Immigration: More of the same and none of it good

I must say that I hold no hope of good policy regarding immigration at the southern border of the United States. The plans and rhetoric are so predictable they are laughable. The rhetoric is historically consistent. "Illegal" immigrants are sucking the nation dry; they are criminals, round them up and deport send; lock them up; and an let's not forget a fop to the racist-driven English as a national language legislation that is pending. Of course, it is also predictable in a more contemporary form with utilizing the military for domestic purposes, huge contracts to bloated crony corporations, and "intelligence" - spy planes and biometric identification. It would be laughable if it were not so damaging and hurtful.

It is not surprising that the angry and hostile rhetoric has tipped off a new wave of hate crimes against those who appear "Hispanic." Just what might one expect when big names like Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty let fly their anti-immigrant rhetoric. Cafferty was especially offensive during the immigrant rights marches to suggest that we should just call in the military and arrest everyone at the marches and deport them. Yep, they are already congregated - just ship them out. Of course then there are the "Minutemen" with their guns "assisting" in protecting the border, and saying they'll build the fence if the government does not.

The New York Times (5/16/06) summarized the various government proposals. On May 17th, the Senate came to a tentative agreement on their proposals, barely retaining modified guest worker and citizenship path inclusions. However, while the plans are not law, appropriations are being made. Thus far, the Senate has approved "$25 billion in additional spending between 2007 and 2011" (Doyle, 5/19/06). According to Michael Doyle's article in Capitol Hill Blue, some of that $25 billion is comprised of fencing at $3 million a mile, and vehicle barriers at $1.3 million a mile. While there are those who think we should build the "great Wall" of the U.S. (modeled on Israel's wall) across the entire border between the U.S. and Mexico, most realize that would be prohibitively expensive. After all, that border is 1951 miles long At $3 million a mile for fencing (and let's leave out the vehicle barrier costs) the basic fence would run close to $6 billion all on its own.

By now, we shouldn't be too surprised that in an "emergency" the administration turns to the military and to military contractors. Bush did it with Hurricane Katrina by sending in the Guard - and Blackwater - as well as the usual military contractors - including Bechtel and KBR (Halliburton). CNNMoney reported on 5/18/06, that the "Nation's top defense contractors (are) to be asked to manage new high-tech approach to control illegal immigrants along borders."

However, while the immigration issue is being painted as an immediate emergency that has sprung upon us, the Department of Homeland Security began approaching industry for high tech solutions to the border problems earlier this year. The program is called "SBInet" (Southern Border Initiative), and is outlined by Bruce Bigelow as:

"It calls for using computer networks, ground sensors, robotic aircraft, satellite imaging and other technologies to link together the hodgepodge of federal, state and local entities that operate with varying authority along the borders with Mexico and Canada.

The idea is to create a "virtual fence" that can detect border intrusions, enable different agencies to share information, and provide a command-and-control ability to interdict illegal crossings."

Not surprisingly, the big defense contractors are all over this like white on rice:

"... the program has triggered high expectations in the defense industry, said Matthew Farr, a homeland security analyst with consultant Frost & Sullivan in San Antonio. He thinks the umbrella contract is worth many billions of dollars.

"All the big defense contractors have been jumping on board," said Farr. The list includes companies known for their capabilities as systems integrators, including Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and SAIC, the San Diego contractor also known as Science Applications International Corp." (Bigelow)

Eric Lipton from the New York Times penned "Bush Turns to Big Military Contractors for Border Control," and "Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman" are promising to submit their bids within the next two weeks. He notes: "Using some of the same high-priced, high-tech tools these companies have already put to work in Iraq and Afghanistan -- like unmanned aerial vehicles, ground surveillance satellites and motion-detection video equipment -- the military contractors are zeroing in on the rivers, deserts, mountains and settled areas that separate Mexico and Canada from the United States." Why in the world would you develop something new when the Pentagon has already paid you for it? While the deployment of National Guard and military technology are already being directly deployed, the same companies will end up directly deploying that technology for "border control." Of course that means they will need to develop newer and more expensive toys for the DoD. Despite claims that the plan does not "militarize" the border, it does exactly that. The same surveillance, and one presumes "deterrence" technologies, used militarily outside the country, will transfer to border usage - and hence into the hands of not just the federal Border Patrol, but into the hands of police as well. From there it is no great leap to assume that same technology will become the new "tool" of police forces across the country." Slippery slope indeed.

However, it is not just military surveillance and deterrence technology that provides a slippery slope - the other high tech and data harvesting technology is biometric identification. Utilizing documentation that requires biometric identification (the use of personal biological data in identification- finger prints, retinal scans, DNA information) also requires a database to run it through. While one might argue that immigrants from the south would need biometric identification, and that would be logged into an immigrant tracking program, what about those who don't have such "papers?" For example, legal citizens of Hispanic American descent who are either native residents or obtained their visas and citizenship before this "innovation." In other words, the lack of "papers" with biometric data does not necessarily mean that one is illegal. I know that I personally have no proof of citizenship beyond my birth certificate, and I don't carry that around with me. Further, it would likely not be accepted as "proof" as birth certificates are easily fraudulently obtained.

Do we then require everyone who might "appear" Hispanic to get biometrically identified? Since it appears that many people cannot tell someone who is "Hispanic," from someone who is Native American or even African American, or someone who is "Arab," then they too might need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who they are and their status in the United States.

So then where do you stop? After all, things could easily "heat up" with Russia or China - or even those pesky French. There is no way to be "safe" unless everyone is biometrically recorded and able to prove it. Oh gosh, they already did that. Remember the REAL ID Act? That legislation required the states to use biometric data for drivers licenses, and included the following information:
(1) The person's full legal name.
(2) The person's date of birth.
(3) The person's gender.
(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.
(5) A digital photograph of the person.
(6) The person's address of principle residence.
(7) The person's signature.
(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

Well that little gem got passed into law through with the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, and was part of the was the appropriations act for the Department of Homeland Security for 2006 (Public Law 109-90 Oct. 18, 2005.)

SEC. 538. For grants to States pursuant to section 204(a) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of Public Law 109-13), $40,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds provided under this section, $34,000,000 may not be obligated or allocated for grants until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve an implementation plan for the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of Public Law 109-13), including the proposed uses of the grant monies: Provided further, That of the funds provided under this section, not less than $6,000,000 shall be made available within 60 days from the date of enactment of this Act to States for pilot projects on integrating hardware, software, and information management systems.

So we get the historic patterns of scapegoating the immigrants; combined with mobilizing the military domestically (and transferring military technology into public law enforcement); with massive contracts for defense contractors (again), and the implementation of yet another feature of the "defunct" Total Information Awareness program. (Which is why they need a massive underground installation in Colorado to store all this "data" in.) So it is a win-win situation for everyone except the people of the United States and the immigrants who come here - and of course the wildlife that will be trapped on one side of the border or the other by the fence.

Posted by rowan at May 20, 2006 7:22 AM | [eMail this article!] |