News (Media Awareness Project) - US TX: OPED: Death Payoff Won't Fix Border Control Policy |
Title: | US TX: OPED: Death Payoff Won't Fix Border Control Policy |
Published On: | 1998-08-14 |
Source: | Dallas Morning News |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-07 03:33:05 |
DEATH PAYOFF WON'T FIX BORDER CONTROL POLICY
Nearly $2 million is a lot of money, but it won't bring back Esequiel
Hernandez Jr. And neither will it camouflage a border control policy that
continues to drift, as the federal government implements one stopgap
measure after another in the fight against drug smuggling and illegal
immigration.
According to attorneys for the family of the deceased, the United States
has agreed to pay the hefty sum of $1.9 million to the survivors of young
Mr. HernE1ndez. He was the 18-year-old American of Mexican descent who w
as
shot to death by U.S. Marines patrolling the Texas-Mexico border nearly t
wo
years ago.
No evidence has been uncovered that Mr. HernE1ndez, who was armed with a
small-caliber rifle at the time of his death, knew he had fired on the
Marines. Many people believe he was hunting or target practicing -
"plinking" being the term of art.
In the aftermath of the young man's death, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antoni
o,
one of Congress' most ardent advocates for greater border control, has be
en
in the vanguard of those calling for more answers in the tragedy. His
spokesman, Alan Kay, says the congressman is committed to providing the
American people with a full public accounting of the incident.
Under the Military Claims Act, the military components of the federal
government are authorized to settle claims related to U.S. military
activities without a showing of fault by military personnel. Such claims
can be settled only if the injured parties weren't themselves to blame.
But just try to uncover the fine points of the deal. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which oversees the Border Patrol, says it isn't
handling media inquiries into the case. A spokesman at the Justice
Department proceeded to inform me that the department is indeed handling
media questions but that it is barred by law from discussing the specific
s
of the settlement.
Fine. While the settlement itself is an interesting issue, a lack of
discussion surrounding the greater issue of cross-border illegality hardl
y
serves to prevent the instability that can lead to similar tragedies.
To think that a teenage goatherd, working on his parents' property, could
be shot to death by Marines on an official mission is incomprehensible to
most people - even if the Marines involved in the death have been absolve
d
of wrongdoing. (Within the past week, a grand jury on the Texas-Mexico
border refused to indict one of the Marines for the murder - the second
refusal to indict in the case.)
Yet, as a wave of drug-related violence continues to plague both sides of
the border, a failure to implement a more coherent, thoughtful and
consistent strategy may be contributing to the problem. Only belatedly, i
n
the aftermath of the HernE1ndez shooting, did the government suspend
operations entailing military cooperation with the Border Patrol.
The decision was a de facto admission that the military has no business i
n
that line of work. Military personnel are trained to do a different job
than the Border Patrol. Troops engage the enemy in combat; the Border
Patrol enforces the law.
And yet the irony is that the government's inability to confront extensiv
e
violations of our territorial sovereignty at the border has resulted in t
he
House passing a provision in June authored by Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohi
o,
that authorizes the deployment of up to 10,000 troops on the border. The
Senate has yet to take up the measure.
In truth, the Clinton administration has begun to beef up the border with
traditional guards. A recent proposal by drug czar Barry McCaffrey to
establish a border czar responsible for coordinating federal law
enforcement initiatives along the border also holds promise. But will the
re
be follow-through in terms of the sufficient and efficient deployment of
resources? Not if a record of showing indifference or going for quick fix
es
is any guide.
As justifiable as the HernE1ndez settlement was, what kind of compensati
on
does the government have in mind for a nation that is placed at risk by a
border control policy that flies this way and that?
Whatever young Mr. Hernandez may have been shooting at on the day of his
tragic death, it is worth identifying the major shortcoming of those in
charge of America's border control policies: They continue to take shots
in
the dark.
Checked-by: Mike Gogulski
Nearly $2 million is a lot of money, but it won't bring back Esequiel
Hernandez Jr. And neither will it camouflage a border control policy that
continues to drift, as the federal government implements one stopgap
measure after another in the fight against drug smuggling and illegal
immigration.
According to attorneys for the family of the deceased, the United States
has agreed to pay the hefty sum of $1.9 million to the survivors of young
Mr. HernE1ndez. He was the 18-year-old American of Mexican descent who w
as
shot to death by U.S. Marines patrolling the Texas-Mexico border nearly t
wo
years ago.
No evidence has been uncovered that Mr. HernE1ndez, who was armed with a
small-caliber rifle at the time of his death, knew he had fired on the
Marines. Many people believe he was hunting or target practicing -
"plinking" being the term of art.
In the aftermath of the young man's death, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antoni
o,
one of Congress' most ardent advocates for greater border control, has be
en
in the vanguard of those calling for more answers in the tragedy. His
spokesman, Alan Kay, says the congressman is committed to providing the
American people with a full public accounting of the incident.
Under the Military Claims Act, the military components of the federal
government are authorized to settle claims related to U.S. military
activities without a showing of fault by military personnel. Such claims
can be settled only if the injured parties weren't themselves to blame.
But just try to uncover the fine points of the deal. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which oversees the Border Patrol, says it isn't
handling media inquiries into the case. A spokesman at the Justice
Department proceeded to inform me that the department is indeed handling
media questions but that it is barred by law from discussing the specific
s
of the settlement.
Fine. While the settlement itself is an interesting issue, a lack of
discussion surrounding the greater issue of cross-border illegality hardl
y
serves to prevent the instability that can lead to similar tragedies.
To think that a teenage goatherd, working on his parents' property, could
be shot to death by Marines on an official mission is incomprehensible to
most people - even if the Marines involved in the death have been absolve
d
of wrongdoing. (Within the past week, a grand jury on the Texas-Mexico
border refused to indict one of the Marines for the murder - the second
refusal to indict in the case.)
Yet, as a wave of drug-related violence continues to plague both sides of
the border, a failure to implement a more coherent, thoughtful and
consistent strategy may be contributing to the problem. Only belatedly, i
n
the aftermath of the HernE1ndez shooting, did the government suspend
operations entailing military cooperation with the Border Patrol.
The decision was a de facto admission that the military has no business i
n
that line of work. Military personnel are trained to do a different job
than the Border Patrol. Troops engage the enemy in combat; the Border
Patrol enforces the law.
And yet the irony is that the government's inability to confront extensiv
e
violations of our territorial sovereignty at the border has resulted in t
he
House passing a provision in June authored by Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohi
o,
that authorizes the deployment of up to 10,000 troops on the border. The
Senate has yet to take up the measure.
In truth, the Clinton administration has begun to beef up the border with
traditional guards. A recent proposal by drug czar Barry McCaffrey to
establish a border czar responsible for coordinating federal law
enforcement initiatives along the border also holds promise. But will the
re
be follow-through in terms of the sufficient and efficient deployment of
resources? Not if a record of showing indifference or going for quick fix
es
is any guide.
As justifiable as the HernE1ndez settlement was, what kind of compensati
on
does the government have in mind for a nation that is placed at risk by a
border control policy that flies this way and that?
Whatever young Mr. Hernandez may have been shooting at on the day of his
tragic death, it is worth identifying the major shortcoming of those in
charge of America's border control policies: They continue to take shots
in
the dark.
Checked-by: Mike Gogulski
Member Comments |
No member comments available...