A Texas Civil Rights Review Editorial
Without any debate or policy study, the USA has quickly moved toward a militarized border with Mexico. Yet, with only one tenth of the expected deployment actually in position, it is not too late to say wait a minute.
One way to slow down the momentum toward militarization would be to call on Governors of the forty states who have not yet pledged troops to Operation Jump Start, and ask them to delay their troop authorizations.
From the ten Governors who have authorized troops, including the four Governors whose states share borders with Mexico, we should ask for troop recalls.
The Governors of the various states should not cooperate with a national policy of militarization. It is a bad idea to patch political policy with military solutions on an ad hoc basis. Yet this is what is being done in the case of the border deployment.
As far as the public has been told, the plan to militarize the border was hatched in haste, and motivated by political needs during an election year. Military troops have been ordered in large numbers to a place where no military crisis exists. Yet, the very presence of troops along a crucial international border can only escalate risks of violence and further militarization.
Operation Jump Start is being presented as a temporary and background use of military troops, but that doesn’t make it a better idea. In fact, connecting troops to the issue of immigration is a bad idea. Immigration issues are matters of civil and criminal law, and the USA has vast bureaus under the Department of Homeland Security that enjoy legitimate authority over these issues. Our political impatience with the structures of immigration should not be exploited through military solutions.
Already, the press is reporting anecdotes that troops volunteering for border duty see their service along the Rio Grande in terms of their service in Iraq. But this is a dangerous analogy to draw, and warns us that military motives are already being deployed to situations best left to law enforcement powers.
It is worse than ironic that the deployment of military troops to assist with domestic tranquility is most enthusiastically supported in Texas, one of the former confederate states for which the principle of Posse Comitatus was enacted into federal law after Reconstruction.
Posse Comitatus makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress. Yet the Memorandum of Understanding for Operation Jump Start gives to the Secretary of Defense the power to decide when and if troops will cross the Posse Comitatus line. For this reason alone, the legal basis of the operation should be questioned.
If there is any doubt about which chain of command is calling the shots here, consider that one public affairs officer for the border patrol told a South Texas reporter that “the Department of Defense has asked that the exact number of Guardsmen posted in the Del Rio Sector not be released.” As if the guard are facing a battlefield situation?
In order to paper over its obvious contradictions with Posse Comitatus, Operation Jump Start requires that Governors “pre-approve” missions and retain command of their troops, but at least in the case of Texas, the Governor’s Office has yet to produce a documentary record of “pre-approval” or orders of command. The legal structure of the operation was developed in cooperation with states Attorneys General, but again in the case of Texas, the AG is refusing to release documents related to legal planning. Thanks to Operation Jump Start, civil procedures of policy development are being militarized under our noses.
Immigration is not a military issue, and we are already seeing the consequences of making it one. Troops are already speaking of parallels between Laredo and Baghdad. Secrecy surrounds the mission and its legal history.
Zooming out from serious questions of domestic policy, there is also the crucial question of what militarization means for international relations on the North American continent.
Corporate interests have been well served by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Mexican people have suffered the consequences. Their agricultural economy has been undermined, their currency has been devalued, and they have responded with their feet. The presence of Mexican peoples in the USA has neither military causes nor consequences. In the new common market, the people are in fact learning to live in peace. Under these conditions, is it not a sign of aggression to invoke military solutions?
Emergency initiatives are called for, but they belong to education, health care, and speedy adoption of the treaty for migrant rights. There is no plan for a wall between Canada and the USA, say headlines. And there should be no plans to militarize the USA border with Latin America, either. If the American dream means anything, we must insist on civil relations between free peoples. The policy of creeping militarization at the USA-Mexico border must be immediately reversed.
Editorial – Original Version
Without any debate or policy study, the USA has quickly moved toward a militarized border with Mexico. Yet, with only one tenth of the expected deployment actually in position, it is not too late to say wait a minute.
One way to slow down the momentum toward militarization would be to call on Governors of the forty states who have not yet pledged troops to Operation Jump Start, and ask them to delay their troop authorizations.
From the ten Governors who have authorized troops, including the four Governors whose states share borders with Mexico, we should ask for troop recalls.
The Governors of the various states should not cooperate with a national policy of militarization, period. It is simply a bad idea to patch political policy with military solutions on an ad hoc basis. And this is what is being done in the case of the border deployment.
As far as the public has been told, the plan to militarize the border was hatched in haste, and motivated by political needs during an election year. Military troops have been ordered in large numbers to a place where no military crisis exists. Yet, the very presence of troops along a crucial international border can only escalate risks of violence and further militarization.
Operation Jump Start is being presented as a temporary and background use of military troops, but that doesn’t make it a better idea. In fact, connecting troops to the issue of immigration is a bad idea. Immigration issues are matters of civil and criminal law, and the USA has vast bureaus under the Department of Homeland Security that enjoy legitimate authority over these issues. Our political impatience with the structures of immigration should not be exploited through military solutions.
Already, the press is reporting anecdotes that troops volunteering for border duty see their service along the Rio Grande in terms of their service in Iraq. But this is a dangerous analogy to draw, and warns us that military motives are already being deployed to situations best left to law enforcement powers.
It is worse than ironic that the deployment of military troops to assist with domestic tranquility is most enthusiastically supported in Texas, one of the former confederate states for which the principle of Posse Comitatus was enacted into federal law after Reconstruction.
Posse Comitatus makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress. Yet the Memorandum of Understanding for Operation Jump Start gives to the Secretary of Defense the power to decide when and if troops will
cross the Poss
e Comitatus line. For this reason alone, the legal basis of the operation should be in question.
In order to paper over the obvious contradictions between Posse Comitatus and Operation Jump Start the Governor of Texas assures us that he is the real commander of his troops. But this is a technicality that is not supported by the Governor’s own documentary records. On June 8, the Texas Civil Rights Review requested from the Governor documents that would demonstrate his administrative command of the troops in his state, but the Governor said no such documents exist.
On June 30, when asked again for documentary evidence that he authorized 2,300 Texas troops for Operation Jump Start, the Governor’s Office indicated it had nothing on file but a pdf of the operation’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a memorandum which in fact requires the very “pre-approval” of the mission that the Governor says he cannot document.
Immigration is not a military issue, and we are already seeing the consequences of making it one. Troops are already speaking of parallels between Laredo and Baghdad. Secrecy surrounds the mission.
Zooming out from serious questions of domestic policy, there is the crucial question of what militarization means for international relations on the North American continent. High-powered corporations are busy pushing for quick and open trade policies that will virtually eliminate national borders. The peoples of South and North are in fact learning to live together. If any emergency initiatives are called for, they belong to education, health care, and speedy adoption of the treaty for migrant rights.
Corporate interests have been well served by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Mexican people have suffered the consequences. Their agricultural economy has been undermined, their currency has been devalued, and they have responded with their feet. The presence of Mexican peoples in the USA has neither military causes nor consequences. In the new common market, the people are learning to live in peace. Under these conditions, is it not a sign of aggression to invoke military solutions?
There is no plan for a wall between Canada and the USA, say headlines. And there should be no plans to militarize the USA border with Latin America, either. If the American dream means anything, it must insist on civil relations between free peoples. The policy of creeping militarization of the USA-Mexico border must be immediately reversed.
Texas Civil Rights Review 
Leave a comment