Scores of undocumented migrants dropped off in Arizona
I realize that the topic is a bit distasteful. Distaste, discomfort and in some realms personal dangers, should not deter us from engagement and debate of the proper enforcement of the law, That is what this contribution is about. Though I am hesitant to refer to this as debate. This posting should be viewed as from a concerned citizen rebuking and correcting an errant presidents' irreverence to law awa his tone, demeanor and secretive eye winks that evidently convey to those that work for him to do the same. In one example, openly and publicly.*
In the article I pulled this quote, "He said the migrants were flown to Arizona because the Border Patrol does not have enough manpower to handle a surge in illegal immigrants in south Texas."
There are a few issues w/this report. I will primarily address the two most significant in this post.
To a lesser arguable extent ICE justified flying 400 'migrants' to Tuscan on the taxpayer dime supposedly because the Texas BP doesnt have the manpower to administrate 400 "migrants.' Administrative experience obligates me to ask; what has been added to this 'processing' that requires 'migrants' to be flown (price X times 400) from Texas to Arizona that I am blind too? How hard is it to bus 400 back to the border and drop them off? I can tell you that I have done passenger manifests, muster, morning accountability, and miscellaneous other reports as well as ammo and personal effects inventories on a bus full of Marines. Fingerprints & photographs? Easily manageable...on a full bus. Who says they have to be 'professional" grade? Usable comes to mind. Why can I do this as a requirement of my work enforcing the law as a federal employee and not them? Certain to be cheaper I'll wager and especially more significant in light of our nations current debt being pegged in the $17 trillion plus range. Now, whether the cost of this transport is significant or not I'll relegate to another post but will add that those who argue it's insignificance would be countered with a, "that's the type of thinking that got us so far in debt" retort.
Central America? If they came across the Mexican border they can return the same way. Still it would be even easier...the plane was in the air. It's even easier to do paperwork on an air-conditioned plane than it is on a bus. Moving on.
Another significant issue is the use of the term 'migrant.' Migrant is a root word that encompasses the two primary forms of migration: Immigration (in-migration) and emigration (escape or out migration). It seems to this observer that it is a deliberate attempt by federal officials, who work for the American people, to obfuscate the more accurate description of illegal immigration.**
According to Andy Adame, a spokesman for the Border Patrol in Tucson, confirmed that over the weekend federal officials, "flew about 400 migrants apprehended (APPREHENDED) in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to Tucson to be processed (PROCESSED)." They came here illegally (e.g. breaking the law), apprehended in Texas yet in Arizona treated as refugees vice (misdemeanor) criminals. What happened in flight to change the status from apprehended to refugee? The difference? refugees aren't under arrest. Yet, in the article's first line it clearly states that, "undocumented immigrants" were released. Clearly their status as illegal immigrants.... wait....hold up.... You mean to tell me that they were Illegal Immigrants in Texas and apprehended but relabeled undocumented immigrants in Arizona and now refugees? No. I don't buy that circus magic act. It's smoke & mirrors and I am amazed in the bad way.
According to the referenced report the (misdemeanor) criminal illegal immigrants were, "...Central America have been released." Operative word, 'released.' As in knowingly and willfully released after being flown from Texas. This is how past refugees into our country have been treated. There seems to be some confusion as to the difference between refugees and (misdemeanor) criminal illegal immigrants.
Juxtapose this incident alongside recent federal department pontiffs who publicly call for ignoring federal law w/regard to apprehension and deportation of (include 37k criminals last year alone who were not deported but released onto American streets) illegal immigrants and this becomes more than suspicious. Call me unenlightened but this is not illustrative of a civilized nation aka nation of law. This qualifies as immoral activity and made more serious by the very civil servants we empowered to enforce the law they swore to uphold. This truly is outrageous.
Enforce the law. A civil servant's opinion w/regard to enforcing the law is irrelevant be they elected, appointed or hired. If the majority of 'we the people' approve of rescinding (or modifying) a law so be it. A civil servant's opinion be they elected, appointed or hired may be voiced as a private citizen. That is their right as well. That said, they are still obligated to enforce the law in the interim. All of them, loyally. If not, it is the most solid of grounds to fire them. Oh, no, what about the federal unions? We do not have to deal w/them. We should follow Wisconsin's example here via an executive order bidding them a fare-the-well. There is no reason or need for government unions. Civil servants are on a pay scale. There is no reason for a union to negotiate pay/salary. Still doubt? Does the military rate to be unionized? Yes or No. The same for the civil sector side of government.
The thin line lay in between these two clear distinctions. It seems many are not concerned that it is evidently so easily crossed. It also appears to me that the leadership encouraging this immoral line crossing is depending on the peoples inability to recognize this illegitimacy, thus my justification for this post.
This is not a gray zone issue. A chain link fence is also a 'thin" line. Either side of said fence being clearly delineated. The issue is simple: Legitimate side of the fence: Obey the law. No like law advocate rescission. Until then obey the law.
Illegitimate side of the fence: Do what you are doing.
bb
*DHS chief Jeh Johnson: Agents shouldn't target illegal immigrants at courthouses - Washington Times http://t.co/vhvzN7Oe5r
**The article title, "Undocumented Migrant" is less generic awa less descriptive.
I realize that the topic is a bit distasteful. Distaste, discomfort and in some realms personal dangers, should not deter us from engagement and debate of the proper enforcement of the law, That is what this contribution is about. Though I am hesitant to refer to this as debate. This posting should be viewed as from a concerned citizen rebuking and correcting an errant presidents' irreverence to law awa his tone, demeanor and secretive eye winks that evidently convey to those that work for him to do the same. In one example, openly and publicly.*
In the article I pulled this quote, "He said the migrants were flown to Arizona because the Border Patrol does not have enough manpower to handle a surge in illegal immigrants in south Texas."
There are a few issues w/this report. I will primarily address the two most significant in this post.
To a lesser arguable extent ICE justified flying 400 'migrants' to Tuscan on the taxpayer dime supposedly because the Texas BP doesnt have the manpower to administrate 400 "migrants.' Administrative experience obligates me to ask; what has been added to this 'processing' that requires 'migrants' to be flown (price X times 400) from Texas to Arizona that I am blind too? How hard is it to bus 400 back to the border and drop them off? I can tell you that I have done passenger manifests, muster, morning accountability, and miscellaneous other reports as well as ammo and personal effects inventories on a bus full of Marines. Fingerprints & photographs? Easily manageable...on a full bus. Who says they have to be 'professional" grade? Usable comes to mind. Why can I do this as a requirement of my work enforcing the law as a federal employee and not them? Certain to be cheaper I'll wager and especially more significant in light of our nations current debt being pegged in the $17 trillion plus range. Now, whether the cost of this transport is significant or not I'll relegate to another post but will add that those who argue it's insignificance would be countered with a, "that's the type of thinking that got us so far in debt" retort.
Central America? If they came across the Mexican border they can return the same way. Still it would be even easier...the plane was in the air. It's even easier to do paperwork on an air-conditioned plane than it is on a bus. Moving on.
Another significant issue is the use of the term 'migrant.' Migrant is a root word that encompasses the two primary forms of migration: Immigration (in-migration) and emigration (escape or out migration). It seems to this observer that it is a deliberate attempt by federal officials, who work for the American people, to obfuscate the more accurate description of illegal immigration.**
According to Andy Adame, a spokesman for the Border Patrol in Tucson, confirmed that over the weekend federal officials, "flew about 400 migrants apprehended (APPREHENDED) in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to Tucson to be processed (PROCESSED)." They came here illegally (e.g. breaking the law), apprehended in Texas yet in Arizona treated as refugees vice (misdemeanor) criminals. What happened in flight to change the status from apprehended to refugee? The difference? refugees aren't under arrest. Yet, in the article's first line it clearly states that, "undocumented immigrants" were released. Clearly their status as illegal immigrants.... wait....hold up.... You mean to tell me that they were Illegal Immigrants in Texas and apprehended but relabeled undocumented immigrants in Arizona and now refugees? No. I don't buy that circus magic act. It's smoke & mirrors and I am amazed in the bad way.
According to the referenced report the (misdemeanor) criminal illegal immigrants were, "...Central America have been released." Operative word, 'released.' As in knowingly and willfully released after being flown from Texas. This is how past refugees into our country have been treated. There seems to be some confusion as to the difference between refugees and (misdemeanor) criminal illegal immigrants.
Juxtapose this incident alongside recent federal department pontiffs who publicly call for ignoring federal law w/regard to apprehension and deportation of (include 37k criminals last year alone who were not deported but released onto American streets) illegal immigrants and this becomes more than suspicious. Call me unenlightened but this is not illustrative of a civilized nation aka nation of law. This qualifies as immoral activity and made more serious by the very civil servants we empowered to enforce the law they swore to uphold. This truly is outrageous.
Enforce the law. A civil servant's opinion w/regard to enforcing the law is irrelevant be they elected, appointed or hired. If the majority of 'we the people' approve of rescinding (or modifying) a law so be it. A civil servant's opinion be they elected, appointed or hired may be voiced as a private citizen. That is their right as well. That said, they are still obligated to enforce the law in the interim. All of them, loyally. If not, it is the most solid of grounds to fire them. Oh, no, what about the federal unions? We do not have to deal w/them. We should follow Wisconsin's example here via an executive order bidding them a fare-the-well. There is no reason or need for government unions. Civil servants are on a pay scale. There is no reason for a union to negotiate pay/salary. Still doubt? Does the military rate to be unionized? Yes or No. The same for the civil sector side of government.
The thin line lay in between these two clear distinctions. It seems many are not concerned that it is evidently so easily crossed. It also appears to me that the leadership encouraging this immoral line crossing is depending on the peoples inability to recognize this illegitimacy, thus my justification for this post.
This is not a gray zone issue. A chain link fence is also a 'thin" line. Either side of said fence being clearly delineated. The issue is simple: Legitimate side of the fence: Obey the law. No like law advocate rescission. Until then obey the law.
Illegitimate side of the fence: Do what you are doing.
bb
*DHS chief Jeh Johnson: Agents shouldn't target illegal immigrants at courthouses - Washington Times http://t.co/vhvzN7Oe5r
**The article title, "Undocumented Migrant" is less generic awa less descriptive.
No comments:
Post a Comment