The 215th General Assembly (2003) declared its opposition to border strategies "which have resulted in an increase in militarization, violations of human rights, deaths from dehydration and exposure, and racial profiling of Hispanic peoples in the borderlands" (2003 Minutes, Part I, pp. 39, 613-15). 

Border Walls   

Border walls have been a means of military defense and security for thousands of years.  The Qin Dynasty in China built the Great Wall over 2500 years ago to defend against possible invaders and harassers from the north. The book of Joshua tells a story of the defeat of probably the best-known walled city, Jericho.  Nehemiah was given the task of rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem (though this wall may have been more a status symbol rather than for protection).  

Border walls continue to be a part of our international political reality.  A fortified border barrier still separates North Korea from South Korea.  Israel is continuing to build its separation barrier between Israel and Palestine.  In 1994 Operations "Gatekeeper" and "Safeguard" began the first efforts to physically seal the border between the United States and Mexico.  As part of these and subsequent programs, 12-foot high border walls made of recycled metal landing mats used by the U.S. in Vietnam and during the first Gulf War have been erected.  

Thousands of immigrants have died trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border since 1998.  In Arizona alone, at least 219 immigrants died in their attempts to cross the Arizona deserts during FY 2004 (October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2004). 1  There can be drawn a direct correlation between the number of deaths on the border and the increase in Border Patrol agents assigned to the U.S. southern border that began in earnest in 1998.  As walls and fences are erected in urban areas, immigrants are forced to attempt crossings in increasingly remote and dangerous areas. 

The Border Patrol has clearly admitted that their goal of establishing barriers in urban and peri-urban areas has had the effect of forcing migration patterns into the most inhospitable areas of the desert.  The U.S. General Accounting Office found in a report to Congressional committees in 2001 that Border Patrol strategy has been to "incrementally increase control of the border * to make it so difficult and costly for aliens to attempt illegal entry that fewer individuals would try." 2  Despite this dangerous strategy, the numbers of undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S. border have not decreased.  In fact they have continued to increase. 

Many undocumented migrants also feel that in order to cross the border successfully they have no other option than to engage the unscrupulous resources of 'coyotes' or 'polleros,' human smugglers paid to provide transport and/or guidance to smuggle immigrants across the border, though with too often dangerous and fatal results.  If immigrants are able to cross through the deserts safely and without being detected by the Border Patrol, they still remain at risk of being held captive by the 'coyotes' for ransom payments before being released. 

In addition to the physical barriers, the U.S. Border Patrol has continued to increase the number of agents guarding the borders.  There are presently about 11,500 Border Patrol agents, with 2,000 at the Canadian border and 9,500 along the Mexico border.  The Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in December 2004 could nearly double the number of Border Patrol agents to 21,000 by adding 2,000 agents each year for the next five years.   Eighty percent of those new agents would be sent to the Mexico border.  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge stated that President Bush would not seek to hire 2,000 agents this year due to budget constraints.  It is generally expected that there will only be an increase of 200 agents this year. 3  The very least we can do with these expected increases in agents is to advocate for their improved training in cultural awareness, human rights, and avoidance of racial profiling. 

To the Border Patrol's credit, they have also organized regular search and rescue crews to help migrants in distress.  They can and should provide water and medical assistance to those who are suffering in their attempt to cross the desert.  Many agents stationed in the desert realize that their efforts are as much about rendering humanitarian assistance as they are about enforcing the current immigration laws of the United States.   

In addition to the physical barriers and the Border Patrol agents, the technology of border security continues to advance.  Security cameras mounted on towers over the border walls provide 24-hour surveillance through visual and infrared cameras.  Some of these cameras are capable of reading a license plate at a distance of two miles.  Remote controlled aircraft drones as well as Black Hawk helicopters are increasingly used to secure the border, particularly in the Tucson, AZ area. 4  The legal ports of entry are quickly incorporating new biometric technologies that not only recognize fingerprints, but also include face recognition capabilities.    

Recent action on Capitol Hill 

2005 has certainly not started out as a slow year on the Hill for legislation dealing with border and immigration issues.  Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, has kept his promise to introduce new legislation to replace the items that he withdrew from the Intelligence Reform Act in exchange for its passage in December 2004 and the promise this bill would receive an early place on the docket in 2005.  This new bill is known as the "REAL ID Act of 2005" (HR 418).    

There are at least three main issues that have garnered interest in this bill.   

1) The REAL ID Act is named for its central focus on creating a uniform, federal standard for identification cards that are for federal recognition in order to enter federally secured areas like airports or federal buildings.  The ID cards will continue to be issued on the state level.  Currently all state-issued driver's licenses can be used for identification purposes, but if a state decides to issue driver's licenses that do not comply with the federal standards established in the Act, it will then be required to issue a separate ID card that does comply with the federal standard.  Proof of citizenship or legal residence will be required in order to qualify for a driver's license or ID card.  This act will also establish a federal mandate that all licenses or ID cards will expire on the same date as the visa that grants legal residence. 

If the bill passes through the Senate in the same form in which in now appears, then there are numerous changes that can be expected.  As it stands right now, each state has the right and the ability to supply its residents with driver's licenses and state-issued identification cards as prescribed by state law.  Congress already complied with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for protecting against identity theft and strengthening the authenticity verification process through the Intelligence Reform Act passed by Congress and signed by the President.  This bill repeals the driver's license and identification portions (Section 7212) of the Intelligence Reform Act mere months after it has become law. 

The 9/11 Commission never requested that undocumented immigrants should be denied driver's licenses.  The REAL ID Act would impose an unfunded mandate upon the states to comply with these federal identification requirements.  Eleven states currently allow driver's licenses to be issued without verification of legal residency or citizenship.  If this act becomes law, then there is a distinct likelihood that there will be a substantial increase of unlicensed and uninsured motorists on U.S. roads, particularly in these eleven states. 

"We also call upon Presbyterians to take the time to learn about costs and benefits associated with immigration ... we do not support the development of a national identification card because of the potential discriminatory use of such a document" (1994 Minutes, p. 243). 

2) The REAL ID Act will provide to the Secretary of Homeland Security a waiver of any and all laws necessary to expedite the improvement of barriers and roads along the U.S. border with both Mexico and Canada.  The laws from which he can be exempted range from local laws to state and federal laws, from environmental and conservation laws to labor laws.  This waiver is to be used at the sole discretion of the Secretary, and will also exempt the Secretary's decisions from judicial review.  There can be no cause or claim resulting from the action of the Secretary.  

The waiver granted to the Secretary will essentially give a green light to the construction of about 75 miles of border fencing and thousands of miles of accompanying roads that are currently under judicial review or on hold because of environmental impact reviews.  It will also allow for the completion of a triple border fence (three parallel fences separated by high-speed roadways) along the border near San Diego, CA.   There is currently a three-mile gap in the 14-mile fence, and 16 state and federal environmental laws presently bar its completion.  These three miles cross through wetlands and an estuary.  The construction of this security barrier could also have a devastating effect on the Tijuana River National Estuary and land purchased by the Multiple Species Conservation Plan.  The continuation of other parts of the fence may also disturb or destroy several archaeological sites that have already been threatened or destroyed on the Mexican side. 5  It is true that the current immigration rates trampling through these lands also place these lands at risk, but it is also true that the department responsible for enforcing border regulations should not also be placed in charge of protecting our environment.  

3) This act will also grant immigration judges or immigration officers greater leeway in judging immigrants' cases for asylum.  The burden of proof on the applicant is raised to a higher level and the outcome of the application will be determined by the judge's perception of the applicant's credibility as evidenced by applicant's demeanor, candor, or responsiveness.   

"The 211th General Assembly (1999)* Urge[s] that numerical limits used by the United States on allowing adjudicated asylum seekers adjust to a legal permanent residence (LPR) status be lifted, urging presbyteries and sessions to do similar advocacy " (1999 Minutes, pp. 353-355). 6 

While the White House has signaled that it would like a later version of the REAL ID Act to abolish the current numerical limit of 10,000 asylum cases to be granted each year, the argument still remains that this bill could adversely affect the asylum application process by making it dependent upon judge's personal, emotional reading of the applicant's individual personality.  The U.S. government has a system of asylum that is intended to show compassion to those who have suffered persecution.  This bill could subvert the government's ability to effectively convey that compassion.  

The REAL ID Act passed the House on a vote of 261-161 on February 10, 2005, and it will now go to the Senate for consideration.  It is quite possible that the bill will be sent to the U.S. Senate as an attachment to the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental, augmenting its appearance as a terrorism bill rather than the immigration bill that it really is.  The Senate has signaled that it wants to deal cautiously with this Act.  For example, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has stated that he wants these issues to be reviewed by the Senate's Judiciary Committee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, recognition that the REAL ID Act is a bill on immigration, not on terrorism. 

REAL ID Act Letter to the Senate

Border Working Group
February 14, 2005 

The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love the stranger as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19: 33-34) 

Dear Senator,  

As organizations rooted in faith, we understand that the call to "love your neighbor as yourself" extends beyond borders, and implies that our own security can not be bought at the expense of our neighbors' security. In the past decade, since fencing projects began on the U.S./Mexico border, more than 2,500 migrants have died in the deserts and rivers along the border. Meanwhile, rates of migration across the border have only increased. Fencing is expensive, ineffective and deadly; and there are alternatives that improve security for the United States and its neighbors.  

Therefore, we urge you to oppose the REAL ID Act (HR 418) and its fencing provisions (Section 102), which would exempt the Department of Homeland Security from our nation's laws and bar judicial review of border construction projects.   

Section 102 Provisions: 

• Gives the Secretary of Homeland Security sweeping authority to waive all laws that prohibit construction of barriers and roads along our nation's 7,500 miles of border. Currently, all construction is subject to public comment, environmental regulation and judicial review.
• Waives the rights of Native American nations to control the use of their lands, and eliminates environmental or zoning laws — local, state or federal — that prohibit this type of construction in environmentally sensitive or residential areas.
• Prohibits judicial review of these projects, eliminating any checks against the Department of Homeland Security for its use of land in border regions; and bar any individual, organization, business, or local or state government negatively affected by these projects from seeking compensation for losses. 

Negative Impacts: 

• Eliminates the Border Patrol requirement to conduct Environmental Impact Analyses before border construction projects. Currently, this process, mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1976, is the only mechanism to allow public input into these proposals.
• Clears the way for the construction of over 75 miles of fencing in Arizona. Currently, there are only 75 miles of fencing across the entire U.S./Mexico border. In 2004, over 221 migrants died in Arizona alone, using isolated desert routes to avoid border infrastructure. The proposed fencing would funnel migrants onto the Barry Goldwater Air Force bombing range, and into the most remote stretches of Arizona desert, resulting in increased deaths.  
• Allows completion of the "triple fence" in San Diego, California. Along with Border Patrol operations, the two fences already spanning this area have relocated migration, decreasing traffic through the area by 94 percent from 1993 to 2004. The vast majority of remaining migration through the San Diego Border Patrol Sector is not in the urban area where the fence would be constructed, but through the mountains east of the city. 
• Opens more than one dozen federal and state parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas for unmonitored construction by the Border Patrol.   

Human and Other Costs: 

Fencing and other infrastructure projects do not decrease migration. Rather, they shift the flow to more dangerous areas. For example, whereas apprehensions in the San Diego sector have dropped 74% from 1993 (531,689 apprehensions) to 2004 (138,328 apprehensions), they have skyrocketed in Arizona, with a more than 500% increase there in the same time period (116,187 in 1993 to 588,719 in 2004).

The existing triple fence in San Diego cost approximately $3 million per mile. The original projected cost for the fence was $14 million. Total costs to date exceed $42 million, according to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA).

With over 7,500 miles of border, it is unrealistic to expect fencing and other related operations to "seal" our nation's borders. With the completion of all current fencing proposals, less than eight percent of our border with Mexico, and only 0.02 percent of our national borders would be sealed.  

Positive Alternatives:

• Provide safe and legal means of entry to migrants seeking opportunity or protection in our country. Meaningful immigration reform could eliminate the vast majority of undocumented entry across U.S. borders.    
• Cooperate with local, state or provincial authorities — as Canada and the United States have done — to allow low-risk travelers and cargo across the border, and to improve detection and apprehension of high-risk people and goods before they reach the border.
• Distinguish efforts to deter terrorists from those to stop migrants. Current border infrastructure is intended for migrants, not terrorists. Our border security strategy has not changed since the September 11, 2001; we have simply reinforced an anti-migrant strategy begun in 1993.
• Establish a bipartisan commission to study what border security might look like in the context of meaningful immigration reform, and to reevaluate the effectiveness of Border Patrol operations and infrastructure. 

In conclusion, we invite you join with us in opposing the REAL ID Act, and in advocating for borders that are truly secure — for ourselves and our neighbors.