Senator John Kerry came out quickly with a response last night to George W. Bush’s plan to put the American military into a non-emergency law enforcement role within the United States, along the border with Mexico:
“This is a moment when the far right is horribly wrong and leadership is required to set a course for common sense. We need a comprehensive answer to immigration that includes tightening border security, but putting another burden on the backs of the National Guard troops who are serving their second tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t the right answer. The National Guard which has borne the burden of a broken policy in Iraq shouldn’t have to bear the burden of an incomplete immigration policy. The right answer is to listen to the 9/11 Commission and put the border patrol agents we need right there on the border. It won’t satisfy the right wing, but it’s the right policy.
That’s why I’m introducing a plan to put an additional 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents on the border next year, plus more than100 helicopters and 250 more power boats to secure our borders.
We know the problem and we know the solution. Rather than try and rescue his poll numbers, President Bush can rescue good immigration policy from the right wing that’s exploited it, and he can provide presidential leadership that’s humane, realistic and responsible.”
I’m not sure what to think of John Kerry’s critique and counterproposal. Not militarizing the border is a good idea. Bush’s use of the military within the United States for law enforcement purposes looks frighteningly like a shadow of martial law. But do we really need the additional 1,000 border patrol agents when they’re already having trouble recruiting? After all, there’s not much indication that there are more illegal immigrants now than there have been in recent years. This whole issue seems like an artificial crisis developed just in time for congressional elections this year.
So, what are we to make of John Kerry’s statement?