May 07, 2008 Backwards Illegal Immigration Policy Posted by Anthony Gregory at May 7, 2008 09:24 PMWell, in fact it does make sense, since according to the story, [Feds arrest illegal immigrants who are trying to leave USA, USA Today, May 7, 2008] which is scalping an LA Times story, Border busts coming and going, May 7, 2008, the agaency says that:
Arresting illegals trying to leave the United States. That makes sense. Thanks to Manuel Lora for the link.
"If our officers come upon people who are here illegally . . . regardless of whether they're leaving the country, we detain them, make a record of the fact they were here illegally and return them to Mexico,"That way they'll know, if the illegal comes back again, that it's not a first offense. Also
Federal agents say the checkpoints are a productive way to stop dangerous criminals, drug shipments and money launderers.I presume they also check to see if they are out on bail and have promised to appear in court to answer criminal charges, since it's common for Mexican illegals to skip bail and head to Mexico. On the larger border control issue, illegals are more or less ignoring the border—see my blog item Illegal Aliens Commuting To American Schools.
The illegal immigrants they apprehend are typically turned over to the U.S. Border Patrol for processing. Unless they have serious criminal records or numerous immigration violations, most are returned to Mexico within a few hours, the agents say
There's also a larger Lew Rockwell problem—while some paleolibertarians recognize the need for countries to control their borders, there's a lot of Open Borders nonsense on Lew Rockwell.com
Being Illegal Or Why Ron Paul Stands Head and Shoulders Above his Challengers on ImmigrationTonight we plan to do a full-scale article on LewRockwell.com, examining this tendency. Look for it on the front page.
by Rick Fisk, September 1, 2007 The worst rhetorical device used when discussing immigration and border control is the ad hominem, "illegal alien." It is used daily but its absurdity is rarely challenged other than to suggest it is a politically incorrect term.
There is no such thing as a person whose very nature makes him illegal. Nobody is born into a state of illegality.
[Blah, blah blah...] Geographical location is thus not a barrier to the endowment of one’s rights. We possess rights by virtue of being alive. Merely being alive can never be construed, either morally or logically, to be an illegal act. [Blah, blah blah...]
A border is not a property boundary; it is a demarcation of legal jurisdiction. A person, who crosses a border, has not committed a common law crime. If he hasn’t trespassed, there isn’t a moral or just legal reason to demand he show papers or submit to a search. By making this demand, the government is insuring that those who want to retain their privacy do so by trespassing.
[There's a lot more, all very silly]