Scientist Airs Plan to ‘Dust’ U.S. Border : Immigration: Proposal to use fluorescent material to help detect illegal crossers draws criticism from advocates. INS reacts cautiously.

In a proposal likely to add to the angry debate about illegal immigration in California, a well-known scientist is calling for the U.S. Border Patrol to sprinkle fluorescent dust at the U.S.-Mexico border in order to detect and track down illegal border-crossers.

The low-cost, low-tech plan would improve border enforcement dramatically and pose no danger to people “tagged” by the glowing dust, according to an article in today’s edition of Science magazine.

But the somewhat surreal, politically charged image of the U.S. government exposing illegal immigrants to chemicals and then tracking them down with lasers and ultraviolet lights provoked criticism from immigrants’ advocates Thursday.

“It’s incredible,” said activist Roberto Martinez of the American Friends Service Committee in San Diego. “It’s like something out of ‘The Twilight Zone.’ The symbolism is that these are not humans, that these are insects to be sprayed.”

INS officials reacted cautiously to the proposal.

Steve McDonald, a spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Washington, said he was aware of the article but knows of no such plans or studies conducted by federal authorities.

“There’s obvious concerns that would have to be looked at: toxicity, impact on the environment,” McDonald said. “While we would look at all possibilities to enhance our enforcement operations, we look at them all in the perspective of the impact on people, the environment and the community. It’s nothing we would take lightly.”

The author of the article is Bill Wattenburg--a respected physicist, inventor and radio talk show host based at Cal State Chico. Wattenburg said Thursday that he and the editors of Science magazine know full well that they are advancing a provocative idea at a sensitive time. Proposition 187, a ballot measure proposing tough immigration enforcement measures, has intensified the controversy over the issue statewide.

Nonetheless, he said, authorities have a responsibility to consider technology that is feasible. And Wattenburg rejected charges that it would be dangerous.

“Look at what they are doing now: you have to chase people with helicopters and dogs, use chain-link fences,” Wattenburg said. “What’s the difference if you mark them with something that’s harmless? . . . There is an enormous range of commonly used, nontoxic, biodegradable substances.”

Such fluorescent chemicals have been utilized for identifying currency to guard against theft and marking the hands of voters in the recent South African elections as well as patrons in nightclubs, Wattenburg said. Some of the materials are also present in medicines.

As part of the operation--which Wattenburg calls “fluorescent tagging of infiltrators”--tractors or hand-propelled dispensers would lay down bands of invisible material in highly traversed crossing zones at the border, where passing vehicles and people would pick up the particles.

Agents in planes and vehicles could then track down illegal crossers and identify them with lasers or ultraviolet lights that make the particles glow, according to the article. The chemical could be prepared to last for hours or for days, although Wattenburg said the intent would be to detect illegal immigrants close to the border.

“I wouldn’t suggest you go scour cities with it,” he said.

The Border Patrol, which has long suffered from lack of funds and technology, uses an array of infrared night scopes, closed-circuit cameras and motion sensors. But Wattenburg said his plan could double the agency’s effectiveness. He said he is prepared to conduct a six-month, $500,000 experiment in San Diego, where agents make almost half of the million-plus arrests border-wide.

Gustavo De La Vina, chief agent of the San Diego sector, said such a decision would have to be made at the highest levels of his agency. “We try to keep an open mind, but there are a lot of sensitivities involved, especially when we are dealing with people who are not involved in criminal activity” other than illegal crossing.

The origins of the proposal only emphasize what Wattenburg readily describes as its “politically explosive” content. It is based on experiments Wattenburg had done to devise methods for detecting enemy guerrilla fighters in Vietnam and, more recently, in Somalia. And it has drawn timid reactions from politicians and government officials, he said.

“The INS is being given no help by politicians,” he said.

Wattenburg has grown used to the public spotlight, cultivating an image as a thoughtful maverick whose inventions have been heeded by the government on several occasions. His advice played a role in the Pentagon’s decision last year to change the way it air-dropped supplies into war-torn Bosnia.

But he is stepping into treacherous turf with his border enforcement plan. Even if the technology proves harmless, critics say, the concept would spark fierce opposition on both sides of the international line.

Martinez said the proposal contributes symbolically to an increasingly harsh and dehumanizing view of immigrants. He cited a recent statement by Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-San Diego), who said illegal border-crossing was “like locusts coming across down there.” And Martinez said advocate groups would fight tooth and nail to stop implementation of fluorescent dusting.

“We would stop it at the proposal stage,” he said.

At the other end of the spectrum, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform said he would like to know more about the potentially powerful enforcement tool. But he said its scope sounds limited.

“Certainly it’s not going to solve the problem all by itself,” said Ira Mehlman of FAIR. “We are interested in more comprehensive measures, such as a national Social Security card. Still the best way is to discourage people from what they want, which is a job.”