I can understand the need for having a good screening system at the US-Mexico border. It is important to make sure that people crossing the border have correct papers, and to verify that they aren't smuggling. It takes significant time to perform all of the necessary checks for each person entering the country. Because of that, and the appearance that the border patrol is "under-staffed" there are often huge hours-long waits at the border crossings.
That is one reason I have been a critic of the two major "border checkpoints" on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 north of San Diego. The checkpoints are not always in operation, but it is impossible to guess when they will be in operation. Because the checkpoints can cause a delay in travel of 15 to 30 minutes, there is no way to plan trips for work or appointments without allowing an additional 30 minutes, just in case the checkpoint is in operation. So not only are people delayed by the checkpoints when operating, they also have to allow for the checkpoint, so they end up wasting time by being "early" when the checkpoint isn't in operation. When the checkpoint is in operation, cars move slowly past a border patrol agent who looks very bored and simply waves each car forward -- no apparent rationale for allowing cars to pass or stop them.
It is pretty clear that the checkpoints each employ a lot of people by the number of employee cars parked at each checkpoint, and I really don't see those employees being very productive. It would seem that those employees would better serve the country if they were assigned to the actual US/Mexico border to assist with the border crossing inspections to reduce the wait time, or to actually patrolling the border for illegal crossings.
Over the past 20 years, I have written to my US Senators, and my Congressman (Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and since 2001, Darrell Issa about eliminating the border checkpoints to save taxpayer money and eliminate the annoyance to San Diego citizens when we travel to Orange or Riverside Counties. I've never received a rational explanation, nor has there ever been any action taken. I believe many other people have also written and complained to no avail. The checkpoints are an annoyance to everyone who travels North from San Diego County. There are many daily commuters!
This article in Guardian points out that there are MANY other similar checkpoints on our side of the border that are continually annoying American citizens in the area. A lot of the checkpoints are down closer to the border, and directly affect the residents in those areas. In addition, as is probably expected, the border patrol stops people who appear to be Latino much more frequently than people who don't. See this article:
'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian Is it racial profiling? Or is stopping people who look Latino just common sense? Do we really need to show "our papers" at every checkpoint? Do we need to allow our car to be searched?
I don't believe that most of the border checkpoints, particularly the ones on I-5 and I-15 are needed to control immigration, nor are they really used for that purpose. I believe the purpose of those checkpoints are to allow the Government to "legally" stop drug courier suspects who may have been identified elsewhere using spies or informants inside drug organizations or electronic eavesdropping technology. By catching the suspects at the border checkpoint, the Government prosecutors can claim that the person was caught during a "random border inspection" and not have to give away informants or "technical means." Some of those "technical means" may not even be legal, and, even if it is legal, the Government doesn't want that information to be exposed during court proceedings. In order to make the "random checkpoint" argument believable, the border patrol has to randomly open and close the checkpoint even when there are no suspects passing through just to maintain the charade.
If I were in charge of the Border Patrol, DEA and FBI, I would probably do exactly what they are doing if I wanted to continue the "war on drugs" as we have for the past 60 years. Yeah, why not put "border checkpoints" all through the 100 mi area North of the border? We could set up random checkpoints all over the region. Would that help fight the war? Or would it violate more of our citizen's rights? However, I don't believe the US correctly fighting the drug war. The methods being used are extremely expensive and end up violating the rights of all of us. We would be much better off with programs that included treatment, licensing, taxing, standardizing doses, education, and spending much less on interdiction and law enforcement. I believe the reason we are using the current strategy is because there are so very many businesses, leaders and government employees who are profiting from it. For example, the prison guard unions would probably put money up to fight against any effort to legalize drugs.
I believe our Federal and State politicians understand this. However they like receiving the campaign funds from the drug-war profiteers, and they don't have the guts to do what is right! One clear example is that in the states where Marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational use, it required a vote from the people to change the law, rather than a simple vote by the legislature and signature from the governor. So even when it is the "will of the majority of the citizens" -- their representatives didn't have the guts to pass the law without a referendum first.
That is one reason I have been a critic of the two major "border checkpoints" on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 north of San Diego. The checkpoints are not always in operation, but it is impossible to guess when they will be in operation. Because the checkpoints can cause a delay in travel of 15 to 30 minutes, there is no way to plan trips for work or appointments without allowing an additional 30 minutes, just in case the checkpoint is in operation. So not only are people delayed by the checkpoints when operating, they also have to allow for the checkpoint, so they end up wasting time by being "early" when the checkpoint isn't in operation. When the checkpoint is in operation, cars move slowly past a border patrol agent who looks very bored and simply waves each car forward -- no apparent rationale for allowing cars to pass or stop them.
It is pretty clear that the checkpoints each employ a lot of people by the number of employee cars parked at each checkpoint, and I really don't see those employees being very productive. It would seem that those employees would better serve the country if they were assigned to the actual US/Mexico border to assist with the border crossing inspections to reduce the wait time, or to actually patrolling the border for illegal crossings.
Over the past 20 years, I have written to my US Senators, and my Congressman (Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and since 2001, Darrell Issa about eliminating the border checkpoints to save taxpayer money and eliminate the annoyance to San Diego citizens when we travel to Orange or Riverside Counties. I've never received a rational explanation, nor has there ever been any action taken. I believe many other people have also written and complained to no avail. The checkpoints are an annoyance to everyone who travels North from San Diego County. There are many daily commuters!
This article in Guardian points out that there are MANY other similar checkpoints on our side of the border that are continually annoying American citizens in the area. A lot of the checkpoints are down closer to the border, and directly affect the residents in those areas. In addition, as is probably expected, the border patrol stops people who appear to be Latino much more frequently than people who don't. See this article:
'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian Is it racial profiling? Or is stopping people who look Latino just common sense? Do we really need to show "our papers" at every checkpoint? Do we need to allow our car to be searched?
I don't believe that most of the border checkpoints, particularly the ones on I-5 and I-15 are needed to control immigration, nor are they really used for that purpose. I believe the purpose of those checkpoints are to allow the Government to "legally" stop drug courier suspects who may have been identified elsewhere using spies or informants inside drug organizations or electronic eavesdropping technology. By catching the suspects at the border checkpoint, the Government prosecutors can claim that the person was caught during a "random border inspection" and not have to give away informants or "technical means." Some of those "technical means" may not even be legal, and, even if it is legal, the Government doesn't want that information to be exposed during court proceedings. In order to make the "random checkpoint" argument believable, the border patrol has to randomly open and close the checkpoint even when there are no suspects passing through just to maintain the charade.
If I were in charge of the Border Patrol, DEA and FBI, I would probably do exactly what they are doing if I wanted to continue the "war on drugs" as we have for the past 60 years. Yeah, why not put "border checkpoints" all through the 100 mi area North of the border? We could set up random checkpoints all over the region. Would that help fight the war? Or would it violate more of our citizen's rights? However, I don't believe the US correctly fighting the drug war. The methods being used are extremely expensive and end up violating the rights of all of us. We would be much better off with programs that included treatment, licensing, taxing, standardizing doses, education, and spending much less on interdiction and law enforcement. I believe the reason we are using the current strategy is because there are so very many businesses, leaders and government employees who are profiting from it. For example, the prison guard unions would probably put money up to fight against any effort to legalize drugs.
I believe our Federal and State politicians understand this. However they like receiving the campaign funds from the drug-war profiteers, and they don't have the guts to do what is right! One clear example is that in the states where Marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational use, it required a vote from the people to change the law, rather than a simple vote by the legislature and signature from the governor. So even when it is the "will of the majority of the citizens" -- their representatives didn't have the guts to pass the law without a referendum first.
No comments:
Post a Comment