Checking the Checkpoint
September 1, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, in Sahuarita, two community workgroups presented reports on the impending permanent Border Patrol checkpoint on I-19. There were cheers and whistles, there were groans and boos and laughter, there were no expletives, there were more than a couple of brief lectures on respectfulness and decorum. One wonders what the lecturer, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, would think of an Arivaca meeting with Border Patrol officials. She’d probably fall over backwards in a dead faint.
The supposed purpose of the meeting was to give input on the issue to Representative Giffords and the Border Patrol, represented by Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent Robert Gilbert. A few hundred or so mere citizens showed up as well, hoping to have some say. Chief Gilbert spent his opening remarks defending himself against a Daily Star article from the day before whose headline screamed that the checkpoint is not a matter of public debate. In the article he said that the experts on the subject, the Border Patrol, had the right to decide the issue and they had decided to build. At the meeting, Chief Gilbert said that the headline was wrong but the article was right. This may have confused some folks but Arivacans understand - we’re welcome to have debate and give as much input as we like as long as we don’t expect it to change anything.
The Border Patrol decided to build the checkpoint before this meeting, many years before this meeting. Under the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and whatever else, they don’t have to ask any permission or take any input from any mere citizens, or any other governmental institutions, to make this decision. No doubt Chief Gilbert was not moved to reconsider his position.
The meeting was primarily for Representative Giffords’ benefit. She has vacillated on the question
of a permanent checkpoint and politically want to avoid alienating those on either side of the issue. In her favor, the disagreements in the presentations didn’t really represent political divides- the option presented to a permanent checkpoint is still a very conservative, pro enforcement program. There was no mention in either of the community subcommittee reports of economic or immigration policy changes being needed as much or more than enforcement increases. When asked by an audience questioner if she thought there was a law enforcement solution to border issues, Representative Giffords said she realized that government policy changes are needed but that law enforcement is still a large part of it. She wants to be on both sides equally.
Apparently catching many members of both subcommittees by surprise, the first subcommittee report consisted mostly of a PowerPoint propaganda barrage, complete with images of the flaming twin towers and terrorist insurgents, claiming that a permanent checkpoint is desperately needed to protect us all from another 9-11.
The second, options committee, said that permanent checkpoints have no proven deterrent effect on trafficking of any kind, are easily avoided and cause community and local law enforcement problems in surrounding areas. “Secure the border at the border” is their mantra. They are still for spending millions and billions on increased enforcement. They are still for checkpoints but roving checkpoints that have the element of surprise. They are for more agents, the SBI Net, more vehicle barriers, and even biometric ID cards, presumably for all citizens.
Judging from the carefully measured cheer to boo ratio and the show of bodies when those against a permanent checkpoint were asked by an audience member to stand, the audience was decidedly in the against column. Whether or not such disrespectful measures have any weight, only the attending official representatives know.
Interestingly, the first subcommittee made a suggestion that may be an out for Representative
Giffords and a good way to approach the issue. They suggested that the effectiveness and impacts of the current, “fixed temporary”, checkpoint on I-19 be measured as much as possible. That data should be compared to performance measurements of other permanent, fixed and temporary checkpoints in all sectors. All of this information should be able to tell us if a permanent site is of any benefit.
The problem with this seemingly reasonable, even conservative, approach is that the Border Patrol doesn’t gather the necessary data. A 2005 GAO report states that the the Border Patrol “does not even collect the necessary performance measures to be able to accurately judge the relative impact of interior checkpoints in overall border enforcement strategy”. It suggests that the Border Patrol do so but there is no evidence that they have acted on that suggestion.
Chief Gilbert said at the meeting that the reason the Tucson sector is the focus of immigrant and drug traffic is that it has no permanent checkpoint. Let him prove his assertion. If he can’t, through existing performance measures or those he can gather in the future, then there should be no permanent checkpoint. If the Border Patrol hasn’t bothered to collect the necessary performance data, that’s their fault.
This approach would allow Representative Giffords to simply do her job- demand oversight, demand accountability, demand performance. This should be the job of all our elected officials, regardless of their political affiliations. It should apply to all border enforcement programs, increasing agent numbers, increasing fencing, and, especially, the dysfunctional SBI Net.
A rigorous analysis of performance measures and impacts of interior checkpoints might lead us to the conclusion that they are not effective. Beyond that, it might lead us see a permanent checkpoint 30 miles from the border as a monument to the failure of our efforts to control that border. We might realize it would essentially and quite literally cement into place our unwillingness to deal with the real, underlying human problems creating our current situation.
And what is the point of demanding proof of performance when the Border Patrol can unilaterally
decide to go ahead with programs anyway? The Border Patrol can decide to do whatever it wants but it can’t build or expand or go ahead without funding. Funding for a permanent checkpoint has not been approved by Congress. The same is true for the rollout of the SBI Net and perhaps for the proposed new Border Patrol stations, one of which is to be located in, of course, Arivaca.
Which is why mere citizens do still have a modicum of input through their elected representatives. We can choose to use it or not.
Increasing enforcement of bad policy has only resulted in more negative impacts on both sides of the border. A permanent checkpoint on I-19 at kilometer 50 will increase negative impacts on more citizens and do nothing to solve border problems. When we address the real underlying issues on the border with our neighbors, treating our neighbors as neighbors, not as cold, and sometimes hot, war enemies, finally, we’ll have some progress on the border.
Copyright 2007 Peter Ragan
Comments
Got something to say?