D  e  s  e  r  t     E  x  p  o  s  u  r  e    October 2005

Borderline Insanity — Part Two [return to part one]

On another summer day, this in Las Cruces at Dickerson's Auction Barn on West Picacho, Chris Simcox talks about how he'd like to send a lot more border-crossers back to Mexico. Simcox, who lives in Tombstone, Ariz., founded Civil Homeland Defense, which spawned the Minuteman Project. After a confusing, almost comical exchange of headlines over exactly who represents the Minutemen in New Mexico, Simcox has come to Las Cruces to recruit participants for the group's planned October action here.

Simcox doesn't look like a firebrand. If you were casting someone to stir up a modern-day "Boston tea party" over border security, you would be unlikely to pick this rail-thin 43-year-old-he looks like Abe Lincoln, maybe, but not Paul Revere. Simcox' long arms hang from his shoulders like broomsticks. But his lanky looks belie his hyperactive demeanor when he gets wound up, which is often.

The Minuteman Project is recruiting volunteers for its October border watch.

"The only way we are going to move off that border is when we are relieved by the US military or National Guard," he tells the crowd of commingled curious and protestors. "No compromise. Period."

The Minutemen's April "Civil Homeland Defense" initiative in Arizona enlisted 900 volunteers to monitor a 22-mile section of the border, he says. Besides grabbing headlines, Simcox claims the Minutemen made 6,500 "interventions" as well as several rescues of stranded border crossers; in three years, he says, the group has saved 160 lives. The Minuteman Web site also takes credit for reducing Arizona border crossings from about 12,000 in April 2004 to fewer than 3,000 during the group's April 2005 vigil. Federal officials say those numbers are skewed, and that any reduction was due to a new Arizona Border Control Initiative that deployed dozens of additional Border Patrol agents. The Minutemen, officials add, did little more than get in the way and unwittingly trip hidden motion detectors designed to flag border-crossers.

"No contact" is the standard operating procedure ("SOP") for the Minuteman volunteers, Simcox explains. "We do not patrol the border. We sit and watch. We do not detain or stop. We are extra eyes out there, only to support and contact the Border Patrol. The Minuteman SOP keeps everyone safe."

Volunteers are subjected to a background check, Simcox says, to screen out anyone with a criminal conviction. That's followed by an in-person interview, in which Minuteman wannabes are instructed, "If contact seems imminent, then you leave."

The application form to join the Minuteman Project asks for name, address, previous address if less than a year at current address, date of birth and Social Security number. There's space for credit-card information to pay the non-refundable $50 "volunteer registration fee."

Besides expanding to New Mexico, Simcox says Minuteman chapters are springing up in Iowa, Texas, Kansas and Pennsylvania. The week after this Las Cruces meeting, he's heading to Canada to confab with 29 members of parliament about starting a project on our northern border.

Simcox has come a long way from Wildwood School, a private school in Los Angeles where he taught kindergarten for 13 years. Wildwood was "famous for teaching tolerance and diversity to the kids," he told the online magazine Salon earlier this year-but, the magazine added, "he didn't mean that in a good way." Liberalism, Simcox explained, led to the kind of "tolerance" that let illegal immigrants flood Los Angeles and form gangs. Before coming West, Simcox said, he'd produced rap albums in New York City, where he'd twice been mugged by robbers who didn't speak English.

The path from Wildwood School to the Minutemen, according to Salon, began with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Simcox said he went crazy after 9/11-"My life collapsed." He lost his job, his wife and his teenage son. Simcox went into self-imposed exile at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in the Arizona desert, living alone in a tent for three months. After being rebuffed in an attempt to join the Border Patrol, in August 2002 he spent everything he had left to buy the Tombstone Tumbleweed, a weekly newspaper whose logo sports the mustachioed visage of Wyatt Earp and whose layout comes straight from the 19th century.

By October 2002 the Tumbleweed's front page had shifted focus from the Wild West to the 21st century stampede of illegal immigration: "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" one headline read. "A PUBLIC CALL TO ARMS! CITIZENS BORDER PATROL MILITIA NOW FORMING!" Those who responded to Simcox' call to join his Civil Homeland Defense were required to carry a pistol and wear a baseball cap sporting an American flag.

Simcox professes bafflement that anyone would disagree with his efforts since then. It's simply political activism, he says, and the Minutemen-like our Founding Fathers in 1776-are looking for a redress of grievances. "We are the frontline of defense against terrorism," he says. "It is insane that the president ignores the greatest threat. . . . We need to get tough on crime."

The October monitoring project in New Mexico, Simcox adds, is designed to "send Washington, DC, another message." He goes on, "We will assist our Department of Homeland Security by being vigilant. It is not our job to take the law into our own hands."

In fact, he insists, the Minutemen are not even anti-immigration. All they want is for "everyone to come through the gates and sign the guest book."

This is not a partisan issue, Simcox says, and it's not only a concern for people on this side of the US-Mexican border. "Illegal aliens are victims of their own government." He even imagines some future cooperation south of the border: "I would like to see us work with the Zapatistas," Simcox muses. "This, too, is a political movement."

But the Minuteman Project's critics are not exactly joining them in a chorus of "Viva Zapata!" More than 200 protestors organized by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) marched in Las Cruces after the initial announcement of the Minutemen's plans to expand to New Mexico. Several LULAC members have also come to Simcox' recruiting meeting at the auction barn to keep an eye on things and express their outrage at "border vigilantes."

"We are taking a stand against the Minutemen," says Paul Martinez, president of Las Cruces LULAC Council 120. "We support the Immigration and Naturalization Service and support enforcement by trained people to enforce the law."

To better enforce the law, Martinez says the National Guard and the military should be enlisted to help patrol the border. When it's pointed out to him that the Minutemen are calling for exactly the same thing, Martinez pales and has no response for a moment, then launches into an argument that the Minutemen are racists (see box).

Two Hispanic women carry signs making the same claim about the Minutemen's alleged racist leanings. Why do they think that is true? One of the women replies, "Because our skin is brown."

Bob Wright, New Mexico organizer for the Minutemen, shakes his head at this. "This is a time of crisis along the border," he says. "How different are we from the people who put out water stops for border crossers?"

The October effort here will focus mostly east of Columbus, toward or in the Bootheel, according to Wright. Monitoring will take place 24 hours a day, in three shifts. Some teams will patrol on horseback in rougher areas, but essentially the Minutemen aim to man "static observation posts." Wright adds, "We want to make sure everyone is safe."

But what is the group's plan for when something inevitably does go awry, and their "static observation" along the dangerous border gets mixed up in a confrontation or leads to injury? There is no plan for such an eventuality, Chris Simcox concedes. The lanky latterday "Paul Revere" says simply, "We are optimists."

Those who decry the dangers of illegal immigration-and of the overall Hispanic influx into the US-sound like anything but optimists, however. In his 2004 book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, political scientist Samuel Huntington warns that the wave of Hispanic immigration threatens America's very identity as a nation. As he puts it in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs: "In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives." This influx of immigrants is fundamentally different from previous contributions to the American melting pot, Huntington claims: "The assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America. This reality poses a fundamental question:

Will the United States remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture? By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual transformation into two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic) and two languages (English and Spanish)."

In particular, according to Huntington, the proximity of the southwestern US to the source of so much of this influx-Mexico-and the continuing ties of Hispanic newcomers to their home country (see box) represents a threat. He sees a weakening of incentives to learn English. And, after all, this part of the country was once part of Mexico. Huntington warns, "The Southwest could become the United States' Quebec."

Samuel Huntington is not some right-wing crazy, spewing on some fringe Web site. He's been described as "his generation's most influential student of international relations" and his previous book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, is required reading in many universities.

Among those preaching the Huntington gospel is Colorado anti-immigration crusader Rep. Tom Tancredo. "America is wrestling with an identity crisis," Tancredo told The New Republic. "Part of it is what I call 'the cult of multiculturalism.' The idea that there is nothing-nothing-of value in Western civilization." Tancredo has already visited early presidential primary and caucus states New Hampshire and Iowa, and dreams of making the immigrant "threat" a key issue in the 2008 election. It's an issue that could split the Republican party: Arizona Sen. John McCain, the early 2008 frontrunner, has introduced legislation (with liberal icon Teddy Kennedy) to create a "guest worker" program; that's anathema to the one-third of House GOP members who belong to Tancredo's anti-immigration caucus. "No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration," says David Frum of the conservative National Review. Tancredo has already signed up Bay Buchanan-sister of GOP pundit and ex-presidential candidate Pat Buchanan-to head his political action committee, which is named, without a hint of irony, Team America.

But are today's Hispanic immigrants really so different from earlier waves of Irish, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans? And are today's anti-immigrant politicians so different from the "Know-Nothings" of the 19th century who opposed allowing immigrants and Catholics to hold public office? Huntington is hardly the first big thinker to warn of the mongrelization of America, after all. Ben Franklin griped that German immigrants to Philadelphia "are generally the most stupid of their nation. . . . Few of their children know English." In 1921, Arthur M. Schlesinger, father of the respected liberal historian, decried the immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, "with its lower standard of living and characteristic racial differences."

Groups such as US English have spotlighted concerns that Spanish is becoming co-equal with English as Americans' language, and Huntington likens the persistence of Spanish to French-speaking in Quebec. But even Huntington allows that "English use and fluency for first- and second-generation Mexicans thus far seem to follow the pattern common to past immigrants." What about the third generation, though? In Remaking the American Mainstream, Richard Alba and Victor Nee conclude that 60 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children speak only English at home.

The concentration of Hispanic immigrants actually echoes the experience of other newcomers to America. At one time, Chicago was home to more Poles than any city except Warsaw. Until World War I made it unpopular to be German, Milwaukee and Cincinnati boasted large, highly visible German enclaves and published German-language newspapers. (One Cincinnati neighborhood is still known as "Over the Rhine," though today it's primarily home to African-Americans.) And although the Pew study calculated that nine percent of the Mexican population now lives in the United States, that proportion pales beside the experience of emigration from Norway and Sweden: In 1910, almost 20 percent of the world's Norwegians and Swedes lived on this side of the Atlantic.

No doubt those who worry about the impact of the current wave of immigrants on America's identity were apoplectic over Time magazine's recent special issue on how Hispanics are influencing America. (Among the 25 most influential Hispanics the magazine spotlighted was Gov. Bill Richardson.) But, reading deeper in that issue, it's clear that this latest influx is not creating its own culture-like the immigrants of earlier centuries, Hispanics are becoming part of America even as they help change it. As Time put it, "Hispanics aren't just in the mainstream; they're shaping it." When salsa overtook ketchup as America's favorite condiment in the 1990s, you might even say, the need for a hyphenated "Mexican-American" began to become as obsolete as "Italian-American" is now that everybody eats spaghetti.

The poll of Hispanics in that same issue of Time supports the thesis that America's melting pot continues to work, while simply adding new flavors. When asked, "How important is it for Latinos to blend into the larger US society?," 64 percent responded "Very important." Only three percent said "Not at all important." Although 62 percent thought states should be allowed to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, the issues of immigration and bilingual education ranked well below education, jobs/economy, homeland security and even the environment in importance to Hispanics.

Similarly, a 2005 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that only 31 percent of US Hispanics believe the number of legal immigrants allowed from Latin America should be increased. That poll identified a split on the hotly debated driver's license issue, with 60 percent of Hispanics born in the US opposing licenses for illegal immigrants, while 66 percent of foreign-born respondents favor licenses. Only 56 percent of Hispanics favor proposals for a "guest worker program." Much greater support-84 percent-was found for giving unauthorized migrants permanent legal status and eventually allowing them to become US citizens.

Samuel Huntington might decide he has nothing to worry about if he could listen in on Rep. Pearce's Immigration Listening Tour. At one point near the end of the community input, Luis Perez stands up to speak. He'd addressed the group before, explaining that he's a naturalized US citizen, born in Chihuahua, Mexico. His father was a Mexican senator and came to America in 1929; Luis Perez served as an artillery officer in the US Army.

"The solution to illegal immigration is that the government of Mexico has to quit letting its social problems cross over to this country," Perez says, slowly and dramatically, picking his words with care. "Citizens must obey the law. We can't look on and say it's all right for these people to come over illegally, get driver's licenses and hospital care-they are not entitled to that. They are entitled to humane treatment if caught and sent back to Mexico."

Perez seems to stand even a bit straighter as he continues, "I don't want to be called a 'Mexican-American.' 'Hispanic' is an ethnicity, not a race. I am a Caucasian, whether some people like it or not."

Maria Morales-Lobel, a Grant County native who'd earlier spoken on behalf of El Refugio women's shelter about the human trafficking across the border that puts women's lives in danger, is moved to stand up next. "Whether people like it or not," she says, as if echoing Perez' words, "we are the future leadership and workforce of this country."

The impact of immigration-especially unauthorized migrants-on this country's workforce and economy remains a topic of sharp debate. In calling for troops along the border, Rep. Norwood claims, "The costs of illegal immigration to taxpayers is now estimated at more than $70 billion a year for skyrocketing healthcare, education, welfare and crime-fighting expenses, along with lower wages for native-born Americans, naturalized citizens and legal immigrants and guest workers. Securing the border and repatriation of illegal immigrants could accordingly cut the federal deficit by over $65 billion annually, and increase long-term solvency of the Social Security system."

The New York Times recently calculated, however, that illegal aliens are actually helping to keep the Social Security system afloat: Undocumented workers generate $7 billion a year in Social Security taxes and contribute $1.5 billion to Medicare, while receiving zero benefits. Because many illegals use false Social Security numbers to get hired, Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, figures that about three-quarters do pay payroll taxes. Without contributions from unauthorized migrants, Goss estimates, the system's long-term deficit would worsen by 10 percent. You can also look at Social Security's Earnings Suspense Fund, which accumulates payments by workers who never claim benefits: The fund now totals more than $420 billion.

La Raza calculates that "unauthorized urban workers"-a subset of illegal immigrants totaling about 6 million-make up five percent of the total US workforce. Undocumented men are almost all in the labor force, exceeding by 15 points the labor-force participation rate of US citizens and legal immigrants. "These immigrant workers are already filling important gaps in the labor market," La Raza maintains. "Legalizing their status would bring them into the formal economy, increase tax revenues, and improve wages and working conditions for all workers."

Trinidad U. Tolar, WNMU field experience director, recalls the town where she once taught in Washington State. "The town there would have been bankrupt if not for the illegals working there," she says. "That is true in many states. North Carolina does not have the labor force to work those jobs. North Carolina appreciates their labor, so they have created a social program to help immigrants acculturate to their new country."

Sixty-eight percent of US Hispanics in the Pew survey believe illegal immigrants help the economy by providing low-cost labor. Similarly, in the Time poll, 75 percent of Hispanics said illegal immigrants are "taking jobs US citizens don't want."

But perhaps it's not the jobs that Americans reject-it's the low wages. Consider the 2003 prosecution of Tyson Foods for hiring illegal aliens: Two managers who later pleaded guilty to hiring illegals testified that they had to do so because the company refused to pay wages high enough to attract locals.

Although arguing that "illegal immigrants are not stealing jobs from American workers," Tamar Jacoby adds, "Because illegal immigrants can't bargain for better, they undercut wages and work conditions for native-born laborers." The evidence on this issue is mixed, and other experts have challenged the most commonly cited findings, by George Borjas of Harvard. Borjas concluded that immigration (legal and otherwise) reduces the average earnings of native-born workers by four percent, hurting native-born Hispanics and African-Americans the most.

But whether US workers really lose because of illegal immigrants, one thing is clear: Corporations benefit on the bottom line. In the Tyson case, for example, a government consultant concluded that the company saved millions of dollars in wages, benefits and related expenses by hiring unauthorized migrants.

So at last we have a winner in the tangled, frustrating and seemingly insoluble issue of illegal immigration and border security: corporate America. It's significant that in the Tyson case, not only were three other managers acquitted, so was the company itself. Today, the company insists it has "zero tolerance" for hiring undocumented workers.

But that's not because it fears getting caught. While the Border Patrol has grown to an almost 11,000-man army in a seemingly futile war against illegal border crossers, enforcement of laws against the companies that hire illegals has dwindled to a joke. The Tyson Foods prosecution was an anomaly: According to Time magazine, investigations of employers hiring unauthorized migrants dropped more than 70 percent from 1992 to 2002, from 7,053 to 2,061. Arrests on job sites plummeted 94 percent, from 8,027 to just 451. And the number of final orders levying fines on companies for immigration-law violations dropped 99 percent, from 1,063 to 13. That's not a typo — 13.

Not that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) hasn't occasionally tried to enforce laws against hiring illegals. In 1998, its Operation Vanguard cracked down on hiring practices in Nebraska's meat-packing plants, subpoenaing 24,000 records and finding 4,700 Social Security discrepancies at 40 plants. But pressure from Nebraska's congressional delegation forced the INS to back off.

Today, corporations place orders for undocumented Mexican workers much as they might order parts or raw materials. US companies then help transport illegals to plants across the country, and even help them obtain phony documentation.

If we really wanted to do something about illegal immigration and the flood across our borders, in short, instead of targeting impoverished Mexicans in search of opportunity, we'd go after the companies that hire and exploit them. We'd try to cut off the jobs that draw migrants northward-even though, of course, such enforcement might hurt corporate profits.

As one senior agent of the Border Patrol told Salon, "Well, why not hire the illegal? He works just as hard, if not harder, than an American, and for half the money. That's the big magnet. If you're ever gonna stop this, you gotta start fining employers. You gotta demagnetize the job pull."

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a labor union that represents Border Patrol employees, says the US government should issue upgraded, high-tech, counterfeit-proof Social Security cards that have embedded photos. "It's not a national ID card," he adds. "It's a card that you have to carry when you apply for a job and only then. The employers run it through a scanner, and they get an answer in short order that says, 'Yes, you may hire,' or 'No, you may not.'" Bonner believes such a plan would cut off 98 percent of the border traffic and that the Border Patrol at current staffing levels could then actually control the border.

Continue to Part Three

Return to top of page