Aerial RGV surveillance of border is necessary

Read The Monitor's entire immigration editorial series at http://myrgv.com/brokenborders/

The recent decision by the Department of Homeland Security to reduce by nearly 50 percent the manpower for aerial surveillance of border patrol operations here does not seem to be prudent, nor has it been well explained.

Cutting the hours of National Guard men and women who fly above and offer vital air support to our Border Patrol and law enforcement troops on the ground could put our agents in danger. Certainly those in planes and helicopters have a unique advantage to see remote areas and to warn agents below of where nefarious activities might be occurring, as U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, told us.

“Aerial support is not a fence; it’s not a wall. It’s actually pretty good because in areas where the Border Patrol can’t be, like the rural areas, you can send helicopters or planes and they can look and see if they see suspicious activity. So it helps men and women,” Cuellar said during an interview at his Mission office last week.

In a rare spirit of bi-partisanship, Cuellar and Gov. Greg Abbott earlier this month jointly authored a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson complaining about the reduction in staff hours, writing: “Any decrease in aerial observation is not only imprudent, but contradicts the very mission of border security enforcement.”

The controversy centers around Johnson’s department deciding to only request 3,850 hours of aerial manpower for Operation Phalanx for fiscal year 2016. That is roughly $20 million or half the funding available to the Department of Defense for this operation through the 2016 Omnibus Appropriation bill, Cuellar’s office told us.

“We gave them the funding. What they did with it, I don’t know,” said Cuellar who sits on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Ironically, according to the letter, the state had actually requested more aerial surveillance this year, yet instead ended up with nearly 50 percent less. “We believe DHS should request more surveillance and security resources, not fewer. Moreover, Texas requested additional aerial observation resources in a September 30, 2015, letter that went unanswered by your department. The fact that DHS now appears to be taking the opposite approach is unsettling,” they wrote.

We agree. We have been on ride-alongs with Border Patrol agents and have witnessed first-hand how they depend on those in the air to help direct them. And with the National Guard lacking the authority to make arrests, using them as aerial support seems a good use of their skills, taxpayer funds and enhances the safety of agents.

Cellar and Abbott requested metrics detailing exactly how these cuts will affect patrol plans and to show it “would be sufficient to support this important border security operation.” They said that since 2005 Texas has committed nearly $1.7 billion toward border security initiatives and they expect the federal government to also do its part.

Cellar said Johnson has not responded to his letter but a staffer from Johnson’s office met with Cuellar and said they are “restructuring” operations, but offered no further explanation.

Fighting between Texas and the federal government over funding border operations is nothing new and has grown over the years as more undocumented immigrants began crossing through the state, including a surge of unaccompanied minors that began in the summer of 2014.

Anti-immigration fervor has also been heightened during this presidential election year with several Republican candidates, including Donald Trump, vowing to build a wall to keep immigrants from crossing into our Southwest border. In response, the Obama administration has issued a set of mandates for deportation of criminals and high-risk immigrants and has vowed to send back those who came after Jan. 1, 2014.

“Our borders are not open to illegal migration,” Johnson wrote in a Feb. 2 news release.

Nor do we believe it should be. We support the mission of the Border Patrol and law enforcement agents who are here and taxed with this mission. And we believe their safety should not be compromised and if there is a change in border operations, we believe it should be thoroughly explained to our congressman and governor and our local leaders and it should be made clear to all how new plans will ensure the security of our citizens and safety of those who work on the border.