Critique of Gene Healy S Militarization of the Border Is a Bad Idea

Brad Moffatt

Professor Mark Gooding

English 102

November 14, 2008

Critique of Gene Healy’s “Militarization of the Border Is a Bad Idea”

The U.S. is installing a new barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border. Rampant and ever increasing illegal immigration from Mexico has become a major threat to the United States. The hope is that this new fence, or wall (i.e. Berlin Wall), will hold back this invasion from the south. Protecting the border, while the barrier is being erected, has become the duty of not only law enforcement agencies, but the military as well. In the aftermath of 9/11 the federal government has determined, with the support of many citizens and state authorities, that this is the best way to protect our nation. Others believe that use of the military in the role of border police is dangerous and illegal.

Notice that in his first paragraph Brad has effectively introduced his topic and framed the issue for the reader.

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian research center. Gene Healy works there as a senior editor and holds a law degree from the University of Chicago. His objection to militarization of the U.S. - Mexico border is strongly stated in his article “Militarization of the Border Is a Bad Idea.” Healy bases much of his argument on a law called the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and on comparisons of Police Agencies with the U.S. Military. While his argument is compelling, this law leaves room for other interpretation and his claim that the U.S. military is dangerous or irresponsible would require sufficient evidence.

Notice that in this second paragraph Brad has introduced the source he’s critiquing and identified its main idea. And, importantly, he’s stated his own thesis: his overall evaluation of the source.

Healy’s writing describes the deployment of U.S. military forces inside the United States during and after the 9/11 attacks. He then discusses the merits of these deployments from a legal standpoint. It is his contention that some military action may be warranted in the face of actual armed attack. However, in the case of illegal immigration he believes that military action is illegal. His basis for the legal argument is the Posse Comitatus Act, which was passed in 1878 to limit the use of the military in civil affairs. He also points out that the use of American troops to police the border is dangerous. In Healy’s paper he states, “The soldier’s mission, as soldiers often phrase it, is “killing people and breaking things.” In contrast, police officers, ideally, are trained to operate in an environment where constitutional rights apply and to use force only as a last resort.” He backs this up with an example. Esequiel Hernandez, an 18-year old goat tender, was killed by a U.S. Marine anti-drug patrol in 1997 (Healy 4).

In this paragraph Brad has summarized the source in sufficient detail to enable us as readers to get the gist of the source’s argument. Notice that Brad’s summary is objective. It doesn’t express an opinion about the source’s argument. It just tells us what the source says.

Healy is not alone in his argument against militarizing the border. In his writing for The Military Review, Thomas A. Bruscino Jr. describes the U.S. military as an “Instrument of War.” He contends that the military cannot restrain itself indefinitely when confronted. Bruscino’s argument is based in the historical record of using the U.S. military for border control. His conclusion is that deployment of U.S troops did not work during the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and that it will not work now. Bruscino is pessimistic that current increases in numbers of Border Patrol Agents will be sufficient to replace soldiers already stationed on the border. In agreement with Healy’s viewpoint, Bruscino states, “The U.S. military . . . cannot and must not become a southern border neighborhood watch program”(Bruscino 43).

In this first paragraph of analysis Brad has shown us that Healy’s opinion is shared by at least one other source, and that source uses historical evidence to support its argument.

However, with 300,000 illegal immigrants entering the U.S. from Mexico each year, a neighborhood watch program would be impotent. As Sam Francis notes in “America Should Militarize Its Borders,” “A nation penetrated every year by some 300,000 illegal aliens is not a nation experiencing ‘immigration.’ It is a nation experiencing invasion and conquest” (Francis 1). In regard to the Posse Comitatus Act, Healy quotes Rep. Richard Townsend of Illinois. In 1877 Rep. Townsend said “it was the real design of those who framed our Constitution that the Federal Army should never be used for any purpose but to repel invasion and to suppress insurrection when it became too formidable for that State to suppress it” (Healy 2).

In fact, Healy’s use of this quotation actually supports Francis’ claim that we should use the U.S. military to protect the border. It is an invasion from Mexico that America is dealing with. An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now live in the United States. The states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are not equipped to handle this many criminals without assistance. Ben J. Seely advocates the effective use of the U.S. military on the border with Mexico in his work “The U.S. Should Militarize the U.S.-Mexico Border.” He cites numerous improvements and benefits by use of the military to assist the border patrol. Seely also takes notice that many self-serving politicians, who support businesses in need of cheap labor, claim that military use in border control is a “Draconian” measure (Seely 1). But Healy can point to only one incident where anyone was injured by U.S. military forces. He also points to the fact that police are trained to protect an individual’s constitutional rights. Illegal immigrants from a foreign country don’t have any constitutional rights. The U.S. military is not an undisciplined force. Individual soldiers do occasionally make mistakes, but so do police officers.

Brad uses the second and third paragraphs of his analysis to challenge Healy’s argument that it is inappropriate to use the military to patrol the U.S. border. Notice that he uses two other sources in supporting his challenge. He argues that illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion” of the U.S., and that Healy has provided very little evidence that the military is inadequate to repel that invasion without excessive bloodshed.

Treating non-combatants with humanity is always preferred, even if they are illegally crossing our border. Women and children as well as men cross the border every day and night. No one wants the U.S. military to attack unarmed civilians. It’s a well known fact that U.S. forces have committed some horrible acts. These events have helped shape the beliefs of writers like Healy and Bruscino. Incidents where civilians, Indian tribes, and Asian villages were destroyed lead them to fear the military. However, these incidents are very rare and most are committed against orders by individual lunatics. They are so rare that Healy can only offer one example of anyone being injured by the U.S. military on the border. Can police forces give a better accounting of themselves? Reports of excessive force by police surface regularly in every major city across the nation. One of the most reported cases of excessive force in U.S. history was the Rodney King beating. Individuals cannot be counted on to always follow rules of engagement. Sometimes insanity or emotion will drive even the best soldier or police officer to commit unspeakable acts. They are human. And patrolling the border is probably significantly less stressful than patrolling dangerous neighborhoods in many U.S. cities.

It appears that Healy holds a somewhat distorted view of the U.S. military at large. All services have been called upon and soldiers have risked their lives to deliver humanitarian aid to those in need. They have sacrificed as much to assist the survivors of wars as they have sacrificed to execute wars. They have cared for more people than they have killed. U.S. soldiers are no more dangerous than police officers if they are properly trained for their mission. The military often acts as an interim police force to stabilize an area until local forces can take their place. There is no difference between the use of U.S. forces in post war Iraq and deployment to stop illegal immigrants from crossing our border. The military has played the role of peacekeeper in many stressful situations.

Healy’s argument is too narrow because it does not take into account what will happen if we don’t use the military. A real danger arises when there is no accountable force present on the border. “Minuteman Militias” have formed along our border with Mexico. U.S. citizens fed up with lenient government policies toward illegal immigration have taken up arms to patrol the border. As described in “Civil Border Patrol Groups Threaten Illegal Immigrant Rights,” by Susy Buchanan and David Holthouse, these “militias” are really no better than vigilantes. Some come from states far from the border and some are members of radical racist groups including the Ku Klux Klan. ( Buchanan 5) Without the presence of the military, groups like this will go unchecked. These “Minutemen” are extremely dangerous to citizens of both countries; hatred knows no boundaries.

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of analysis, Brad completes his challenge of Healy’s argument that the police are better suited to patrol the border than the military, adding another layer to his argument by suggesting that having U.S. troops on the border is far better than leaving border patrol in the hands of various “vigilante” groups. He also uses another source to help him make this point.

The U.S. will continue to strengthen its defenses against illegal immigration and train additional border patrol officers. In the interim we need the U.S. military to protect lives on both sides of the border. The alternatives are not acceptable and Healy would have us believe that we should not deploy U.S. troops on the border. However, his interpretation of the law in this case is too narrow and his belief that U.S. troops cannot responsibly guard our border is left unproven.

Brad’s conclusion wraps up his critique of Healy’s argument by summarizing his overall evaluation.

Works Cited

Bruscino Jr., Thomas A. "A TROUBLED PAST: The Army and Security on the

Mexican Border, 1915-1917." Military Review July 2008: 31+. Military &

Government Collection. EBSCO. 18 Nov. 2008 <https://ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=34484321&site=ehost-live>.

Buchanan, Suzy and David Holthouse. "Civilian Border Patrol Groups Threaten

Illegal Immigrant Rights." At Issue: What Rights Should Illegal Immigrants Have?. Ed. Lori Newman. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mesa Community College. 18 Nov. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010419210&source=gale&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0>.

Francis, Sam. "America Should Militarize Its Borders." Opposing Viewpoints: Illegal

Immigration. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mesa Community College. 18 Nov. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010226250&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0>.

Healy, Gene. "Militarization of the Border Is a Bad Idea." At Issue: Protecting

America's Borders. Ed.Douglass Stinson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mesa Community College. 19 Nov. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010374207&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0>.

Seeley, Ben J. "The United States Should Militarize the U.S.-Mexico Border."

Opposing Viewpoints: Immigration. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mesa Community College. 18 Nov. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010227223&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0>.

Brad lists the five sources he has cited in his critique, including the Healy article that was the subject of the critique. Notice that the sources are appropriately listed in MLA style.

1