Border Patrol implements zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigrants

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: The monitor

Monitor, TX - 11 hours ago
EDINBURG -- The Rio Grande Valley will be the next place to implement a zero-tolerance policy credited with slashing illegal immigration rates by almost 70 percent in other parts of the state.

Dubbed "Operation Streamline," the plan calls for the criminal prosecution of every migrant caught crossing the border without proper documentation, U.S. Border Patrol officials said Tuesday.

And while the program has had dramatic results in largely rural parts of Texas and Arizona, it remains untested in more populous regions where the number of immigrants apprehended each year is typically higher.

Skeptics fear prosecution of every illegal immigrant could overwhelm local federal courts, which already spend much of their time on immigration-related cases.



Read more: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/illegal_13020___article.html/border_immigration.html

---

What began as a war on terrorists has become a war on immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security says that it prioritizes its immigration enforcement actions by "targeting the greatest national security and public safety threats"—an approach not taken prior to 9/11.

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5286

[Dogmudgeon]

1. It's also a war on decongestant

Try to buy some Sudafed and you'll be greeted with a notice that it now requires a signature -- to conform to the USA-PATRIOT Act.

If they are going to go to THAT absurd a depth of triviality, they will have no problem rounding up Latinos and pretending they're terrorists.

--p!

[winter999]

2. Controlling Sudafed and decongestants has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act.

The active ingredient is the same main ingredient in Meth. They found out that people who run meth labs buy mass quantities of decongestant.

[Dogtown]

3. Yes, they do buy sudafed

Think about the logistics. How many boxes of pills would be necessary to supply all the tweakers in this country with todays doses. And tomorrow's?

The bulk of Meth in this country is produced in large laboratories with truckloads of precursors. And they can easily acquire the chemicals needed to produce methamphetamine without standing in line at Walmart.

Do you have to sign for matches? Phosphorus is needed to produce the drug.

Ether. That's an easily controllable chemical. If they were sincere about stopping chrystal formation, ether would be impossible to obtain without legitamate need. And I wouldn't have to waste my time having my ID checked just to buy sinus medicine.

The government has elected to penalize every sinus sufferer in this country in order to stem perhaps 2% of the trafficking. Even if it were 10%, is that worth the millions of dollars spent maintaining this ridiculously ineffective and cumbersome project? It's another charade aimed at giving the appearance of success in the "War on Drugs".

But folks are happily tweaking, nonetheless.



The "zero tolerance" policy *does* resemble this pretense at control; in fact if this year's arrested illegals doesn't completely clog the judicial system, next years will.

THIS WILL NOT WORK. It's just more twaddle handed out to sop the xenophobes that support the Republican party.

[Stevepol]

4. I'm not sure I disagree with this zero-tolerance policy. Here's why.

These people, first of all, aren't "immigrants." When somebody comes across a border illegally, he or she isn't an immigrant. Many of them in fact are ciminals or could easily turn criminal once they are in the country they have sneaked into.

On the other hand, if the procedures for "legal" immigration aren't as easily complied with on the Mexican border as they are on the Canadian border, then this sort of zero tolerance policy would be unsatisfactory overall, even if it follows the "law" to the letter.

The best approach IMO would be to have a zero tolerance policy on "illegal immigration," imprisoning the second offender for at least 6 months, and the third and subsequent offender with a year of prison. But at the same time, the methods for entering the country legally should be streamlined and made easier for those who really do have reasons to come to the US.

The procedures used for the Canadian border and the Mexican border should be the same in any case.

If these people, second ofenders, are imprisoned for 6 months and for subsequent transgressions of the immigration laws, 1 year, at first the courts will be burdened unduly, but after the policy has been in place for a couple years, the illegal immigration would sharply decrease and eventually would involve only a trickle and that trickle would be almost entirely criminal elements.

Always the goal should be creating the same procedures and policies for Mexican immigrants as for Canadian immigrants, or as nearly the same as possible.

But we're wrong to see these people as victimized immigrants. They are breaking the law and they know they are. If the US has unequal laws regarding immigration or if the US places undue restrictions on people wishing to come "legally," then it's no wonder these people swarm to come over. The correct policy has to be two-pronged: making legal immigration smoother and easier for those wishing to come and treating the illegal entry as what it is: a crime.

[EFerrari]

5. There is no evidence at all that many of these immigrants are criminal

or that they become criminals. There is evidence that the reverse is true. The law these immigrants violate is immigration law, not criminal law.

And, yes, many if not most of these immigrants are victims of US Latin American policy. You were in the ER forum and watched the last Mexican election so, I'm surprised you don't make the connection.

Having said that, a zero tolerance policy would work over time -- if there is a way to manage following through. We don't currently have the space to house many more detainees than we already house. And the current conditions in immigrat detention camps is horrible. They've had a death rate 10X that of detainees in the War on Terra.

[Triana]

6. thank you. I agree. n/t

[Leeny]

7. "...in fact"

You say that "many of them are in fact criminals". Can you show me where you found that "fact"? How do you know this? What's the percentage? Does someone actually keep track? Please tell me where I can find this information.