So they only act in accordance with their superiors' orders? Wouldn't dare do otherwise? Afraid of the consequences?

So...their superiors order them to behave they way they do at roadside checkpoints?

As in all things, be cautious of extremes. No one said all enforcement was being stopped. It is limited by factors in the process as it always is in not only Immigration Enforcement but in all types of Law Enforcement.

Most of the time, as is the fact in most things, it is budgetary concerns that drive many of the challenges to the level and type of enforcement that you have indicated that you would like to see.

It is a complex problem with no simple answers. There is just not enough money to procure enough detention space, heck there is really not enough physical space, to house the numbers that we are talking about.

There is no such thing as arresting and deporting in the same day unless you are talking arrests made in a POE or by BP within certain distances from the Border. All the other interior arrests have many steps that have to take place first.

The alien is entitled to a hearing so they get there day in court. This has to be scheduled so that adds time to the process. If the alien is found to be removable, a travel document has to be obtained from the individual’s country. That adds time to the process. Transportation to the individual’s home country has to be arraigned. This adds time and money to the process. Officers have to be scheduled to escort the individuals back to their home country. This adds time as there are a limited amount of officers to perform the escort function. With all that in mind, priorities have to be put in place where your limited resources are used. Those priorities are usually defined by the elected representatives and not the officers and agents. Those priorities are usually on people that have committed criminal offences first and even there are further prioritized by violent crimes taking the lead. It then works it way down to the guy who snuck across the border and is now working illegally to support himself.

The devil is in the details. I have noted your thoughts on how you believe the problem should be handled. I actually can agree to some of those thoughts in principle. However, the laws, regulations, and the constitution, that many here like to remind all of us needs to be followed, does not allow us to skip any of those steps. Unless you are saying that, the laws, regulations and constitution should only be followed when it is convenient and something that only you care about.

I know that is not the case. It is frustrating to say the least. It is just has frustration for the people that work with the system day to day. Those people are not ignoring their oaths as you imply. They are working within the very real physical limitations that exist. The examples above are really just the actual physical limitations on the tasks at hand. It doesn't even start to address the political obstacles that are put in place.

Regardless of the oaths that Law Enforcement officers take, they are still limited as to the manner, and to the extent that they perform their duties by the civilian elected representatives of the government that they draw their authority from.

FB

Perhaps they do. The real question is the processes and procedures at Border Patrol checkpoints illegal. To date the courts have ruled that the policies and procedures used at Border Patrol checkpoints are legal and constitutional

The constitution set up the courts to decide what is ultimately constitutional. Those judges have the background to examine the laws, policies, procedures, and in cases the actual acts of the officers. Until there is a change in the law or court decisions that interpret those laws, I am betting those policies and procedures are not going to change.

The place to argue that something was not done correctly is not on the side of the road or at the checkpoint. There are avenues and forums that are the correct place to make those arguments and points. The other point to remember is that just as the officers and agents are expected to abide by the decisions of the courts that limit or otherwise prescribe the actions of the agency, agents and officers, the public should also be expected to abide by the decisions of the courts that limit or otherwise prescribe the actions of the public. Is that not how the system is supposed to work or does the public get to just ignore it because they don’t' like or agree with it and there be no consequences for that act.

This in no way is to say that every single encounter with Border Patrol agents at check points, CBP Officers at POE's or any law enforcement officer will go by the book. It is human beings wearing those uniforms. They are subject to making mistakes like anyone else. There are agents and officers that absorbed their training better than others just like in any other occupation. The agency is interested in correcting errors. The agency has spent a lot of time and money to identify the issues. That being said labor and employment laws apply to public employees as well including law enforcement officers. Most personnel issues (discipline issues ect.) are confidential and are covered by Federal privacy laws unless they become criminal in nature as those are public record. You will not be informed of any discipline action taken by the agency against an employee.

There are also agents and officers that will intentionally violate the rules. This is unfortunate but it does exist. The agency is very interested in these actions. You will again not be informed concerning discipline of these employees unless it is a criminal action which is public record.

In both of the type of situations above, just because a member of the public believes that an officer or agent did something wrong does not mean that is actually the case. Each incident will be reviewed against the standard of conduct, applicable laws, applicable policy, and a decision will be made in accordance with standing regulations and court decisions by the appropriate personal that have been charged with those tasks as it is in most other professions.

The public nor the person, who is alleging that something incorrect or illegal occurred, makes the determination. They certainly can have an opinion, in many cases, have the right to appeal decisions that they don't agree with. However, after those appeals have been exhausted, if they still don't agree with the decision they are still expected to abide by them just the officers are expected to abide by them. Many could have the perception that there are just as many members of the public that are not abiding by these decisions as there are people that have the perception that law enforcement officers are not abiding by these decisions.


FB

I hear the lack of resources excuse way to often. When we have CBP checkpoints on non-border crossing roads then those assests are being wasted. Put those people back on the border and let them do the jobs they were hired to do. Instead we get a fairly large number of CBP employees at these interal checkpoints that are being used for drug interdiction instead of immigration control.

https://www.checkpointforums.org/for...checkpoint.39/

http://www.travelunderground.org/ind...n-monday.8519/

These two examples do not show good use of the CBP assets.

Under the proposal you've laid down, there'd be nothing stopping CBP from grabbing you in front of your house, dumping you across the border, and taking all your stuff, because they believe you're an illegal immigrant. That shouldn't be a problem for you, though, since clearly due process before confiscation and deportation isn't needed.

I can prove that I am a citizen. Can you?

The Supreme Court and I disagree with you on the topic of checkpoints. My opinion doesn't matter so much. However, the Supreme Court's does matter a lot and carries much more weight than yours or mine. That is not to say the individual agents have never acted inappropriately while operating these checkpoints.

In addition, I am not limiting my comments to CBP's enforcement strategy. My comments apply to Immigration Enforcement strategy in general. This encompasses all the agencies that have a hand in Immigration Enforcement.

You are quite clear in your assessment of CBP strategy. However, as I said before the devil is in the details. You are ignoring the details. It is quite easy to comment that "all these enforcement officers are ignoring their oaths etc etc" Yet, you don't address the very real obstacles to enforcement. You also cannot explain them away by stating "just send them all back they don't belong here to begin with” The existing laws, regulations, and constitutional protections have to be followed. If your solution can't be executed under the existing laws, regulations and constitutional protections, it really is not a viable solution.

Now if you want to change the laws, regulations, and constitutional protections so that your solutions will work, get some support together and have at it and I wish you luck. However, the rest of us have to work within the boundaries that we are given.

As to your suggesting that all personnel be put on the actual border, that would be a exercise that would be doomed to fail. The Military have realized decades ago that you do not defend real estate by massing all your personnel on a front line. They have realized that a more effective approach is to defend in depth using technology, transportation routes, and geographically formed chokepoints. That is exactly the how the BP checkpoints are utilized. Heck, even sporting teams such as soccer and football understand this concept and have secondary defensive players and formations.

We would have a much better and effective Immigration Enforcement Strategy if we could find a way to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Look at it from this perspective. You truly believe that the BP checkpoints are illegal. I don't agree. However, I respect that it is your opinion but it doesn't change what is legal and the legal practice of executing those checkpoints. There is a very large and growing portion of the population that is not of the opinion that our Immigration Laws are legal, fair or in some cases constitutional. As a result, the enforcement of those Immigration laws has become a very political animal that does not compare to any other type of law enforcement.

This is the result of elected officials making these issues key parts of reelection. This means considerations that should never have entered into the equation many times end up at the heart of the debate.

For example, there is very little question that robbing a bank is illegal in all circumstances. It really doesn't matter if the guy that robbed the bank is just trying to get money to feed his wife and three kids. There is no question that if the guy is found guilty that he will be separated from his wife and three kids for 20 plus years (just an example may not reflect an actual sentence) because he is in prison. No real public outcry about separating the family nor how the family is going to support themselves while dad is in prison

However, the same guy illegally sneaks into the country. In the process of living illegally in the country he starts a family as in those same three kids. He is now caught living and working illegally in the country. He has his day in court and is found removable. It is not looked at the same. There are all kinds of public outcry about separating the family. How is the family going to support itself after the deportation? This public attitude effects how elected representatives go about their business. How elected representatives go about their business effects enforcement when that enforcement is turned into a political tool.

If you don't agree with this type of situation, the solution is to take it up with the elected representatives not the Law Enforcement organization. This situation only gets worst the longer it continues. You end up with elected representatives coming up with executive orders that are contrary to regulations or law makers not supporting funding requests not because the funds don't exist but because they don't believe or agree with the law in play. A reference to what you call a lack of resources “excuse”. This is a very real obstacle. If the elected representatives are not going to pay for detention space what is the LEO to do? Pay for it out of his pocket? I don’t have that kind of money. Your response really can’t be set up tents or just send them back because that is not a realistic solution. The law does not allow those types of solutions to the problem.

I happy to discuss these topics forever if someone is interested. The topic interests me greatly. However, the discussions usually fall into two camps. The discussion that centers on perfect world, utopia, and things should work this way kinda discussion. The other one is the practical discussion. This is how it really works, these are the real considerations, and these are possible solutions that are going to have a real effect. I am happy to have either type of discussion as long as all the participants have an understanding of which type of discussion is occurring. Your comments, in my opinion fall in the first type of discussion.

As an afterthought kind of question, you are aware the Customs and Border Protection as an agency and Border Patrol agents, and Office of Field Operations Officers are not only limited to immigration control correct? They are responsible for the enforcement of much more than that and have been for literally decades.

FB

This may surprise you, but the burden actually goes the other way, at least initially.

?? How?

Boggie Dog, I have to admit I am confused by your response to cestmoi123. You state you can prove that you are a US citizen. Ok great I can too. That is a good thing.

cestmoi123 stated correctly I think, that you believe that if you are here illegally that CBP or ICE in either case should be able to operate in cestmoi example just grab you up in front of your house and out you go. You then implied that would be OK because you could prove that you are a citizen.

If I understand it correctly and please tell me if I am not. What is the difference between what happens now in real life at a Border Patrol checkpoint when you are asked what your citizenship is and having to prove you are a US Citizen in front of your house in the above example if accused of being illegally present in the United States?

You are dead set against the real life example but don't appear to have a problem in the fantasy example.

I am aware that cestmoi example is not real but the concepts are. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

FB

Because of the way the laws are written. There is a difference in the legal concepts when you are talking about an arriving alien encountered at a Port of Entry and an alien encountered in the interior of the United States.

The burden of proof is on the arriving alien encountered at a Port of Entry that they are admissible to the United States. This means the alien has to prove to the satisfaction of the admitting Immigration Officer that they are allowed to enter the United States.

In the case of an alien encountered in the interior of the United States, the burden of proof is on the Government to prove that the alien is present illegally in the United States. This means that the Government has to prove with evidence that the person is not supposed to be in the United States.


This is a very significant difference and the approaches to these legal concepts differ greatly.

FB

+

Don't think I said that the internal check points were illegal.

I do think it is a poor use of limited resources when the actual goal of these checkpoints seem to be interdiction of drugs which I do believe violates the courts ruling on the legality of the checkpoints.

The two links I posted above show that more than immigration enforcement is going on. In one case the person is known by name, known not to be an immigrant yet is still detained.

Is that the purpose of these checkpoints?

To be honest I don't really approve of the guys tactics but if immigration checks is all that is going on why are searches of the vehicles done? Asking a person to pop the trunk or such is not about immigration.

I have been pretty clear about my beliefs and I don't think government is doing its job. If a person is in country without papers, illegally, or whatever you want to call it they should be arressted, prosecuted, and removed if found guilty of illegal immigration. I support a a foreign workers program that would offer people of all skill levels opportunity to work legally, pay taxes, and return home when the work ends.

I do not support any from of ammnesty. Illegals have no right to citizenship and should not expect such.

To address just one point, BD: I've been told that popping the trunk is so the agent can ensure that there are no illegals inside.

Why they would upend a five-gallon un-lidded bucket full of emergency gear inside that trunk, I have no idea. Illegal infant?

Drugs are not the only thing found in vehicles trunks of otherwise. People are found in trunks, engine compartments, seats, in the dash boards and under floor boards.

I have not had the best of luck posting links but please see if these work. They show some of the ways people have attempted to be smuggled.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CCkQ9QEwAA

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CDkQ9QEwDA

http://www.google.com/search?q=pictu...rp.T5fRArkFPgk

I did not read any of the articles. I was looking for the pictures to illustrate that it is not all about drugs.


When you are stopped for a traffic violation, it does not stop the police officer from investigating if any other illegal activity is occurring.

When you are stopped for a DUI checkpoint, it does not stop a police officer from investigating if any other illegal activity is occurring.

When you are stopped at a Seatbelt checkpoint, it does not stop a police officer from investigating if any other illegal activity is occurring.

When you are walking down the street and a police officer starts a conversation with you, nothing stops the officer from investigating if any other illegal activity is occurring.

Anytime you come into contact with a police officer, as long as that officer is legally allowed to be where he is, that officer can investigating if any illegal activity is occurring.

This is exactly what is occurring at Border Patrol checkpoints. The courts have ruled that other activities can be performed that were not necessarily the reason for the initial detention. This is for all law enforcement and is not limited to immigration situations.
Good or bad, it is the reality of the current state of affairs. If the court changes its decision then policy will change. Right now the agency believes that the checkpoints are effective. Your opinion and mine hold no weight.

FB

That five-gallon bucket could contain the clothes and personal effects of the male illegal alien that was dropped off before the checkpoint. The illegal alien attempts to walk around the checkpoint and is again picked up on the other side by the car that has now passed through the checkpoint.

Many things could make the agent suspicious that this might be being attempted such as the driver being female and not being able to explain the presence of the male clothes in that bucket or a male driver not being able to explain the presence of clothes in a bucket that is supposed to contain emergency gear.

This type of scenario where clothing and personal effects of smuggled aliens that are traveling by foot around the checkpoint is found in all manner of containers in load vehicles is quite common at the checkpoints. It is encountered frequently and becomes part of the agents training and experience.

FB