Border Patrol Agents Now Act as Judges
Reported by Marie Therese - August 12, 2004 -
The O'Reilly Factor. August 11, 2004. 8:21 PM to 8:25 PM EDT.
Guest: Eleanor Acer, Human Rights First Refugee Protection Program
"The day before President Bush was to campaign in Arizona and New Mexico, the Homeland Security Department announced it would hasten deportations of illegal immigrants who are not Mexican or Canadian citizens." (U.S. to Speed Up Immigrant Deportations, AP, 8/10/04) Currently, federal agents have this authority in airports and legal points of entry.
Immigration reform is one of those campaign issues that is regional in nature. In a hotly contested election, it is no surprise that the Bush Administration would court votes by tightening up border security.
However, it's what's not said in the interview that's most interesting!
Comment:
The Homeland Security Department has authorized Border Patrol agents to make on the spot decisions about whether or not to deport an illegal immigrant, in essence giving them powers formerly vested in the immigration judges. O'Reilly sides with the government. Ms. Acer clearly favors the individual.
In a nutshell, Bill O'Reilly feels that we have to "assume that the law enforcement authorities are going to be competent and fair. If you walk up and you say 'I need political asylum' it's different than these guys [the Border Patrol] finding you out in the desert" and, he later claims that the federal immigration judicial system is "overwhelmed. They can't do it, even the Homeland Security people won't even come to a local municipality here in New York or Pennsylvania or anywhere to pick up illegals, because they have too many of them, they don't know where to put them. So I don't believe you. It is out of control. This is an effort to make us all safer."
However, Ms. Acer has a different take: "I've met many inspectors who do this job at the airport and I know there are many who really try to do a good job....At the same time, there are other officers who make mistakes and we've had refugees mistakenly deprted under this process."
With a wink and a nod to the Trekkies out there, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the one? Or is it the other way around? In the struggle between the rights of the community and the rights of the individual, America has historically leaned toward the rights of the individual in the face of overwhelming governmental power except in times of extreme conflict.
However, a little internet research turned up that article from the AP that I cited at the beginning of this posting explaining the caveat that Mexicans and Canadians are EXEMPT from these rules.
At no time did either O'Reilly or Acer mention that fact. O'Reilly throws around huge numbers ("we got a million people a year comin' in here"), thereby giving the impression that ALL immigrants are included in this rule, and expostulates about how the sheer numbers of cases are overwhelming the immigration courts and thereby justifies his ongoing position that we have to engage in a major military fortification of the borders.
Ms. Acer never corrects him. I wonder why not?
