U.S.Gives Border Patrol Agents the Power to Deport Illegals

In a sense, it makes sense. If you consider deportation a punishment for a crime, it is clearly wrong. If deportation simply returns immigrants to their proper status, it wouldn't be punishment, would it? If not, judicial procedings are an unnecessary frill.

I suppose it depends on whether one considers the Border Patrol capable of making such a determination, or not.

Good question, au.

My only reservation is that we don't let the police act as judges and juries, why should we allow that in the Border Patrol?

How many illegal immigrants were actually allowed to stay legally in the US after appearing in front of these immigration courts?

Re: U.S.Gives Border Patrol Agents the Power to Deport Illeg

At first blush and based on the text you quoted it sounds good to me, but when I read the article it sounds like they are not going far enough, nor is the change likely to make any real dent in reducing the strain on the system. Note this snippet from the article:


This means that the vast majority of illegals coming across our borders will continue to be processed through courts, slowly and at great expense.

Hey, Scrat! Long time - no see.

Re: U.S.Gives Border Patrol Agents the Power to Deport Illeg

I think they are okay as far as they go, but I suspect they are mostly for show. America's borders with Mexico and Canada are so long that any terrorist worth his mettle can easily cross them without being caught in the first place. It is also worth noting that the terrorist, like any illegal immigrant, can try again and again, and he only has to succeed once to get in and stay in. The authorities know they're not improving border security much by these measures, but they do look good in an election year.

Oh, thank the Lord they haven't tried to do that here (keep in mind Australia is an island, glug.. glug...... glug................ glug....).

In the past few years we have had quite a lot of controversy over treatment of "boat people", as we call refugees (or illegal immigrants, whichever you prefer). We don't have the same paranoia over terrorism that the U.S. has, we just have a history of treating illegal immigrants very badly. We don't have a coast guard (for the reason that we just have too much coast-line), so the job of intercepting the rickety, leaky, foul smelling death traps that the people-smugglers use to transport their "cargo" is left up to the navy (that's when they actually make it into our waters, they often just sink).

The population of our country is effectively split into two groups; those who think that all boat people should be deported, and those who think we should spend more time and money streamlining the reviewal process. I happen to fall into the latter group. Time and money we got, these people risk their lives to come here for a reason.

Perhaps that's because Islamo-fascist terrorists around the globe haven't vowed to wreak destruction on Australia. What you call "paranoia" I consider a rational response to a real, ongoing and imminent threat.

Remember the old adage: it isn't paranoia if people really are out to get you.

Yeah it is, just a healthy dose. Nothin' wrong with a little paranoia.

Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the August 17, 2004 edition

Border Improvements

Poet Robert Frost once wrote, "Good fences make good neighbors." Two new border policies, announced last week, re inforce that notion. One rightly improves US security; the other fosters better relations with Mexico.
Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson detailed an expansion of a program that would affect individuals caught within two weeks of entering the US illegally and whose countries of origin are other than Mexico and Canada. They would be deported to their home countries without a judicial hearing, ideally within eight days of being apprehended.

Although the new program applies to the entire US border, it will start first in the border areas near Tucson, Arizona, and Laredo, Texas, where more Border Patrol agents will be assigned. Those captured would not enter the US legal system unless they applied for asylum, or expressed a credible fear of persecution if deported.

The plan is a sensible expansion of the same policy that's been in effect at air and seaports since 1997. As borders are tightened with improvements such as biometric passports, it's logical to assume more individuals, including terrorists, will try to cross into the US at away from legal entry points.

The plan also buttresses much needed control over illegal entry to the United States.

Over 16 months, mostly in 2003, some 42,000 immigrants were arrested along the Southwest border, the majority from Central and South America. About 14,000 of those individuals were detained; a whopping 28,000 were released on bond. The overwhelming majority of those released - 90 percent - failed to show up for their hearing, disappearing into the vast US melting pot, and upping the cost of finding them.

Even as Mr. Hutchinson took this necessary step, however, he also confirmed he was lengthening the time that Mexican citizens who travel on special visas, as tourists, or on business, can stay in the US - from three to 30 days. This decision can help both the border economy, and US-Mexico relations.

"We are rewarding those that seek a legal path to our country," Hutchinson told reporters last week. He's right. The move puts legal Mexicans that much further ahead, though as a measure of comparison, Canadians with similar visas are allowed unlimited access to the US for up to six months.