US Military Zone Expansion on Border Sparks Legal, Civil Debate
Polarising and unheard of, the United States government has now widened militarised territories at the US- Mexico border to the extent that it now covers almost a third of the entire southern border of the United States. The move, which is being carried out under the emergency law that has been in existence since the beginning of the Cold War, represents a drastic increase in the play of the military force into the enforcement of the nation’s borders–raising grave questions about civil rights, property ownership, and access to humanitarian assistance.
The newest development takes the militarization to the Texas Rio Grande Valley in a 250-mile stretch, extending past the previous areas of Fort Hancock, Texas to El Paso, and west in New Mexico. It has additional plans in the pipeline close to Yuma, Arizona, and this military presence zone currently covers nearly half a thousand miles of the boundary with the aid of nearly 7,600 gun-wielding people.
According to US officials, the militarised areas are necessary to fill the gaps in the enforcement process at the borders, sever human trafficking routes as well as to tackle the much stronger drug cartels. The zones are demarcated by multilingual no entry signs under which parts of both the public and the privately owned territories are brought under direct military jurisdiction. By doing so, it has given troops the right to seek illegal immigrants who cross into the country, distinguishing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that had previously excluded the involvement of the military in domestic police work.
The implementation is an extension of an overall security campaign by the Trump administration which reinstated an emergency on the border on its first day in office. Nevertheless, constitutional lawyers and civil rights organizations consider this move as an overreach, and one that is not sanctioned by the Congress, and may have a harmful precedent.
Voices from the Ground
Public opinion remains deeply divided across affected regions. In the rural Luna County, New Mexico, where ranchlands have been militarised, a few owners and farmers believe in the enhanced presence. As James Johnson, a fourth-generation onion farmer advised, we support the mission and want to get the border secured. Past deployments just watched, this one is acting.”
Yet others express unease. Locals who are hunters, hikers, environmentalists complain of limited access to huge tracks of public land. Here two visitors, one of them a local wildlife commissioner named Ray Trejo, feared that they would stumble into a military area without realizing it, using their hunting rifle. “We’ve never had to worry about this before.”
Humanitarian groups, too, are alarmed. Abbey Carpenter, who is a member of a volunteer migrant rescue personnel, made the warning that restrictions on receiving access would lead to more deaths of undocumented migrants amid a hot desert. It is not possible to confirm what is happening in that area that is unreachable, she said.
The few cases against the military areas have stepped up in the court. The federal public defenders are contesting arrests that took place under the power of the military claiming that the establishment of domestic military zones without legal support violated the constitutional principles. A recent example revolving around a Mexican man who trespassed on military property is regarded as a determining test.
So far, courts have issued mixed rulings. Although there are cases of dismissed trespassing charges due to the non-demonstration of evidence, there have also been cases of a conviction especially to repeat trespassers who have been warned against trespassing but reentered restricted area/zones.
Lawyer Rebecca Sheff of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the program as a trial balloon to a more severe and militarised immigration enforcement policy. Warning against its possible spread, she said it was, in fact, an experiment with high human costs.
A total of over 1400 migrants have been accused of trespassing on military areas and have been facing a possible 18 months sentencing since the introduction of the zones in April. This comes on top of illegal entry fees that would attract up to six months in custody prior to deportation.
Court hearings have displayed the human costs in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Not long ago, a Guatemalan lady with a low education level was found guilty of illegal entry. Despite the dropping of her trespassing charge, she is subjected to two weeks in jail, most probably deportation. Her defense counsel revealed her as “a mere artisan, without realizing that she had entered a military zone.”
