Border Patrol trying to make Minuteman Project look ineffective?
From the "Someone should get fired if this is true" files:
From today's Washington Times:
Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers....
Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm
Republicans have an advantage in public opinion when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration. But President Bush is risking that advantage with his consipicuous silence following his ill-chosen characterization of the Minutemen as "vigilantes".
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado), while potentially type-casting himself as a one-issue politician, is effectively making a big stir about the issue. Unless Republicans come to some consensus it could be quite damaging in upcoming elections, and particularly if a terrorist were found to have crossed into the US from Mexico.
It's hard to say whether President Bush is afraid of offending Vicente Fox because they have such a "good working relationship", or whether some adviser is telling him this issue doesn't matter much, but I believe that if he doesn't become more forceful about illegal immigration the divisiveness within the Republican party could make passage of important economic reforms more difficult.
One thing President Bush can and should do is to get to the bottom of the accusations in this article. If true, they represent seriously bad behavior by someone at a management level of a Federal agency....someone willing to risk the safety of our citizens in order to make his organization look better.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 05/14/05 at 07:56:00 pm . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
05/15/05 @ 09:41:26 am
I heard about this on Sean Hannity's show the other day and I felt the same as you, terminate and the hire someone willing to do the job. Playing politics with the security of the nation is a poor excuse for not agreeing with the Minuteman volunteers.
05/16/05 @ 02:56:55 pm
"willing to risk the safety of our citizens"? Come on... Immigration isn't about security -- or rather, it is -- but it's about "job security" rather than "physical security". I'd rather take my chances with the (hard working) Mexicans risking life & limb for a better life in our country than the (obviously not so hard working, if they have time for this) "minutemen" any day. Were they effective? Perhaps. I wouldn't want to cross when a bunch of idiot dopes with guns were out and about, either. The border patrol is no more effective at stopping people than it is at stopping drugs, and really, our government shouldn't be in the business of doing either.
05/16/05 @ 03:11:54 pm
Tom,
Great comment!
I agree with the first half of your last sentence but not the second half.
The border patrol is not especially effective. But we should not have wide-open borders. (We should make it easier to hire foreign workers, but they should be here legally.)
The real point is that whether you think the Border Patrol is effective or not, it's not acceptable for them intentionally try to do their job worse than they do it now. It's like a union boss telling the productive employee to slow down because he's making the lazy union guys look bad.
If I had more energy, I'd defend the "minutemen" as well, but it's not really that important to me.... Bottom line, I think they were very effective at pointing out that our borders could be more secure without that much extra effort.
05/16/05 @ 03:51:50 pm
Ross:
I thought this was supposed to be "Rational Thinking About Our World"? What is rational about a nanny state saying who can and can't cross an imaginary line? We used to have wide-open borders (for over 100 years) -- didn't seem like a big deal at the time, and still doesn't to me. And don't worry about anyone being here "illegally": Get rid of immigration laws, and that distinction goes away. The history of determining who does and doesnt get to come into our country is a sorry one (Chinese Exclusion Act, etc.) and a free society should mean freedom to anyone caring enough to call it home.
05/16/05 @ 04:16:45 pm
Tom, we've never had wide-open borders that I'm aware of, and certainly not for at least a century. (I'm not gonna do the research to see when immigration laws started.) Just because lots of people were allowed to come in does not mean everyone was or should have been.
For example, I would not allow in convicted or legitimately indicted criminals nor would I let in someone who is likely to be coming for the primary purpose of getting on welfare or of having a child within our borders so the child can qualify for welfare.
Ours is a free society. That doesn't mean our Constitutional rights must apply to everyone on the planet.
Certainly some anti-immigration people are closet xenophobes. I'm not. I strongly support immigration, but that doesn't mean erasing our borders.
05/16/05 @ 04:46:43 pm
Ross:
We *have*, for many years, had open borders. Ships simply provided a manifest of who was onboard; that was it. But who cares how long ago that was? We've had Social Security for many years now -- the length of time we've had bad policy doesn't seem to stop you from railing against it. And given that you would not allow convicted criminals in, why would you allow them 1) Out of jail to begin with, and 2) To come into your state? If a person has paid their debt; they've paid their debt; they should be free to do as they wish. And given that America has more people in jail per capita than any other country, your fears seem misplaced (You'd be better off putting your barbed wire fence between Kansas and Colorado). I was also inder the impression you were largely against welfare? Or do two wrongs make a right? And trust me on this, your fears of immigrants coming for welfare are also misplaced -- the overwhelming majority are much harder working than many (probably most) people born in this country.
I'm not suggesting that you are a xenophobe; but yes -- our Constitutional rights SHOULD apply to everyone on the planet -- everyone with enough courage and fortitude to leave all (and everyone) they know and love behind and seek a new life here. If you've ever driven through Wyoming, Montana, or Kansas, you know we've still got plenty of space...