Over the past couple of years, lawmakers have repeatedly pointed to the alarming levels of drug-related violence that is unraveling on the Mexican side of the southern border in a way that suggests that the horrific crimes are spilling over into the U.S. This deceptive line of reasoning has most often been used either to argue against comprehensive immigration reform or support harsh immigration measures such as SB-1070, the law that was recently passed by Arizona. Earlier this week, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano called on politicians to stop exaggerating the levels of violence occurring on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico:

The verdict is that our approach is working. We have strengthened the southwest border in ways that many people did not think possible. And our partnership with Mexico along the border is very strong.

It is inaccurate to state — as too many have — that the United States’ side of the border is overrun with violence or out of control. This statement often made to score cheap political points is just plain wrong.

Shortly thereafter, a coalition of border city mayors chimed in to denounce a recent op-ed written by former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AK) which claimed that Al Qaeda openly boasts of using drug tunnels to smuggle weapons of mass destruction through our porous defenses.” Although Huckabee conceded that “[f]ortunately, those boasts have proven empty — at least so far” he still concluded that DHS has “failed miserably” to secure the border. The U.S. Mexico Border Mayors Association echoed Napolitano’s remarks in their response. Politico reports:

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, the mayors from cities in Arizona, Texas and California — saying they represent 7 million people — responded sharply to a recent op-ed Huckabee wrote in the New York Post. [...]

“(C)laims that our border cities are out of control are just not true,” reads the letter from eight mayors addressed to Huckabee and the Post. “Not only do these claims fly in the face of statistical evidence, but they also disparage the tremendous efforts that our law enforcement agencies have made to protect this border and the people who live in border communities.”

They added, “We can tell you first hand that the Southwest Border Initiative is certainly working. We have seen unprecedented investment in terms of manpower, resources, and technology that has resulted in a more secure border. We have implemented a successful strategy which includes greater collaboration with federal, state, local and tribal, and Mexican partners while facilitating legal trade and travel.”

The mayors also added that they “constantly have to correct the false perceptions that our cities are not a safe place to live, work and play.” In fact, according to FBI statistics, they are amongst the safest. The top four big cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin — all of which happen to be pretty close to the U.S. – Mexico border. Counties along the southwest border have some of the lowest rates of violent crime per capita in the nation and those rates have dropped by more than 30 percent since the 1990s while immigration has soared.

Nonetheless, it doesn’t appear the public officials Napolitano and the border city mayors were referring to are paying much attention to the data. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu — an ardent SB-1070 supporter — accused Napolitano of downplaying border-related violence and of being “divorced from reality.” He also announced that he expects armed conflict with the Mexican drug cartels soon. Meanwhile, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office suggests that it’s the northern border that actually poses a much larger terror risk.

Yesterday, the Hosni Mubarak-led Egyptian government unleashed the worst violence on pro-democracy protesters yet, as it hired men to attack demonstrators with “machetes, straight razors, clubs and stones,” trampled demonstrators with horses and camels, and pelted people with molotov cocktails. Throughout all of this violence, the Egyptian military, supposedly tasked to keep the peace, has refused to intervene.

While the U.S. does not have direct control over the events in Egypt, we are far from powerless. One fact that may be unclear to many Americans is that the Mubarak’s regime is an enormous benificiary of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Since 1981, Mubarak’s government has received $60 billion in U.S. aid; last year, Egypt received $1.6 billion in aid, most of it for the military. By threatening to suspend, freeze, or cut back on this aid and other forms of diplomatic, military, and economic cooperation, the United States can use the power it has to push the Egyptian government and military to end its crackdown on demonstrators and move towards real democratic reforms.

The Egypt Working Group — a group of scholars and former government officials including CAP’s Brian Katulis — has called on the Obama administration to freeze military aid to Egypt. While the Obama administration can take certain steps to slow or halt aid unilaterally, Congress also has the power to use legislation to cut back on aid. In fact, Congress has debated amendments to foreign appropriations bills that would cut back on military aid to Egypt several times in the past. For example, in 2005, Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), introduced an amendment that would have redirected Egypt’s $750 million military subsidy to funding for children’s health and malaria treatment in Africa. On the floor of the House, he gave an eloquent speech in favor of “sending a strong message” to Egypt that it should make “political, democratic and human rights reforms.” He called the vote on his amendment a “vote for kids. It is a vote against the status quo of Egypt’s dictatorship“:

PITTS: Reducing Egypt’s military subsidy by $750 million will serve to send a strong message. Money sent to a nation, even a strong ally like Egypt, that refuses to make the necessary political, democratic and human rights reforms should be redirected to a place that better represents our values. In this case I can think of no better use for this funding than to treat and prevent malaria in Africa. According to the CBO, this transfer will result in a savings of $400 million in FY 2006 in net outlays. A vote for this amendment is a vote for more responsible Federal spending. It is a vote for American values. It is a vote for kids. It is a vote against the status quo of Egypt’s dictatorship.

In the end, the status quo won and the Pitts amendment was defeated. Yet it netted the votes of 87 members of Congress, 60 whom still serve there. A few years later, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) introduced an amendment that would have cut $100 million from military aid to Egypt and redirected the funding to HIV/AIDS treatment and humanitarian aid to Sudan. His amendment came much closer to passing, failing in a 198-225 vote.

Altogether, these amendments won the support of 144 members of Congress who still serve there today. If these legislators felt strongly enough to cut funding to Egypt in the past to speak up for democracy, surely they understand the importance of doing so now, as Mubarak’s government continues to brutalize what is perhaps the largest pro-democracy movement in the country’s history.

Yet as of yet, few members of Congress have called for taking this step. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) has called for ending all aid to the country until a democratic transition begins, and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) has also called for ending financial assistance, saying we must lead by “our deeds.” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said that “all options are on the table,” and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) rebuked calls to cut aid last week, saying such calls were “premature.”

The U.S. is not powerless as we sit and watch the demonstrations and resulting crackdown in Egypt. The enormous amount of aid we give to Egypt provides us leverage over events in that country, and we should be using the power we have to exercise that leverage on behalf of our values.

The Washington Post reports today that, “As it braces for the likelihood of a new ruler in Egypt, the U.S. government is rapidly reassessing its tenuous relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” This is good news. As I wrote in the American Prospect on Monday, developing a more coherent approach to the fact of political Islam in Egypt and the region is key to an improved, and more reality-based, set of Middle East policies.

In an article in the Daily Beast yesterday looking into Glenn Beck’s completely bizarre fear-mongering to the protests in Egypt — in which, somehow, Russia ends up controlling the Netherlands — Michelle Goldberg also noted how Egypt has split the U.S. conservative movement.

“Not surprisingly, Goldberg writes, “the politicians closest to the religious right have been the quickest to side with Mubarak”:

On Tuesday Mike Huckabee, who is in Israel, called into Fox & Friends to criticize the Obama administration for failing to back an ally. In Israel, he said, there’s “real shock and surprise… at how quickly the Obama administration abandoned a 30-year ally and a longstanding friend to peace and stability President Mubarak.” On Sean Hannity’s radio show, Newt Gingrich warned that Egypt “could go the way of Iran.”

As Republican Congressman Allen West told Huckabee put it in an interview on Monday, “Over there, sometimes it does require a stronger hand to keep those radical elements at bay.”

Also freaking out about the Muslim Brotherhood leading an Iran-style takeover of Egypt are Red State’s Erick Erickson and National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, both of whom have attacked the Obama administration for signaling that the Brotherhood would play a role in a reformed Egyptian government. That is, they’re outraged that Obama might actually be serious about inclusive democracy in the Middle East.

Goldberg also notes that “At least some neoconservatives, meanwhile, have shown an admirable consistency, urging support for Egypt’s demonstrators”:

Michael Rubin of the AEI, for example, wrote a piece for Forbes.com headlined “The U.S. Should Not Fear Regime Change.” “I don’t see many neoconservatives who love Mubarak and really want to protect him,” Rubin told me, adding, “When it comes to support for dictatorships, you can only kick the can down the road for so long before the road ends.”

This highlights an interesting difference of opinion between neoconservatives and conservative Israelis, who are often thought to move in lockstep. “Israelis aren’t on board on the democracy game,” says Rubin. “They’d much rather rely on aging dictators to keep things quiet. They’re perfectly happy selling out Lebanon to Syria, and perfectly happy selling out the Egyptian people to Hosni Mubarak.”

It’s worth noting that there’s also a split within the neoconservative faction itself over some of these questions, with Rubin, Elliott Abrams, and Max Boot in support of democratic inclusion in Egypt, and others like Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes accusing Obama of, in Pipes’ words, “myopically siding with the Islamists against Mr. Mubarak.”

One last quick point on the neocons disagreeing with Israel over Egypt. Groups like J Street have taken a lot of heat – much of it from neocons – over their criticisms of Israeli settlement construction. But now we see that it’s perfectly fine to depart from the Israeli line (and to criticize Israeli policy in more frank and explicit terms than J Street has ever done) depending, apparently, on who’s doing it. Isn’t that interesting.