Editorial - Washington isn't serious about border security

Herald/Review

Washington politicians talk a good game about improving border security, but when it comes time to actually do something about it, the willingness to act is lacking.

That statement became abundantly clear on Thursday when Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain ran into opposition on legislation that would give Customs and Border Protection agents more access to federal land.

Access to federal land? It would be logical to assume that agents employed by Uncle Sam would have the authority to go where they need to go to accomplish what needs to be done to secure the interests of these United States.

But in the convoluted world of bureaucracy and overlapping authorities, the ability of these federal agents to traverse land on the American side of the international boundary with Mexico is limited by regulations that are intended to protect wildlife habitats and nature’s landscape.

Unfortunately, as Sen. McCain pointed out to fellow members of the Homeland Security Committee, Mexican smugglers and cartel criminals are not bound by these regulations and go wherever is necessary to escape the long arm of the law. If that means driving through the wilderness and destroying property and habitats, so be it.

In his support for the legislation, McCain said the federal agents would be able to establish motorized patrols and set up equipment to improve surveillance and communication. Further, he argued that the change would improve the security of agents who are doing these patrols, because current limitations mean if people are injured “in the field,” it can take hours just to reach to the person when motorized vehicles can’t be used.

After years of visits to the border by Washington politicians; years of rhetoric on the need to fix border security; years of promises to local ranchers and constituents, it would seem that this minor change in federal law would be a “no-brainer” that both sides of the political aisle would quickly enact — perhaps even embarrassed that it hasn’t already been done.

Nope.

Democrats from Montana, North Dakota and Delaware objected and the legislation barely passed the committee by voice-vote, indicating it will face a difficult path to be approved by Congress.

Montana Sen. Jon Tester said he couldn’t support the legislation because it “… allows one agency to do whatever they want.”

Maybe so, but in the case of this example of idiocy of federal behavior, it’s better than doing nothing.

The legislation mentioned, the Arizona Borderlands Protection and Preservation Act (S.750), as introduced basically does two things.  Here is the operative language:

(1) the Secretary and the Secretary concerned, notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel with immediate access to Federal lands for border security activities, including—

     (A) routine motorized patrols; and

     (B) the deployment of communications, surveillance, and detection equipment

That sounds good and would take care of most access problems encountered by the Border Patrol on Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments and Wilderness Areas along our border.

However, if you read the definition of federal lands in the bill, it says:

The term “Federal lands” includes all land under the control of the Secretary concerned that is located within the Southwest border region in the Tucson and Yuma sectors of United States Border Patrol along the Southern border. 

Notice it doesn't include the El Paso Sector of the Border Patrol.  That means the operative language would only cover lands in Arizona.  It would not cover lands in New Mexico.

You don't have to be a genius to see the ramifications if this were to become law.  The BP would have full access to all federal lands in Arizona, but prohibited or limited access to similar lands in NM. If you were a human or drug trafficker, which area would you pick?  And, thanks to Obama-Udall-Heinrich, we New Mexicans have a brand new, half-million acre National Monument on and near our border with Mexico.  New roads are prohibited and off-road vehicular traffic is prohibited.  Patrols would be limited to BLM-approved existing roads and you'd play hell deploying "communications, surveillance, and detection equipment" if you can't go off-road.

An amended version of S. 750 passed the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee last Wednesday,May 6th.  I called the committee on Friday but the amended version is not yet available.  As a result I cannot say whether the definition of federal lands has been changed or not.  We'll let you know as soon as we know.

Neither of New Mexico's senators serve on this committee, but they may soon have to take a position on S. 750.   McCain got the bill introduced and approved by the committee in less than two months, so he appears to be pushing it hard.