Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Border Patrol Unmanned Crossing: What's Wrong With This Picture


In an attempt ‘to upgrade security’ along the U.S.-Mexico border, federal authorities are proposing an unmanned border crossing in a rugged, remote area of West Texas where illegal immigrants easily wade across the shallow Rio Grande on a regular basis. Electronic port of entry kiosks allowing anyone crossing into our country to scan their identity documents, if they want, and talk to a customs officer at least 100 miles away, could be open as soon as this spring in Big Bend National Park. Proponents of this absurdity argue that it will allow the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen access to U.S. commerce.

If approved, the Border Patrol will have just eight agents living in the 800,000-acre national park in addition to the park’s 23 law enforcement officers. The project to grant easier cross-border access for a Mexican town with less than 100 individuals will cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $2.3 million. Now, how's that for money well-spent?


The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to review the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco’s ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. Among those blocked, is the provision requiring police officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if he or she is suspected to be in the country illegally. The Obama administration immediately challenged the Arizona law when it was scheduled to go into effect arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not individual states. The Obama administration has filed similar lawsuits against Alabama, South Carolina and Utah while private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Alabama. Thankfully, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the Arizona case because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department. Arguments will probably take place in late April, giving the court roughly two months to make a decision.

No comments: