Run for the Border

Border patrol agents will now have the power to deport illegal immigrants caught within 100 miles of the U.S. border, eliminating in many cases the intervening authority of an immigration judge to review, for example, asylum requests. The system as it stands is hardly ideal, but the idea of having the officer who makes an arrest hand down verdict and sentence as well makes me a little uneasy. Since at least one reader suggested that I be sent "back to Meh-hee-co" after I wrote a pro-outsourcing piece (it'd have to be two trips, since I've never been to Mexico), maybe I should watch my back.

Comments

[Grummun]

Mmm, doesn't the article say they're not planning on auto-deporting Mexicans and Canadians? They could change that policy in a second, naturally, but I think the hand-wringing over the 'coyotes' is premature (if, in fact, coyotes are due any hand-wringing at all).

G

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Poor, oppressed Julian. A yahoo once said something bad about him, thus anyone who criticizes him is... a yahoo. Nevertheless, it's not a new low for Reason.

Here are some helpful links for those who want to understand how little the Bush administration is really doing:

"[Bush] Immigration plan envisions 'incentives' to illegal aliens" (DHS Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson is concerned that illegal aliens have trouble sleeping. No, really.)

Hear Asa in action. You'll never vote for Bush again.

"'Sanctuary' practice in Houston draws fire" ("It is ridiculous that five cities in the United States do not allow local police to cooperate with the federal immigration service," said [September 11 Commission member John Lehman]... "The terrorists know" which cities have such policies)

ABC News: "Officials Fear Terrorists Could Try to Enter U.S. Through Mexico" (The Bush administration discovers that our wide open borders are a security risk; CYA follows)

"Potential terrorists released due to lack of jail space, congressman says"

[Gary]

I thought they already had this power?

But then I get my news from Cheech Marin's "Born in East L.A."

[Ken Shultz]

Evan Williams,

The difference is that the way it is now, if a coyote or alien doesn't pay a rogue Border Patrol agent's extortion demand, then the Border Patrol agent arrests the coyote or alien, and the prisoners are, at least, given the opportunity to report an extortion attempt to the agent's superiors and to the court.

However, if Border Patrol agents are given the power to both arrest and deport aliens all without judicial review, reports of abuse won?t just be a question of the agent's word against the prisoner?s word, the victim will never get the opportunity to report the abuse, so there won't even be the possiblity of recourse for the victims of abuse.

And, by the way, the Border Patrol, of course, is infamous for being one of the most poorly run agencies of the Federal Government, for having agents with extremely low moral, and, last but not least, it's infamous for the abuses of its field agents. Considering this, without judicial review, the abuse of prisoners isn't just likely to increase, it's likely to skyrocket.

[Gary Gunnels]

"I Am The Law." - Judge Dredd

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Hey Lonewacko, speaking of freeloaders coming in to take advantage of the free services: If you're going to turn every Reason comments thread into a multilink promo for your own site, buy a fucking ad already.

[Shannon Love]

Hate to ruin everybody's fun but this isn't a case of letting agents in the field herd people back across the border.

From the story:

"...illegal immigrants often wait for more than a year before being deported while straining the capacity of detention centers and draining critical resources. Under the new system, immigrants will typically be deported within eight days of their apprehension"

What is actually changing here is shift from judicial to administrative initial evaluation of deportations. People requesting asylum will be bumped up to the judicial system. People will still get arrested, detained and them processed.
Citizens and legal residents will be no more likely to be deported under the new system than the old.

Oh, and it's not a new system. It's been in place since 1996 for agents working in harbors and airports.

[Gary Gunnels]

Neither the Kerry or Bush plans are all that interesting or new; both resemble plans we've seen in pace since at least the 1940s (think Bracero program, etc.).

[Gary Gunnels]

Shannon Love,

A harbor or airport is quite different from a town twenty or fifty or a hundred miles into the hinterland; so yes, this is new.

One is assuming that these powers are being excercised under the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (ADEPA). BTW, expect a court challenge to this effort - one that has a high likelihood of winning.

[Curious]

Do the Atlantic and Pacific oceans count as borders? If so then a huge proportion of the US population better have ID handy.

[garym]

I was going to suggest that Tim Cavanaugh should deal with the matter offline or just delete posts which he finds inappropriate. But it seems to be Reason's policy that to appear "cool," it expects we shouldn't object to offensive flaming.

So there's really no point in my saying anything. Even this.

[Gary Gunnels]

Curious,

We count the three-mile limit as our "political border" (though we go further out than that to regulate fishing, oil and gas drilling, etc.).

[Ken Shultz]

Handling deportations administratively isn't supposed to make us less concerned, is it? This isn't traffic court; these people are being held behind bars.

"Citizens and legal residents will be no more likely to be deported under the new system than the old."

Recent SC cases watering down Constitutional protections for foreigners were limited to enemy combatants in times of war, were they not?

Well we're not at war with Mexico, and the illegal immigrants we're talking about aren't enemy combatants; so they should have the right to a trial and legal council just as if they were US citizens. Should they not?

[Jim Walsh]

"Border patrol agents will now have the power to deport illegal immigrants caught within 100 miles of the U.S. border..."

This is stupid. How stupid? Michael Savage stupid. Pat Buchanan stupid. Michelle Malkin stupid. (You will pardon the redundancy of putting "Malkin" and "stupid" in the same sentence...)

[John]

We could try reducing the demand for illegal alien labor with big fines for companies that employ undocumented workers.

Hee, hee, hee! Big fines for Republican campaign contributors! I crack myself up!

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Hey Lonewacko, speaking of freeloaders coming in to take advantage of the free services: If you're going to turn every Reason comments thread into a multilink promo for your own site, buy a fucking ad already.

I provided five links, only two to my site and all of them relevant to the issue of border security or lack thereof. The posts I linked to at my site contain four links each; I could have provided links to my site for the three outside links, but I provided direct links to the WashTimes, Houston Chronicle, and ABC. None of those were blind links; a simple mouse-over would suffice for someone to determine whether they wanted to go to my site or whether they wanted to restrict themselves to legitimate outlets.

Out of twenty Reason threads on your front page, I've only commented on three of them, one with a link, one without a link, and this thread. And, this isn't the first time I've noted an attempt by Julian to do what he did with the last sentence: "(Kudos, by the way, to whomever invented the phrase "undocumented immigrants", the chief function of which appears to be pissing off cryptoracists?call them "illegals" dammit!?who will now send me angry emails explaining that they're not cryptoracists...)"

If this is an issue, please post the rules. Am I allowed to link to my site when it's relevant? Should I only link to outside sites? Should I make the links open in a new window? I note I've gotten about 20 hits from Reason so far today, and somehow I think a) those people clicked on my links voluntarily and b) they'll be back to Reason due to your stickyness, which is probably a bit stronger than mine.

[Ken Shultz]

Pardon me for interjecting...

I suspect that Cavanaugh was suggesting that you might be...um...doing something half way between...uh...looking a gift horse in the mouth and...maybe...biting the hand that feeds you...sort of.

It's one thing to make links to your site from this space...on a regular basis, which is something other people have, I suspect, paid for, but it's another to both do so and snipe at the poster...in the same comment.

But, please, don't mind me; I'm just an innocent bystander.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

So I guess that means you won't be buying an ad?

[SM]

"but the idea of having the officer who makes an arrest hand down verdict and sentence as well makes me a little uneasy."

Why ? It works perfectly well in Mega-City One !

[Abiola Lapite]

"this isn't the first time I've noted an attempt by Julian to do what he did with the last sentence"

And what exactly did he "attempt to do", point out the easily verifiable fact that those who like to use emotive language like "illegals" tend to be racists worried about "keeping America white?" That's what it looks like to me, though I can see why you'd be sensitive about it, given your obsession with theories of a Mexican "reconquista."

Frankly, I can understand why Cavanagh would lose patience with your repeated efforts at self-promotion on this issue. One wonders why on earth you'd expect libertarians of all people to sympathize with your "braune gefahr" agenda - what you're doing makes about as much sense as a Marxist coming on here and making personal barbs at Reason staff for not approving of the liquidation of the kulaks.

[Gary Gunnels]

Abiola Lapite,

Nice burn. Keep up the good work. 🙂

[SNL fan]

"One wonders why on earth you'd expect libertarians of all people to sympathize with your "braune gefahr" agenda - what you're doing makes about as much sense as a Marxist coming on here and making personal barbs at Reason staff for not approving of the liquidation of the kulaks."

Did you steal this from Dennis Miller? I can just picture Dana Carvey doing his impression.... "A cha, cha"

[Heather Burns]

I have a freind whose mom is Mexican and doesnt speak the best English, but is a permanent resident. A few years ago the INS had a raid outside of the factory where she worked, plucked her up and held her in a detention facility for a week before she was given the opprotunity to contact her family or lawer.
She was targeted strictly on the bases that she was brown skinned and Spanish speaking.
There was no evidence against her.
And stories like this arent in the least bit uncommon.
Sucks to think how this new move will effect human rights in this country

[Fat White Guy]

So an ILLEGAL immigrant will be deported in 8 days instead of never(like when they don't show up for the hearing). They should have already been doing this. This is not a new rule it has been around for a while. Just not done.

I live in CA and we are over run by illegal Mexicans. Our schools, emergency rooms, and highways are overburdened by them. They commit identity theft to take jobs from citizens. They drive unregistered and unlicensed cars with no drivers license. They pay virtually no taxes and send billions of dollars to mexico instead of it being spent here. They are a net 5 billion dollar drain on the state.

So when they deport one I stand up and cheer and wish they would do more.

[Syd Henderson]

Born in East L.A., the sequel.

[Brian D'Astous]

Time to get ready for "Grand Theft Auto 4: Laredo."

[Russ R]

Hey "Fat White Guy",

Let's try a little thought experiment... Imagine for a moment that "Our schools, emergency rooms, and highways" weren't the domain of government, but were instead owned and operated by private enterprises who ensured that people paid for what they got, instead of handing out freebies to all comers. Would Mexican illegals be much of a problem?

Now imagine that the government didn't punish employers for hiring "legal", Social-Security registered employees by imposing payroll taxes and arbitrary minimum wages. Would there be any advantage to hiring foreigners when you could have domestics for the same cost?

And finally, imagine that we could actually do what we wanted with our money that we earned, instead of forfeiting it to the government (a novel concept, I admit). Imagine being allowed to give that money to your relatives or anyone else to see fit to receive it. How bad a world would that be?

[Ken Shultz]

Fat White Guy,

By identity theft, do you mean fake IDs? I've never seen any statistics showing that the incidence of identity theft convictions was higher among Mexican nationals than other groups.

Unregistered cars get pulled over pretty quickly here in LA, and if you're really worried about uninsured motorists, get a policy with uninsured motorist coverage. It is possible to suggest that you should pay for the protection of your own car and remain a good Libertarian.

I once had to compete with illegal aliens for work; that competition sucked. Once I moved into a job market where I had more of an advantage, I started making a lot more than I did before. But our economy isn't hurt because there's too much hard working, low paid labor. Indeed, here in LA, if it wasn't for Mexican immigrants, Downtown (the Fashion District, the Toy District and the Fish District) wouldn't be anything; all that economic activity was driven by illegal aliens.

As far as not paying taxes, there's something to that, but there's also something to the fact that many of them don't use social services the way the rest of us do; most of them don't even call the police when there's a problem. Oh, and they do pay an enormous amount in taxes; they pay sales tax on evething they buy, which in most of LA is almost 9%.

[Call me snake]

You cats at Reason have done a great job tracking law enforcement situations where the boys in blue (or black) have handed down a verdict and a sentence in high profile cases and basically gotten away with it: Waco comes immediately to mind.

If the Feds can get the Danforth report to quasi-whitewash Waco, how concerned are they about negative PR from police conduct at individual border stops?

I can see it now...."Well, it was my judgement that this immigrant couple may have been terrorists."

[Steve in CO]

Why stop there? Just give cops the power to arrest, convict, fine, and or jail citizens. Sure would cut down on the red tape and be a boon for the anemic and underfunded prison-industrial complex.

PS The above is sarcasm. Just so ya know.

🙂

[Ken Shultz]

"The system as it stands is hardly ideal, but the idea of having the officer who makes an arrest hand down verdict and sentence as well makes me a little uneasy."

If it was any agency other than the Border Patrol, I'd be concerned. I know; taking advantage of a coyote in the desert with ten aliens in tow, thousands of dollars on him and no one else for miles could be a big temptation to some. But this is the Border Patrol, and Border Patrol agents aren't like other people.

[Steve in CO]

Oh, and Julian, I certainly hope you responded to the idiot who invited you to "get out," with appropriate snark!

🙂

[Evan Williams]

Um, yeah, a dangerous combination: this new law, coupled with, um, having a latino accent and forgetting your driver's license at home.

Border agent, judge, jury, and executioner...sounds good!

[Andy]

The current problem is made worse because there's no place to detain illegals (we're out of jail/detention space here along the border), so all we do is catch & release, giving illegals a note to come to court. Of course, they never come to court.

[Todd Fletcher]

Once again, with laser-like aim, Washington divines the wrong solution and goes after it whole hog. I can't wait to see what hairbrained ideas they come up with to correct the problems this 'solution' will cause.

[Evan Williams]

Ken,

I get your point, but what's the difference between this and the old way, in terms of the probability of bribes & extortion? Whether the border patrol agent has the power to merely arrest the aliens, or has the additional power to deport them without trial, the situation is still nearly identical: a coyote in the desert with ten aliens in tow, thousands of dollars on him and no one else for miles. The only difference here would be, instead of the agent saying "if you don't pay me off, then I'm going to arrest you and you'll be brought before a judge and then probably deported", he can say "if you don't pay me off, I'm going to arrest you and deport you myself". To an illegal alien and his coyote, I'd say, it really doesn't matter one single bit which of those threats are made against them. The bribe still achieves the same results.

[Judge Dredd]

You're next, punk!

[thoreau]

If the Border Patrol is given the power to deport anybody who's wandering within 100 miles of the border with no ID, a limited grasp of the English language, and a confused expression on his face, God help the President if he ever forgets to carry ID the next time he's in Texas! 🙂

[Soda]

If the Border Patrol is given the power to deport anybody who's wandering within 100 miles of the border with no ID, a limited grasp of the English language, and a confused expression on his face, God help the President if he ever forgets to carry ID the next time he's in Texas! 🙂

Nice burn, Kelso!

[Ken Shultz]

Fat White Guy,

I pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The amount of my tax money that's squandered on social services for illegal aliens is nothing compared to the amount of my tax money that's squandered on social services for native born parasites of all creeds and colors.

The California Republican Party?s embrace of Proposition 187 was a political disaster, and trying to get someone to pick up that standard again is going to be tough. But Proposition 187 didn't even go so far as to deny aliens a right to trial and a right to council.

P.S. Once again, isn't it your responsibility to insure your own property, or is this some new theory of welfare?

[Fat White Guy]

Ken Shultz

They don't pay federal or state income taxes because of their income level. Sales taxes are minimal because food is not taxed. Hit and run car accidents are fairly common for illegals because of their status. Stealing stickers so your car appears leagal is commonplace. High unemployment of teenagers, miniorities and the elderly is attributed to low income illegal workers. Using someone elses SSN is Identity theft and is common. This coupled with the burden on schools, hospitals, and freeways. lowers the standard of living for the citizens of CA.

I am not a libertarian and when I have an accident with an illegal who is at fault my rates go up anyway because my insurance compny pays.

They use more social services than they pay for by the tune of 5 billion dollars in CA. Every time they use an emergency room for routine health problems they use a social service. Every time their kids go to school that is a social service. Every time they overcrowd our parks and beaches that is a social service. Every time they drive on a freeway that is a social service. Every time they use anything provided by the state that is a social service.

[Ken Shultz]

Proposition 187 sent the California Republican Party into a tailspin from which it is only now, via Arnold, beginning to recover. Should I have written that Proposition 187 was an unmitigated political disaster in the sense that Republican leaders in California have been all but benched to the sidelines of policy making ever since?

You already knew this.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

If 187 was a disaster, it was of the Republican's own making and their failure to learn lessons from it. It passed with - write this down please - 60% of the vote.

The Protect Arizona Now initiative - similar to 187 but treacherous-judge-proof - is supported by 74% of Arizonans (based on a poll from the liberal ASU).

Mexican-"American" politician Gil Cedillo admits that the vast majority of Californians oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

Immigration reform has broad citizen support from people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, sexual preferences, ability, height, weight, etc. etc. The people who oppose immigration reform are loud and have lots of money, but they don't have the votes.

If the Republicans have learned that in order to get votes they need to support Open Borders, they've learned the opposite lesson from what the voters have tried to teach them.

[Ken Shultz]

You're missing it.

In spite of the fact that 187 passed (Yes I can read.) the party lost its grip in California because of 187. 1994 was a ground swell year for Republicans just about everywhere except for California.

Democratic candidates dropped like flies in that election. Ted Kennedy almost lost his seat; Mario Cuomo lost his bid; Ann Richards lost her seat; Tom Foley lost his seat...the sitting Speaker of the House! The last Speaker before Foley to lose his seat lost it in 1860 ? in the run up to the Civil War. It seems like everywhere else in the country except for in California, the Republicans gained ground. In fact, the Republicans took control of Congress that year for the first time in decades!

And that's because of 187. It was a loser. It's a third rail issue. Sixty percent of the people may have voted for it, but you would have been hard pressed to find anyone to admit to having voted for it the week after the election, and I think it would be even harder to find a California politician who wants to champion it now. You certainly won?t find anyone running ads having bragged about supporting it.

The period of time between the day that Wilson soiled himself by supporting 187 and the day Arnold was elected, represents the worst period of time for Republicans in California going back to before Reagan was Governor?and most of the people I know and talk to blame that period on 187. It's a loser, and no one in California that I?m aware of wants to campaign on it again.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Gosh this is fun. Ken seems to be missing the point. 187 wasn't the problem. The problem was the lies and smears and missteps associated with 187. It's necessary to separate 187 itself from the entirely unrelated in-fact Hispanic-bashing with which it had become associated by opponents and proponents.

An immigration reform initiative that was presented in such a way as to make clear that it was not Hispanic-bashing (and with a strong counterattack against anyone who tried to say it was) would be a winner.

Hey everybody, there's a discussion about this at an external site. No, it's not my blog. But, I did post a couple things with a ton of links to other external sites and a couple links to my blog over there. So, if you're ready, read the comments at this Classical Values post. [external, non-Lonewacko link]

[Russ R]

Fat White Guy,

I realize that it was around 2:00 am when you wrote this:

"Every time they use an emergency room for routine health problems they use a social service. Every time their kids go to school that is a social service. Every time they overcrowd our parks and beaches that is a social service. Every time they drive on a freeway that is a social service. Every time they use anything provided by the state that is a social service."

so I'm guessing that you were too tired and weary to realize that the root of the problem is social services and not immigrants. Ger rid of the social services, have everyone pay their own way, and the only immigrants you'll get will be the hardworking variety... the freeloaders will stay home.

[Fat White Guy]

so I'm guessing that you were too tired and weary to realize that the root of the problem is social services and not immigrants. Ger rid of the social services, have everyone pay their own way, and the only immigrants you'll get will be the hardworking variety... the freeloaders will stay home.

Comment by: Russ R

Since we both know the libertarian ideal is not going to happen. Deportation and arresting employers of Illegals is the only solution.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

And what exactly did he "attempt to do", point out the easily verifiable fact that those who like to use emotive language like "illegals" tend to be racists worried about "keeping America white?"

"Illegal alien" is the phrase used in the United States Code, a.k.a. the law of the land. It's not "emotive," it's legally accurate. "Undocumented" is Carter-era PCspeak designed to shield your tender eyes from the truth of the matter.

given your obsession with theories of a Mexican "reconquista."

You don't know what you're talking about; perhaps you should do some research before speaking. The Mexican government has already admitted that it wants to increase their influence on our immigration laws; evidence of attempts by Mexican consuls to influence our policies is not that difficult to find for those who want the truth; Mexican elites have discussed this reconquista you - in your ignorance - dismiss; Mexican-American politicians and academics cheer the fact that California and other states will soon be "Hispanic states."

why on earth you'd expect libertarians of all people

Are the comments here only open to libertarians?

"braune gefahr" agenda ... [more smears delted] ...

You're ignorant; I might as well be responding to a Kindergartener.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm savvy to some of the comments that according to the article, this policy isn't going to be used to target Mexican Nationals. However, I also have to point out that the article mentions the following:

"In fiscal year 2003, about 43,000 immigrants were swiftly deported without scrutiny from immigration judges. The new rules could nearly double that figure, homeland security statistics suggest. Officials said they would observe Tucson and Laredo, where roughly 3,050 agents will assume their new duties, before applying the process to other border regions. "After we get it going, we'll begin discussions about expanding it,"..."

They're not going to find a lot of French illegal aliens in Tucson and Laredo. I suspect, rather, that they're going to "focus" on people from Guatemala, El Salvador, etc., but what's the difference? And just because you're not going to focus on people from Mexico doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same process. From the article:

"Officials said that Mexicans were not the focus of the new deportation efforts because most undocumented Mexicans choose to return after being caught."

To my ear, this reads as if all suspected illegal immigrants are going to be found guilty by an administrator unless they plead guilty, which is a Kafkaesque statement if I ever heard one.

Sometimes I feel like chicken little, and sometimes I feel like all the principles I was taught as a kid, things like everybody gets a trial and legal council and that you can't discriminate against people based on..., sometimes I feel like all of these principles are being sacrificed on the alter of security.

...and it seems to be happening in so many places at the same time; I start to wonder whether or not the things we're losing are worth the security we're supposedly gaining, and I don't hear any of our politicians anywhere wondering about that, and that alone is frightening. This isn?t London during the Blitz. We are not under siege.

[Patterico]

I noticed some of you guys talking about immigration. I noticed a really good post about immigration recently, here.

By the way, Cavanaugh -- you desperate for ads or something?

[Xrlq]

And I noticed a really good post about blogger/journalists who cry like little girls when their comment sections evolve into anything other than the echo chambers they were intended to be. Yes, Cavanaugh, I did just link to my own site. No, I'm not going to buy a fucking ad, nor am I going to renew my fucking subscription, which had until now remained uninterrupted since 19 fucking 90. Nor will I encourage any of my fucking friends or fucking colleagues (most of whom lean fucking libertarian) to read your fucking magazine or the online fucking version, until/unless Virginia fucking Postrel returns and half of today's fucking staff doesn't.