Politics: August 2005 Archives

Former Border Patrol agent accused of smuggling denied bail.



The judge even seems rational: "You are an illegal alien," Battaglia told the defendant. "You have no right to work here. You have no right to live here."



Money Quote:

People who know the defendant were "shocked" when they found out about his arrest, and his performance at the Border Patrol was deemed excellent, White told the judge.

What exactly was he evaluated on, and what metrics did they use in those evaluations? See about the seventh paragraph in this article for an idea.





Other stuff on same topic:

The Border Patrol Hired an Illegal Alien and Gave Him a Gun



Horseback Rider compares him to the guy who got caught providing illegal aliens with driver's licenses.



Americans for Legal Immigration has a post



A GAO report that suggests some Border Patrol Sectors work better than others. Ya think?



The Washington Times is covering it



Activists charged because had "entrants" in car. This is pravda. Does anybody have any doubt as to what they were really doing?



Right Side of the Rainbow picked up the story as well.



Counterterrorism blog picked up on it also



Amazing how these birth certificate sites keep popping up very high in my searches for "Illegal Border Patrol Agent Smuggling", isn't it?





border patrol illegal immigration immigration

Well he is a Navy Veteran, I'll give him that.



But the allegations are:



Not US Citizen (Veterans get citizenship at 8 years, I believe. I think it should be shorter, but this isn't the issue)



Perjury (lied about being a citizen)



Smuggling of Illegal aliens and conspiracy to smuggle same



Having business with a gang being investigated for drugs



submitting false documents



Not to mention little details like dereliction of duty, the fact that he's a citizen of another country that he can walk to, that nobody has been able to find documentation that he entered the country legally, and that there are likely to be bad folks who want him to disappear given what he can probably testify to.



I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I have no idea what the requirements for denying bail are. But it seems to me this is a one time it should be considered.



Question: When do you know it's really bad?



Answer: When even the Moonbats on Democratic Underground sound comparatively rational (so far...)





P.S. Here's the site that came up # 9 on my search for Illegal Border Patrol Agent Smuggling. Does anyone wonder why? This site was #11 on the same search.



P.P.S. Here's a resource I just stumbled on : American Patrol Report here's another



Traffic Whore Update: Jawa Report is inviting do it yourself fatwas. Don't mind if I do.

Border Patrol smuggling immigration

From the local NBC affiliate



North County Times:Border Patrol agent charged with smuggling, faking citizenship



San Luis Obispo Tribune: same thing with minor differences Border Patrol agent charged with smuggling, faking citizenship



Yahoo News:Border Patrol Agent Accused Of Smuggling Immigrants (appears to be a marginal rewrite of the AP wire story)



AP Wire from Contra Costa times with a few more details: Border Patrol agent charged with smuggling, faking citizenship



Some background here.



In my opinion, every Border Patrol agent needs to know the following spanish:



"Alto!" (Halt)

"Pone sus manos en la cabeza!" (Put Your Hands On Your Head!)

"Va alli" (Go there!)

"Sea reservado" (be quiet)



Everything else can wait until they get back to HQ for processing. The part about "You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent..."? This should be in english. Repeat in spanish later, from the translator at HQ. If they can't communicate with the agent anyway, what's he going to do? Torture him into confession using sign language?



SF Chronicle



The story even got to India!



All of these folks need to be told they are under heavy scrutiny (from NPR). Not that I care about cannabis, but Aliens aren't the only thing the Border Patrol is smuggling



Some seriously scary stuff (almost up to my initial snark on the subject, linked below)



I know he's a federal bureaucrat playing Advance Your Career, but how stupid does this guy thing we are? I don't work for the government anymore. I don't have to act like I believe things this stupid.





border patrol smuggling immigration

No bail for ex-border agent in conspiracy



Looks like they're throwing all the books at him, in a "How dare you embarrass us like this?" sort of way.



Got to go to work. More later.



immigration Border Patrol illegal immigration smuggling terrorism security

I want to know how this guy got hired.



There is no way they should be working the border until the FBI background check is completed. Some Department of Homeland Security.



Why was he even hired before the background check was complete? I know it's standard practice but that doesn't make it intelligent, only convenient.



I can only wait until the this conversation is reported:



"Okay, John"



"Please sir, call me Mohammed"



"Interesting nickname you've got Mohammed, but whatever you say. Wouldn't want you to feel unwelcome. Anyway, now that you're working for the department of Homeland Security, you'll want to know what your days off are. I see here it says you're Jewish, so you're going to want Saturday off whenever we can give it to you?"



"Actually, sir, I prefer Fridays."



"Okay, sure if you need that day. Now this is your partner Patrick McDougal. He likes us to call him Abdul for some reason."



"Actually, sir, we already met. We took flight training together."



"Wow, that's great. No wonder they hired you two guys. If anything happens to the flight crew, you can take over and fly the airplane, right?"



"Yes, sir! That's actually kind of a dream of mine."



"Well, you're going to have to understand why I kind of hope it doesn't happen. Now get down to the armory and draw your weapons. We've got something special for you on your first day, a Delta 777 non-stop to Washington National. Make sure you visit the Capitol while you're there. Because you work for us, you can get right in, no problem."



"Thank you, sir. We'll make a point of it."



"And don't worry about that FBI check. I'm sure it'll come back fine!"



"We're not concerned with that, sir. Far as we're concerned, we're in paradise already."









I mean, I know neither party's heart is in it, but can't they at least pretend to care?



UPDATE: Welcome to readers of Lt. Smash and Indepundit readers (and a large thank you to Citizen Smash himself). Also added one more snark above.



terrorism illegal immigration politics border patrol

There's really not a lot of new stuff except for tail chasing, but I found a couple of things.



dKosopedia's entry on John Roberts is surprisingly factual and readable.



I knew it was too good to be true department: Michelle Malkin uncovers a rather large fly in the John Roberts ointment: He appears to be in favor of preferences rather than color-blindness. Mind you, he was the lawyer involved in the the case, and so had to represent his clients best interests publicly from start to finish, and his quote does start with the words, "It could have been worse."



President Bush, who will apparently do almost anything in the quest to move another state into the Elephant column, has come out in favor of self-government for indigenous Hawaiians. Just what we need: another Bureau of Indian Affairs and another set of tribal governments.



Let me make one thing perfectly clear: colorblindness in the law is a good thing, indeed, a necessary thing if we are to continue living together indefinitely as the United States of America. Tribal Spoils systems are a large part of why Yugoslavia split apart, why sub-saharan Africa is so so screwed up, and why we are having so many problems in Iraq. This may be a long-term concern but we have had people trying to force us to live in the hispanic States of America or the Black States of Afro-America pretty much from the instant the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act became law forty years ago. The idea was to demolish racism, not set it up with new beneficiaries. The idea was to abolish discrimination not set it up in favor of those previously discriminated against because "Hey, they're an organized interest group now!" When I hear people claiming to be philosophical children of Martin Luther King supporting segregated college dormitories, I cannot help but marvel at the disconnect from I have a Dream.



We're a lot closer in the United States, and have more in the way of common experiences than the tribes of Africa prior to Independence (What names have I heard in the news over the last forty years?), or the ethnicities of Iraq (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Chaldean - where have I heard those names in the news since 1991?), or even the six republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro - where have I heard those names in the news since 1991?) and two autonomous areas (Vojvodina and Kosovo - where have I heard those names in the news since 1991?) of Yugoslavia. It will take us longer to fly apart than it took them. But fly apart we will, and until it is imminent nobody except "crackpots" like me will believe it can happen.



So I happen to think real colorblindness in the law is important. I heavily oppose anything that smacks of a Racial Spoils System or so-called Reverse Discrimination. When people feel that their skin color or gender prevents them from getting ahead, they opt out of the system that produces such feelings. This is about as surprising as the law of gravity, but we cannot stop them and we cannot afford for them to go. Our federal government has personnel practices in place such that if you are a member of group A, and you think you've been unfairly treated in your yearly evaluation, the burden of proof is on the supervisor, even if that supervisor is the same ethnicity and gender as yourself, to prove that the evaluation was correct, and the supervisor will not be praised if the supervisor wins the case, indeed, giving good evaluations to members of group A is part of what they are rated on. If you are of group A, the hiring authority must document why somebody not of your group was clearly better qualified, and hiring persons of group A is part of what they are evaluated on even if they are members of group A themselves. If you are of group A, you are to receive first priority for all career enhancing training, and getting you that training is part of what your supervisors are evaluated on. Group B has no such advantages. The burden of proof is on them to prove their evaluation was flawed. They can be passed over without documentation, and if they never get career enhancing training, hey, that's money saved for the taxpayers! It's great if you're a member of group A, but if you're a member of group B, you want out. And if anyone needs me to sketch out the historical flips in polarity of this, you haven't been paying attention.



So I am not happy about the prospect of John Roberts favoring "Hawaiian only," and I'll be less happy about it if it bleeds over to other racial (and gender) issues. I do hope it was the consummate lawyer speaking his professional case, not his personal convictions, which is one reason why I have decided that I still support him. This will change if I lean of personal convictions favoring affirmative action. This is a lot more important to the long term health of our country than Roe vs. Wade or Kelo vs. New London. We can survive either of them indefinintely. People will be upset, not the least of whom is myself. What violence they have caused or may cause is individual, small scale. But when you play with a racial spoils system, or anything that advantages one group at the expense of another (and you cannot give advantage to one without giving disadvantage to another), you are playing with dynamite that could cost millions of lives, tear the country apart into fragments, and depending upon who becomes the greatest power in the world after us (most likely China), undo all of the progress towards democracy and human rights that we have made these last two centuries. We have to very pointedly stop this and turn our backs on it for all time.



We are a nation of individuals, some worthy, some less so. Those who climb to the top of the ladder deserve to know that they didn't get there based upon what group they were a member of. And those who go nowhere should not be allowed the illusion that it was because they were born a member of some group, and the only way to ensure this is to actually give all people an equal opportunity, no matter what group they are a member of. Failing to do so is not an option. That way lies more civil wars, and more destruction, than anybody except dedicated historians can really tell you. It can happen here - it'll just take a little longer. The true test of our society is not whether we've got (or had) a woman president, a non-white president, or a congress or supreme court that happens to always be represented exactly in the proportions they exist in the population. We will have arrived where we want to be when nobody gives a damn, when it is unacceptable for anyone to support or oppose anyone because of what group they were born in, and when the question that's important is "What kind of a job will X do?"



Supreme Court John Roberts Affirmative Action politics

Reactions to Bolton's recess appointment

"At a time when we need to reassert our diplomatic power in the world, President Bush has decided to send a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations. It's an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House. ... Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head." _ Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Gee, Mr. Reid, why didn't you vote against him, then? Oh, that's right, your party is doing everything it can to keep him from getting a vote on the floor of the senate, and you're orchestrating the obstruction. Something having to do with the majority of the senate disagreeing with you? Just keep it from coming to a vote and you can pretend your serving the interests of the country instead of playing politics.



But Teddy Kennedy takes the Moonbat cake today:

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N." _ Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass

What Teddy, couldn't bother to emerge from stupor long enough to figure out that the President nominated him five months ago? That evidently your staff has been keeping him filibustered without your knowledge? Thus sayeth the Senate's resident expert on devious manouvers and darkening clouds on credibility. (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment).

Of course, the electorally unendangered Lesser California Moonbat has to chime in:

"John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin, and I believe his inability to be an effective and constructive ambassador could produce dire consequences for American foreign policy." _Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

As opposed to our great foreign policy successes during the accomodationist years like Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia...



After all the failures of the accomodationists to make the UN into a better organization, it's time to give someone with a different philosophy a chance. It's not like they can do much worse.



UPDATE: Decision '08 has evidence on lesser-known left wing heads exploding!



politics John Bolton UN United Nations