In an effort to appease his Republican conservative base, President Bush announced recently a major immigration initiative focused on what he called taking back "control of the border." His plan would include the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops as back-up for the Border Patrol.
Not to be outdone, the U.S. Senate proposed the building of a massive triple-layered fence that would stretch for 370 miles across the U.S.-Mexico border, all part of a tougher border security sentiment being debated across the country.
The proposals have been met with both support and skepticism from both sides of the aisle. The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, called the use of the National Guard a "logistical nightmare," noting that utilizing Guard troops to protect the border would be a "poor use of forces trained for combat."
The National Guard could begin its border tour as early as this month. Six thousand troops from all over the country would be on "border duty" during the first year of the plan. They would serve as behind-the-scenes logistics, including office support, intelligence, surveillance and fence construction.
The Guard troops possibly could help in building the "Big Fence," which undoubtedly would be the most technologically advanced fence ever constructed by this country, estimated to cost $3.2 million per mile - around $900 million for the more than 300 miles. No decision has been made on where the fence might be built, but construction would be centered around the areas determined to be most often traveled by "smugglers and illegal aliens."
The "Big Fence" measure approved by the Senate appeared to be an important victory for law and order conservatives who were looking for tough measures that would secure the border. Now, along with the National Guard deployment, the massive structure will stand as a proud symbol of their commitment to protect the country from "illegal aliens, terrorists, and felons." Across the aisle is more of the same hard-line rhetoric. Several members of the House have been critical of the Bush and Senate proposals, refusing to budge on any talks about a guest worker initiative. The proposed House legislation would make all undocumented immigrants subject to prosecution as felons and would include the construction of a 700-mile fence - more than twice the length of the Senate fence.
Immigrant rights groups have called the deployment of National Guard and the building of the massive fence dangerous and a bad symbolic gesture by the U.S.
The danger comes when immigrants, who are already dying at high rates crossing the most treacherous part of the border, now will seek even tougher terrain to walk across for an opportunity to work in the U.S. to feed their families.
Criticism also comes from those who believe that the militarization of the border sends the wrong message to our Mexican neighbors, adding fuel to the already strained relationship between Mexico and the United States.
Troops are traditionally deployed to combat the enemy, not to scare our neighbors into retreating.
With compassion no longer in the equation, what additional policies will surface as part of the tough stance reform packet guaranteed to be vigorously debated during the next few weeks in Congress? Maybe rounding up all undocumented immigrants in the country and hauling them back to the border? Build a taller and longer fence?
Not unthought of by some members of Congress.
Let us be reminded, as the president did during his speech to the American public, that immigrants are "decent human beings that need to be treated with respect." The president got that one correct. Compassionate policies should be created with respect for families and, most importantly, a respect for human dignity.
Whatever policies result from this national discussion, let us hope that compassion will come back into play and that a comprehensive immigration reform bill will be the result of this contentious yet important debate.
--
David Almager, a former Amarillo resident, lives in Dallas. He is a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration
By David Almager | Opinion
DALLAS - In an effort to appease his Republican conservative base, President Bush announced recently a major immigration initiative focused on what he called taking back "control of the border." His plan would include the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops as back-up for the Border Patrol.
Not to be outdone, the U.S. Senate proposed the building of a massive triple-layered fence that would stretch for 370 miles across the U.S.-Mexico border, all part of a tougher border security sentiment being debated across the country.
The proposals have been met with both support and skepticism from both sides of the aisle. The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, called the use of the National Guard a "logistical nightmare," noting that utilizing Guard troops to protect the border would be a "poor use of forces trained for combat."
The National Guard could begin its border tour as early as this month. Six thousand troops from all over the country would be on "border duty" during the first year of the plan. They would serve as behind-the-scenes logistics, including office support, intelligence, surveillance and fence construction.
The Guard troops possibly could help in building the "Big Fence," which undoubtedly would be the most technologically advanced fence ever constructed by this country, estimated to cost $3.2 million per mile - around $900 million for the more than 300 miles. No decision has been made on where the fence might be built, but construction would be centered around the areas determined to be most often traveled by "smugglers and illegal aliens."
The "Big Fence" measure approved by the Senate appeared to be an important victory for law and order conservatives who were looking for tough measures that would secure the border. Now, along with the National Guard deployment, the massive structure will stand as a proud symbol of their commitment to protect the country from "illegal aliens, terrorists, and felons." Across the aisle is more of the same hard-line rhetoric. Several members of the House have been critical of the Bush and Senate proposals, refusing to budge on any talks about a guest worker initiative. The proposed House legislation would make all undocumented immigrants subject to prosecution as felons and would include the construction of a 700-mile fence - more than twice the length of the Senate fence.
Immigrant rights groups have called the deployment of National Guard and the building of the massive fence dangerous and a bad symbolic gesture by the U.S.
The danger comes when immigrants, who are already dying at high rates crossing the most treacherous part of the border, now will seek even tougher terrain to walk across for an opportunity to work in the U.S. to feed their families.
Criticism also comes from those who believe that the militarization of the border sends the wrong message to our Mexican neighbors, adding fuel to the already strained relationship between Mexico and the United States.
Troops are traditionally deployed to combat the enemy, not to scare our neighbors into retreating.
With compassion no longer in the equation, what additional policies will surface as part of the tough stance reform packet guaranteed to be vigorously debated during the next few weeks in Congress? Maybe rounding up all undocumented immigrants in the country and hauling them back to the border? Build a taller and longer fence?
Not unthought of by some members of Congress.
Let us be reminded, as the president did during his speech to the American public, that immigrants are "decent human beings that need to be treated with respect." The president got that one correct. Compassionate policies should be created with respect for families and, most importantly, a respect for human dignity.
Whatever policies result from this national discussion, let us hope that compassion will come back into play and that a comprehensive immigration reform bill will be the result of this contentious yet important debate.
--
David Almager, a former Amarillo resident, lives in Dallas. He is a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration
Labels: immigration, Latino, policy, Politics, U.S.