Guest Column

OVER THE EDGE

Houston Chronicle Editorial

 

Republicans and Democrats agree on little these days, but the combined effects of 9/11 and a newly globalized economy have forged consensus on at least one issue: the need for better border control.

 

The United States' long southern frontier, lawmakers agree, is unacceptably porous. Across it come illegal migrants seeking work, drug runners hauling their wares and terrorists bent on killing U.S. citizens. Recognizing that most illegal border crossers fall in the first category, several federal lawmakers are crafting thoughtful, bipartisan proposals to solve this complex problem. U.S. Rep. John Culberson's plan to create armed border militias is not one of them.

 

Last week Culberson introduced a bill that would allow state governors to establish and deploy armed citizen militias on the Canadian and Mexican borders. Billed mainly as an antiterrorist measure, the legislation would also allow militia members to detain ordinary illegal immigrants.

 

In essence, the militias would be official versions, with police powers, of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. That private group patrolled the Arizona border briefly this spring and plans to film Houston day labor sites this fall.

 

Authorized by the federal government, the militias would be open to all Americans but give priority to residents from border states. As Culberson envisions it, the law would deputize "tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens" as auxiliary border guards. Co-sponsored by 46 House members, Culberson's plan would be funded by $6.8 billion in Homeland Security money reserved for emergency workers.

 

President Bush has called the unofficial Minutemen "vigilantes," but their movement is eminently sensible in at least one respect. It doesn't involve guns. Letting states arm civilians to address a federal problem migrates into a different sphere, one with reckless disregard for the consequences. Culberson's proposal requires states to reject militia hopefuls who have a history of mental illness or crime. However, the militias' very mandate, to "use any means and any force authorized by law," presupposes the use of violent force — otherwise, the proposal would not call for militias to bear arms.

 

Asked in a phone interview how an armed civilian could possibly confront and overcome drug traffickers or terrorists, Culberson said, "It's probably going to require a very heavy caliber."

 

Migrants who have trudged 30 miles across a desert are unlikely to have the energy or weaponry for a shootout. Drug runners, on the other hand, would not hesitate to open fire. They have done so frequently after encountering Border Patrol agents.

 

Armed, amateur border guards have no business confronting either quarry. It takes more than a few weeks of study to master arrest and detainment procedures, immigration and criminal law and search protocols. In the remote, hard-to-monitor expanse of the borderlands, accidental and wrongful deaths inevitably would follow.

 

Even as a gesture to fearful constituents and not intended to become law, Culberson's invocation of armed civilians enforcing federal policy deflects attention from more constructive proposals to manage the problem of illegal immigration. That 46 fellow lawmakers find Culberson's plan promising is troubling. It's no coincidence that Hispanic groups, law enforcement officers and the Minutemen themselves have all rejected the plan as impractical.

 

The answer to understaffed federal security agencies, including the Border Patrol, lies in allocating federal money to hire more professionals. The answer to our nation's immigration problems is not nearly so plain. Only one thing is certain: It does not involve civilians with guns.

 

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Houston Chronicle article at: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3297146

  (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)