Borderland Politics

When filmmaker John Carlos Frey wrote this Huffington Post story “Flagrant Human Rights Violations on U.S. Soil” I became aware of the article’s direction and decided that something needed to be written defending those who defend our border under the most difficulty situations imagined by law enforcement. First off, the articles reads” In the border region it is common practice. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. U.S. official reports stated he was resisting and became combative. Officers used a tazer to subdue him. Eyewitness accounts and video contradict the official report. To date, no officers involved have been prosecuted and all details of the case remain confidential. Anastasio was unarmed. That argument suggests we throw away the entire Declaration of Human Rights signed and co-authored by the United States over 60 years ago. Human rights protect all in all circumstances. The official report suggested Jose was shot with a tazer, fell on a rock and hit his head. All information about the case remains confidential and all officers involved are still on the job. Jose was unarmed. Shouldn't rogue law enforcement officers be reprimanded or fired? In addition there are literally thousands of cases of migrant death and systemic human rights abuses of migrants in detention facilities and during the repatriation process. “(Huffington Post 2011)

Living in the state of Arizona and very much in touch with the dynamics of the borderland politics, it must be said unequivocally that this article collates all the cops working in this sector as “rogue law enforcement officers” who need to be reprimanded or fired for doing what is being alleged as torturous and illegal activities related to human rights etc. This statement is so far off base, it requires neither explanation nor apology. The problem on the borderland is not these agents but rather the guidelines they have to work under as enforcement officers for the government. A government who prosecutes those who they determine have violated civil rights or color of law rules and pursuing them with an amount of “zeal” and “vigor” that should have been placed on the enforcement of our immigration laws etc. this travesty of justice of targeting our border patrol agents has grown into a national scandal as begun to target border agents instead of illegal immigration. To summarize the “degrading” treatment of those caught and apprehended there is no way I know after 25 years in law enforcement to be arrested and not suffer some level of “degrading” impact of such a misdeed. As for the violations of human rights there is a deliberate attempt to make the borderland a picture of conditions that exists throughout every major metropolitan area in our country... Major cities struggle daily with police behaviors that are considered to be violations of civil rights or human rights with none of the attention given to illegal aliens taking a chance to flee their own atrocities and coming here to live and prosper without due regard for the country’s law to register, to document and to follow the rules of the land.

The members of President Obama’s administration, specifically the Director of Homeland Security set guidelines for federal law enforcement officials to conduct their jobs in those areas related to the areas of prosecution or deportation of illegal aliens in federal custody. It focuses on agency discretion on how to enforce and complete the agency’s mission and priorities that appears to make it clear to those reading this article that our government has laid down a foundation of rules that apparently gives aliens an option to escape the wrath of breaking immigration laws and in fact may result in a release without prosecution or deportation.

Reading the Tucson Citizen newspaper it read “On June 17, 2011 the Director of the Department of Homeland Security issued a stunning memorandum to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo in part read as follows: This memorandum provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency’s immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency’s enforcement priorities. The memorandum also serves to make clear which agency employees may exercise prosecutorial discretion and what factors should be considered.” This direction appears to be directed to please those critics of the President in the area of immigration as pro-immigration advocates or supporters have be asking for some kind of relief on deportations and prosecution of illegal or undocumented aliens. As it was reported by the Tucson Citizen, “The memo issued by Morton addresses “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.”

Looking at its contents it includes the following: settling or dismissing a proceeding; granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order of removal; agreeing to voluntary departure, the withdrawal of an application for admission, or other action in lieu of obtaining a formal order of removal; pursuing an appeal; executing a removal order; and responding to or joining in a motion to reopen removal proceedings and to consider joining in a motion to grant relief or a benefit.

Morton’s memo makes it clear that certain factors should be taken into consideration while excogitating prosecution of individuals in the United Stated unlawfully. The memo refers to the first set of these as positive factors. These individuals would essentially be given priority in expediting their cases for possible immediate release or deferral of arrest or prosecution. Calling these “positive factors they include: veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces; long-time lawful permanent residents; minors and elderly individuals; individuals present in the United States since childhood; pregnant or nursing women; victims of domestic violence; trafficking, or other serious crimes; individuals who suffer from a serious mental or physical disability; and individuals with serious health conditions. The third topic in this memo outlines conditions of release, deferrals of arrest or prosecution and is purely discretionary of the local officials in compliance with this memo. This set of rules applied include: the agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities; the person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status; the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child; the person’s pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States; whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative ,has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat; the person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants; the person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud; whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships; the person’s ties to the home country and condition~ in the country; the person’s age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly; whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent; whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative; ; whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing; whether the person or the person’s spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness; whether the person’s nationality renders removal unlikely; Whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident; whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crime and. whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others. In conclusion the Tucson Citizen writes “It’s clear that Morton’s memo was a directive from the White House to Janet Napolitano the Secretary of Homeland Security, and was meant as a form of relief for what many see as an unjust prosecution of young adults who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents.”

In conclusion, it is not the mannerisms or the behaviors of border patrol agents that is in question but rather, where does the federal government stand on its policy of border security, residential conditions, and whether or not prosecution is a viable tool for agents to use and arrest, detain and release illegal immigrants who continue to take chances along the borderland to come into this country without papers. Increasingly they risk their own lives in the process as knowingly and purposely violating this country’s immigration laws and putting our border patrol agents at risk because along with those who come here for peaceful and domestic purposes [and still in violation of our laws] we have a dangerous mix of drug smugglers, human smugglers, cartel assassins, cartel bandits and other outlaws that rape and prey on unarmed people crossing the border illegally and subject to apprehension according to our own laws.

Perhaps it is easier to look the other way and let them come in as the administration appears to be using this mixed strategy to filter the effectiveness of border security and order. Regardless, the influx of people crossing is based on two principles that have encouraged this behavior. The first is the appalling human rights violations that are occurring south of the border with no end in sight and the second is the “handcuffing” of border agents in doing their jobs encouraging many to take the chance and cross over. The message is compounded by the fact that there are legal groups that advocate and pursue active litigation against the United States agents to allege violations of human rights because they were caught and arrested by those charged with the responsibility to do so under law but who are themselves being targeted to be punished for doing their jobs.

In the big picture, a view many rarely see or want to see, when you put all those efforts to enforce our immigration laws that are on the books in perspective and find corruptive measures that defeat the purpose of such laws, there clearly no winners and many losers. Indirectly, perhaps the civil rights and human rights of those who live and work here lawfully are the ones victimized here and the government has done nothing to protect them from this woefully inflicted harm that is ruining our country.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-carlos-frey/flagrant-human-rights-vio_b_885618.html


http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-unapologetic-liberal/2011/06/22/department-of-homeland-security-prosecutorial-discretion-memo-affords-undocumented-immigrants-an-escape-valve/