Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US to Deploy Drones to Shore Up Border with Mexico
WASHINGTON — The United States plans to deploy two drone aircraft along the Texas-Mexico border as part of a new effort to stem organized crime and illegal immigration, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.
Predator drones will be used to patrol the border and in nearby areas in the Gulf of Mexico, once Congress approves the 500 million dollars President Barack Obama has requested, Napolitano said in a Washington speech. (AP) The two Predator drones will be used to patrol
the border and in nearby areas in the Gulf of Mexico, once Congress
approves the 500 million dollars President Barack Obama has requested,
Napolitano said in a Washington speech.
"These types of flights aren't necessary everywhere," she said in comments to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But this is the case in the Texas border."
The United States currently has four drones patrolling the border with Mexico in Arizona and one in the northern border with Canada in the state of North Dakota, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Napolitano said the new aircraft are part of a reinforcement of border patrol efforts including one thousand additional agents and 60 investigators.
"Over the past 18 months, this administration has devoted more resources -- including manpower, technology and infrastructure -- to the Southwest border than at any point in America's history," she said.
Texas Governor Rick Perry had requested delivery of the planes, which the US used extensively in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Obama administration is seeking to step up security as it presses for a comprehensive immigration reform measure that likely would allow many of the millions of illegal migrants in the United States to legalize their status.
Many Republican lawmakers say no immigration measure can be considered unless the federal government can ensure security along the southern US border to prevent a spillover of violence from Mexico.
Napolitano also announced a number of new cooperation agreements with law enforcement in non-border states to send personnel to southwest border.
DHS said it is working on a system that will fully link the information systems of all state, local and tribal law enforcement entities operating along the southwest border with those of the federal government.
"Border security is primarily a responsibility of federal government," she said. "We cannot have 50 different state legislations. It will not work."
The remark was aimed at a controversial Arizona law that allows police to question persons suspected of being illegal immigrants.
The agency said it was developing "Project Roadrunner," a license plate reader recognition system aimed at detecting drug trafficking and associated illegal activity along the border.
In a related comment in Congress, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez said the security situation will influence the debate on immigration.
"There are those in the Senate who believe we should basically militarize our borders and until we do, until we meet some standard of militarization, we cannot tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform," he said.
- Posted in
90 Comments so far
Show AllIf the feds weren’t shirking their responsibility, no state would feel inclined to create their own legislation. What has proved to not work is the apathetic stance the feds have taken with regards to this problem. I also doubt that all 50 different states would even bother to create legislation concerning this issue. It’s primarily only a handful of states that suffer most the problems created by these criminals who sneak in here illegally.
You might want to engage your brain, if possible, before you you type demonstrable nonsense about the "problems created by these criminals who sneak here illegally."
Additionally, you might might want to research the neo-nazi connections of the people who finally got their hate legislation enacted in Arizona as that state is facing bankruptcy - try reading the on point article in the current issue of Harper's.
As to border violence (apart from that caused by the right wing murderer groups) here's a reality check for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emcAp5p6MWI
Jesus B Ochoa
El Paso, Texas
So you apparently support an open border with absolutely no control over who comes and goes? You don’t believe that any of the immigrants that come over here Illegally create any problems? Obviously, you have a bias that extends beyond logic and reality. I wouldn’t be surprised if you have several friends and perhaps family over here illegally.
It’s not just border violence that I’m concerned about. The problems in areas around Los Angeles created by Illegal immigrants and their sympathizers are real and I don’t need any lame YouTube presentation to confirm this fact. I’ll just look around me as I make my way around this area and read the local rags to determine my position.
Enforcing immigration laws is hardly ‘hate legislation’ in my opinion. Arizona’s legislation isn’t exactly what I’d like to see, but since the feds aren’t doing their job, Arizona is resorting to drastic measures. The claim that neo-nazis are responsible for enacting Arizona’s legislation is as laughable as the rest of your argument.
This message was brought to you by the friendly Teabaggers of Amerika!
A debate is most easily resolved when each party reveals his true agenda. Most people who post here on CD tend to harbor an agenda of universal equity/justice. So in their view immigration is fixable by other means. In particular, setting federal policy to support universal rights to economic opportunity in native regions.
If you agree with this agenda, any debate here on CD is quickly resolved. If you don't, then the debate is an exercise in futility - it degenerates into a game of "king of the hill", "might makes right", which many in the USA consider to be "the american way".
I’m all for universal equity and justice, but I also believe that such an idealistic goal is unreasonable to effectively achieve. Additionally, the USA isn’t in the position to offer to others what it doesn’t even posess for itself.
I see a lot of complaining and bashing, but very seldom do I see anyone offering viable solutions or even suggestions regarding the issue of Illegal immigration. I see a lot of people confusing Legal immigration with an entirely different one; Illegal immigration. There’s a big difference and I believe it should be recognized because it’s innaccurate and unjust to label a person against Illegal immigration as a racist, which is what many appear to be doing.
There are a lot of good people around the world who want to immigrate to America; people who have something to offer and contribute. The Illegal immigrants on our southern borders aren’t exactly the cream of Mexico’s crop. Mexicans who immigrate here legally are as welcome as anyone from any other country.
I readily admit that I don’t have any better answer to the problem besides enforcing laws currently on the books which I believe are equal and just to all immigrants. It is unfair to the citizens of this country as well as people who are waiting to immigrate here Legally, to allow some people to break the laws and bypass the measures in place to legally immigrate to this country.
So, I’m open-minded and believe in universal equity and justice. Also, I don’t believe that “might makes right.” I think that I’ve met your criteria for a quick and easy resolution, so what is your suggestion as to how this issue should be resolved?
You apparently suffer from some sort of psychological disorder that prevents you from discussing an issue without getting emotionally childish, changing the subject, and going into convoluted realms that aren’t even related the original topic.
The post to which you responded was not even directed at you and your post neglected to even address any of the points I made. It’s obvious that you are unable to adequately defend your position or even effectively attack mine.
A conversation with you would be a waste of any sane person’s time, therefore, that’s off the table unless you muster up the integrity to address the points I made, which seems highly unlikely vato loco.
Let’s just pretend that your suggestions in the form of questions were logical and on topic. We’re going to have to pretend because they’re not, but you’re evidently incapable of understanding that simple fact so as a probable exercise in futility, I’ll just indulge your delusions one more time.
You suggest that if the US military were to stay out of other people’s countries, this country’s (not just my) problem with Illegal immigration would be solved. Do you honestly believe that the Mexicans entering the US illegally are politically or personally concerned with what the US military is doing? Do you honestly believe that if the US were to pull all of its troops out of every country in the world, the Mexicans who enter the US illegally would stop coming over here, based on some principle? Try to answer those two questions without going off onto some tanget that has nothing to do with the issue, like the “elites stop trying to use our banks to enslave people in other countries,” because it’s not as though the US citizens aren’t facing the same problem with the elites in this country, therefore, coming to this country only brings them closer to that unrelated problem. How anyone could consider this issue on topic with the issue of illegal immigration is beyond me.
When you’ve finished answering the two above mentioned questions, try to address the mistakes in logic that I’m making when I previously stated, “The Illegal immigrants on our southern borders aren’t exactly the cream of Mexico’s crop. Mexicans who immigrate here legally are as welcome as anyone from any other country.”… “It is unfair to the citizens of this country as well as people who are waiting to immigrate here Legally, to allow some people to break the laws and bypass the measures in place to legally immigrate to this country.”
If you are unable to answer my two questions and address the points made in my last paragraph, I’ll assume that I correctly assessed your psychological problem as well as your intellectual handicap.
If you strip away your childish ad hominem attacks, you end up with the same amount of productive dialogue as in all of your previous posts… nada. Obviously, you harbor a strong hatred for people living in the USA, unless, of course, they’re Illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, you did manage to answer one of my questions and just because it only served to prove one of my points doesn’t mean nothing you write has any merit… ‘That’ fact is clearly demonstrated and established within its own content. Your laughable inability to defend your position or even stay on topic, combined with the blatant display of your deep seated anger and bigotry is indicative of a closed-minded and confused little boy.
"So in their view immigration is fixable by other means. In particular, setting federal policy to support universal rights to economic opportunity in native regions"
That sounds like "open borders" is that what you meant? Illegal immigration can be fixed by making it legal?
I doubt thats the view of everyone here as its obviously not feasible. Aside from the enviornmental and economic destruction caused by even a policy of refusing to enforce the law, an open border policy would invite disaster on every level.
I'm sure if you sing with the choir there is no problem with debate. Thats your idea of debate? Or am I misunderstanding you.
Obviously you have not read the law passed in Arizona just as the head of DHD,the Attorney General and the President had not and made fools of themselves. You really should before commenting on it.
You must not be aware its a clone of our National law? And actually has more protections?
The next step is for the Drones to begin killing people...then we shall all get quite used to that....and perhaps heavy artillery can be next...
I am not a military expert but Drones seem to be pretty damn heavy missiles.
If one of the main purposes for the drones is to stem organized crime, shouldn't they be deployed above the US Capital and the White House? Just a thought.
A News Dispatch from the Borderlands; US Forces today killed 6 Prarie Dogs, 5 Scorpioons, 3 Rattle Snakes and a 5 year old kid chasing a ball! Keep up the good work boys and girls! Both wings of the Corpratist Party support your efforts at stopping the invaders of our southern borderlands!
There would be less violence if the USA stopped sending assualt rifles to Mexico.
The ATF had a large Bisbee(?) arms dealer wrapped up in a sting, with bulletproof evidence and a judge let the dealer go.
New Mexico wanted Fed stimulus money for a couple of Smart Green Grids and instead our clueless Senators obtained money for a Drone Command Center at Cannon AFB.
Getting tighter out there:
Come Friday, 1.2 million people will lose access to the extended unemployment benefits, a number that will grow by several hundred thousand every week after that.
Aren't they concerned from a purely "practical" point of view that they are pushing millions of people into destitution?? Nothing like millions of desperate people who lost their only source of income and can no longer pay rent or buy food. (And job outlook remains bad, with 6 unemployed people competing for one job vacancy, and it's not going to get any better for years.)
==========
In the 30s, they had a fear of a competing social system that could replace capitalism from the bottom if it didn't get reformed from the top. They had to make concessions to labor, or face the possibility of a revolution.
Now they have little fear and no interest in making concessions, if anything they appear to be in a full onslaught mode. And there all indications that they are fully ready for a massive crackdown in the event of mass unrest.
===========
US intelligence chief: World capitalist crisis poses greatest threat
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Intelligence Thursday, Washington's new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, warned that the deepening world capitalist crisis posed the paramount threat to US national security and warned that its continuation could trigger a return to the "violent extremism" of the 1920s and 1930s.
This frank assessment, contained in the unclassified version of the "annual threat assessment" presented by Blair on behalf of 16 separate US intelligence agencies, represented a striking departure from earlier years, in which a supposedly ubiquitous threat from Al Qaeda terrorism and the two wars launched under the Bush administration topped the list of concerns.
...
"The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications," Blair declared in his opening remarks. He continued: "The crisis has been ongoing for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression. Of course, all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, the instability, and high levels of violent extremism."
...
Entitled "Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy Development," the monograph insists that one of the key contingencies for which the US military must prepare is a "violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States," which could be provoked by "unforeseen economic collapse" or "loss of functioning political and legal order."
The report states: "Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order... An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home."
In other words, a sharp intensification of the unfolding capitalist crisis accompanied by an eruption of class struggle and the threat of social revolution in the US itself could force the Pentagon to call back its expeditionary armies from Iraq and Afghanistan for use against American workers.
The document continues: "Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD [the Department of Defense] would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance." The phrase—"an essential enabling hub for continuity of authority"—is a euphemism for military dictatorship.
...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12303
Border patrol? Sure we're not getting sealed in?
Blood money carted off by well-manicured, tidy white beasts in pin-striped business suits always flows easily across the borders.
"Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States"
These hostile groups, those would be unemployed Americans? After ten or more years of being desensitized to torturing and killing people in other countries, I wonder how much residual humanity is left in US soldiers to prevent them from doing this at home?
"Border patrol? Sure we're not getting sealed in?"
Exactly. The police state is here. Little by little it gets extended under the guise of "keeping us safe."
Meanwhile, the war machine goes on without ceasing, and the treasury continues to be drained.
We learn nothing from history -- not even recent history. Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed? It was because military spending exceeded what the Soviet economy could produce. We're marching right down the same road.
Papers, please.
Interesting report, published in Nov 2008, standard thinktankplanks from SSI:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB890.pdf
Authored by:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=552
- - -
Think outside the bun.
The only purpose of a drone is to kill people!!! I guess that's what's next. Of course a drone can't identify whether its target is man, woman, child, or foreigner trying to sneak into our country.
And we already know that our military can get trigger-happy when it's on the job!!!
Good old U.S. The largest gated community in the world. Perhaps when we stop consuming most of the world's resources we can open a few of those gates. Think that will ever happen? Naaaaaa.
And these gates and fences and walls and drones are porous: they allow for the free flow of guns into Mexico and drugs into the United States. In other words, business as usual. Those drones are for show. They might murder a few peasants, but they won't make a damn bit of difference. Now THAT is the American way. Aren't we all proud! We might even win the World Soccer Cup.
"Those drones are for show. They might murder a few peasants, but they won't make a damn bit of difference."
I must beg to differ. Drones are highly profitable to their manufacturers. I think "Genaral Atomics" manufactures the Predator. Most profitable, which, I believe, is the point of it all. The sooner they are armed, the more profit for the air to ground missiles manufacturers too. Profit is all that matters, not human beings, not the environment. Profits! Yeah, baby!
We're not the largest gated community in the world. Russia is still the largest gated community in the world for land mass and China is for population. You ever try to cross into one of them and ask for work? Good luck.
Unarmed drones are "mitilirazation of the border"?
How embarrasing to make that suggestion or to suggest that they would be armed and used to kill people.
There will be no amnesty this time. And actually sending armed troops to the border isn't the answer as everyone knows. Just another cover like "mass deportation" by the cheap labor lobby.
When silly suggestions are made like the border between Mexico and the US is "militarized", someone ought to point out the simple fallacy of it don't you think?
A drone without weapons is a model airplane, to describe it as anything more is absurd. Cameras mounted on a drone are "bad"?
If people don't discuss this with honesty we get nowhere. And to say the "drones" will be armed in the future or that it "militarizes" the border or that our border with Mexico is militarized is simply not honest.
Unless people think anything less than an open border is "militarized"
Last year our family went to California to see the sights. We spent our $$ and visited California. Twice while on a short trip to a hot springs we were stopped by the military and their dogs. When they saw we were very white and from Canada they showed us through.
I was quite impressed. So much so that if I never have to pass through the USA for any reason, I'll be happy.
Too bad the USA is between Mexico and Canada. The USA would only be happy when they float out to sea and were are on their own.
War is the USA motto. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on Iraq or the other 6 nations invaded since Vietnam.
Unfortunately they have become the war mongers of the world.
Perhaps drones along all borders, including the Atlantic and Pacific oceans will make them feel safe. Fear, big oil and terrorists are the USA's enemies not their poorly paid invaders from the south.
I'm sure we'll miss you. Tourism though is up from all over to the US. Our policies seem to make people angry enough to answer poll questions, but not to actually ACT to not spend their money here. Till that happens, it is all masturbation.... means nothing.
"invaders from the south."
At least you have the sense to call them what they are.
Thanks for another trip through your personal hell.
I'm curious, what exactly do you do to alleviate all this suffering you see besides flail about with long-winded comments about the "evil gringo"?
I would guess by your litany of anti-American shrieking that you consider all Americans ugly.
I don't think I've ever encountered another poster here on CD with such a dark persona.
Again, what do you do to alleviate all the suffering you experience?
Annak, I guess you haven't noticed but the regular following of CD considers ALL Amerikans ugly. And for good reason...because they are, ugly, inside and out. And they also have the uncanny ability to turn everything they touch ugly and that goes for other people too.
The "regular following of CD" now have their own "reverend".
Hilarious.
Here's another loosing and morally bankrupt US Government policy and strategy. Gee, "isn't this just lovely?" Hey, Fortress USA here we come. Damn what was all that whining about he Berlin Wall? But it's OK if US power elites do it to keep people out instead of keeping them in. .
What the hell's the difference, "freedom lovers"?
Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor. . ." Gee that must be ancient history. Now we've got neoconstipation on steroids right along with a new McCarthy era worse than the old one
AD
Immigrants are still welcome here. They are just required to go through a reasonable process in order to so do. Can you name any other country in the world that doesn’t have similar requirements for immigrants?
"Can you name any other country in the world that doesn’t have similar requirements for immigrants?"
None with functioning governments and borders. Certainly not Mexico. If you cross into Mexico illegally you are arrested and deported and probably beaten, at least if you are from points south...
But, it doesn't matter what other countries do, it is OUR fault because WE cause all the problems in the world. How can we be expected to have the same sorts of laws as other countries, the very countries which are exporting their unemployed to us even? I think you really don't understand the situation here. The US did it. It is OUR fault. They get to come here at will and you better like it and dance their tune brother!
I don't like the idea of drones, but you know I thought at one point that people might respect a border....
I agree with you about how we've respected borders. Not well and it needs to change, but that doesn't mean we need to open our borders to economic immigrants when it is simply a release valve for the plutocratic governments of the South to get rid of their populations and to get them to send money back. In effect, they send the very people that might effect social change away and turn them into a revenue source. That sounds pretty unethical to me...
Ardent, your logic isn't well thought through; it's what is called "convenient logic".
Admittedly, border transgressions are committed by all parties and resistance to invasion is practiced by all parties. This is an historical fact.
In simple terms, so you understand, we have a right to defend ourselves from invasion.
No amount of moral hand-wringing or conspiracy theories here on CD will change the general public's perception.
"But CD is not the general public and I'll be damned before I will sit back and say nothing when a bunch of USA First turkeys, like yourself Annak, come into the site and go unchallenged"
Listen to yourself, you are now proclaiming to be the saviour of CD.
It's a political website, ardent, nothing more. Get a grip.
Look up the definition of megalomania or delusions of grandeur, it might make you uncomfortable.
zzzzzzz.............
"Can you name any other country in the world that doesn’t have similar requirements for immigrants?"
None with functioning governments and borders. Certainly not Mexico. If you cross into Mexico illegally you are arrested and deported and probably beaten, at least if you are from points south...
But, it doesn't matter what other countries do, it is OUR fault because WE cause all the problems in the world. How can we be expected to have the same sorts of laws as other countries, the very countries which are exporting their unemployed to us even? I think you really don't understand the situation here. The US did it. It is OUR fault. They get to come here at will and you better like it and dance their tune brother!
I don't like the idea of drones, but you know I thought at one point that people might respect a border....
Watch the skies, they will be over the cities soon, probably already are !
"There are those in the Senate who believe we should basically militarize our borders and until we do, until we meet some standard of militarization, we cannot tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform," he said.
It seems to be the goal of many in Congress to militarize or securitize every aspect of American society.
Maybe if we militarized our health care system it might improve - remembering of course, that the VA is a true 'socialized' medical system. The government owns all the medical assets - the hospitals, clinics, x-ray machines, etc., and employs all the doctors and staff.
I wonder what the 'tea-party' people say about the fact that we already have socialized medicine for their favored money sink? That soldiers are worth more than the rest of us? In fact, I've never heard anybody in government say it out loud that we have a socialized medical system for the military and a capitalist system for the rest of us.
"Maybe if we militarized our health care system it might improve - remembering of course, that the VA is a true 'socialized' medical system. The government owns all the medical assets - the hospitals, clinics, x-ray machines, etc., and employs all the doctors and staff."
Well put!
The entire military is a socialist organization. The government owns all of its assets -- weapons, real estate, all infrastructure, soldiers and officer staff. It is literally a huge socialist enterprise. It amazes me how many "conservatives" populate the socialist military.
How high do they fly? Are they out of the range of a 30.06 calibre rifle?
Most would be surpassingly hard to hit even if they spun around your neighbourhood at a couple hundred feet.
A resistance force choosing to fight would more logically choose soft targets, like everyone else.
Imagine that.
I should think this would be one more reason to oppose both the drones in general and their domestic use in particular.
"Oh, but they don't bother me" say the sheeple "cause I ain't doin' nottin' wrong"
I think the U.S. should annex all of central America down to Panama. Build the iron curtain there. It'd be much easier to build and defend there.
The current border is nearly 2,000 miles long. A Panamanian border fence right along the south side would be only 51 miles.
No more illegals! Think of all the new taxpayers we'd acquire! The new jobs! And we'd renationalize all the corporations' who outsourced down there! More tax money! We'd hardly need drones.
Canada next? Then we'd be a genuinely multi-cultural people with the French, American, and Spanish languages.
I agree totally. The American Way is the best way, the only way, and quite simply must be imposed on all other peoples for their own good. Henry Kissinger and Zbig Brzenski had it right the whole time. I'm finally on board, and I feel so much better now. "It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine." (Apologies to Michael Stipe)
Ya, that giant ditch we built down there in the 1900's didn't seem to work that well, did it?