• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US northern border checks scaled back

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
**** like this why only idiots think only the federal government should handle illegal immigration.


News From AP | TBO.com

SEATTLE (AP) -- The U.S. Border Patrol has quietly stopped its controversial practice of routinely searching buses, trains and airports for illegal immigrants at transportation hubs along the northern border and in the nation's interior, preventing agents from using what had long been an effective tool for tracking down people here illegally, The Associated Press has learned.
Current and former Border Patrol agents said field offices around the country began receiving the order last month - soon after the Obama administration announced that to ease an overburdened immigration system, it would allow many illegal immigrants to remain in the country while it focuses on deporting those who have committed crimes.
The routine bus, train and airport checks typically involved agents milling about and questioning people who appeared suspicious, and had long been criticized by immigrant rights groups. Critics said the tactic amounted to racial profiling and violated travelers' civil liberties.
But agents said it was an effective way to catch unlawful immigrants, including smugglers and possible terrorists, who had evaded detection at the border, as well as people who had overstayed their visas. Often, those who evade initial detection head quickly for the nearest public transportation in hopes of reaching other parts of the country.
Halting the practice has baffled the agents, especially in some stations along the northern border - from Bellingham, Wash., to Houlton, Maine - where the so-called "transportation checks" have been the bulk of their everyday duties. The Border Patrol is authorized to check vehicles within 100 miles of the border.
The order has not been made public, but two agents described it to the AP on condition of because the government does not authorize them to speak to the media. The union that represents Border Patrol agents planned to issue a news release about the change Monday.
"Orders have been sent out from Border Patrol headquarters in Washington, D.C., to Border Patrol sectors nationwide that checks of transportation hubs and systems located away from the southwest border of the United States will only be conducted if there is intelligence indicating a threat," the release says.
Those who have received the orders said agents may still go to train and bus stations and airports if they have specific "actionable intelligence" that there is an illegal immigrant there who recently entered the country. An agent in Washington state said it's not clear how agents are supposed to glean such intelligence, and even if they did, under the new directive they still require clearance from Washington, D.C., headquarters before they can respond.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman, Bill Brooks, repeatedly insisted that any shift in enforcement tactics does not amount to a change in policy as local commanders still have authority to aggressively pursue illegal immigrants near the border and at transportation hubs.
"It's up to the local commander to position his agents the way he wants to position them. What we've done is gone to a risk-based posture," he said.
In a separate statement, the agency said, "Conducting intelligence-based transportation checks allows the Border Patrol to use their technology and personnel resources more effectively, especially in areas with limited resources."
Shawn Moran, vice president of the union that represents agents, was outraged at the changes.
"Stated plainly, Border Patrol managers are increasing the layers of bureaucracy and making it as difficult as possible for Border Patrol agents to conduct their core duties," the National Border Patrol Council's statement said. "The only risks being managed by this move are too many apprehensions, negative media attention and complaints generated by immigrant rights groups."
 
Of course the order was not made public. Janet N. and Obama spout improvements in border security and then do something like this. So much for transparent govt. As some say you can do anything you want with statistics. I can't wait till this Administration is done and gone.
 
Don't spread this around. The bad guys to not read the papers or catch up on the latest weak points in our security system.

When doing some international traveling, especially from South America, I as amazed at how easy it would be to turn another aircraft into a bomb directed to the US. If I were interested in doing damage, I would board a plane in Panama or some such country and hijack it on its way to the US. Security is lax in these airports. It's obvious that once a plane leaves the airport, it is somebody else's problem. In Panama, no bag inspection, no computer bag inspection. Instead of not being allowed to bring 4 ounces of toothpaste, I carried a gallon of Scotch as carry on baggage.

I don't see how I can pick up on this and terrorists somehow cannot.
 
My comment is more generic in nature, but can apply here as well.

I would be more sympathetic if the whole "justice" system as a whole didn't routinely abuse things like civil asset forfeiture. I'm sorry (not really, just being polite), but when they use words like "effective" I have no doubt they include civil asset forfeiture in there, and I cannot condone that.
 
My comment is more generic in nature, but can apply here as well.

I would be more sympathetic if the whole "justice" system as a whole didn't routinely abuse things like civil asset forfeiture. I'm sorry (not really, just being polite), but when they use words like "effective" I have no doubt they include civil asset forfeiture in there, and I cannot condone that.

Civil forfeiture has nothing to do with illegal immigration. I believe you already made two threads on that subject of civil forfeiture that I know of. I did not go into either one of those threads and started talking about abortion, gay marriage or any other unrelated issues.So please do not try to derail threads with unrelated subjects.
 
Last edited:
Is the northern border really that problematic?

If its just as porous as our southern border then yes it is a problem. If the majority of the 12-20 millions illegals came through our borders then logic would dictate it would be just as easy for any terrorist and other scum to do the same.
 
Is the northern border really that problematic?

And that is the key question. I would like to see data to show that it is a problem.
 
Civil forfeiture has nothing to do with illegal immigration. I believe you already made two threads on that subject of civil forfeiture that I know of. I did not go into either one of those threads and started talking about abortion, gay marriage or any other unrelated issues.So please do not try to derail threads with unrelated subjects.
They are related as civil asset forfeiture is one of the many and varied "tools" used at border crossings as well as anywhere else in the nation. As such, my point about being suspicious of the Border Patrol's underlying motivation in being upset with the Obama administration decision still stands.
 
Is the northern border really that problematic?

According to our current Homeland Security director it is. She did state that it was more important than the southern border and most terrorist traffic came through the northern border.
 
According to our current Homeland Security director it is. She did state that it was more important than the southern border and most terrorist traffic came through the northern border.

Again, I would like to see some verifiable data on this.
 
They are related as civil asset forfeiture is one of the many and varied "tools" used at border crossings as well as anywhere else in the nation. As such, my point about being suspicious of the Border Patrol's underlying motivation in being upset with the Obama administration decision still stands.

Do you have any unbiased sources to back this claim that border patrol use civil asset forfeitures?
 
If its just as porous as our southern border then yes it is a problem. If the majority of the 12-20 millions illegals came through our borders then logic would dictate it would be just as easy for any terrorist and other scum to do the same.

How many illegals come through the northern border? The vast majority come from the South, and about half of all illegals come in legally and overstay their visa. As for terrorists, the hijackers all came to the United States legally.
 
I have no problem with our northern border being unsecured-- as far as I'm concerned, that border shouldn't exist.
 
Again, I would like to see some verifiable data on this.[/QUOTE

Here are three referencing the speech. I don't find the actual speech, but I have seen it before. I will pursue the original speech later. If I remember correctly, the incident occurred sometime in 2009. The gist of her statement was that the 911 terrorists came in through the northern borders.

The first video is a recent, not totally connected, but concerning her position on the northern border

Napolitano Wants Fence On the Border...Of Canada! - Janet Napolitano - Fox Nation

The Border For Dummies - YouTube

HSS Janet Napolitano: Blame Canada - YouTube
 
Again, I would like to see some verifiable data on this.[/QUOTE

Here are three referencing the speech. I don't find the actual speech, but I have seen it before. I will pursue the original speech later. If I remember correctly, the incident occurred sometime in 2009. The gist of her statement was that the 911 terrorists came in through the northern borders.

The first video is a recent, not totally connected, but concerning her position on the northern border

Napolitano Wants Fence On the Border...Of Canada! - Janet Napolitano - Fox Nation

The Border For Dummies - YouTube

HSS Janet Napolitano: Blame Canada - YouTube
and she was wrong. The 9/11 group entered the US via US airports. Only the 2000 La airport bomber attempt tried to enter the US via Canada
 
Provide me an unbiased list of biased and unbiased sources from which to choose. :roll:
Do you at least have any slightly unbiased news sites to back up your claim?
 
I have no problem with our northern border being unsecured-- as far as I'm concerned, that border shouldn't exist.

So are one that supports a "one world govt."?
Why do you feel borders shouldn't exist?
 
Do you at least have any slightly unbiased news sites to back up your claim?
I was mocking your "unbiased" qualification. You were setting me up for failure, as I could have provided the best source possible and you still would have dismissed it as biased. I have no desire or intention to get caught up in that kind of disingenuous crap no-win situation. Sorry to ruin your fun.
 
I was mocking your "unbiased" qualification. You were setting me up for failure, as I could have provided the best source possible and you still would have dismissed it as biased. I have no desire or intention to get caught up in that kind of disingenuous crap no-win situation. Sorry to ruin your fun.
So you have nothing even semi-credible to back your claim up?
 
So are one that supports a "one world govt."?
Why do you feel borders shouldn't exist?

I never said anything about all borders. I'm talking about that border. That border shouldn't exist because one nation should never be forced to live under two governments.
 
and she was wrong. The 9/11 group entered the US via US airports. Only the 2000 La airport bomber attempt tried to enter the US via Canada

She was wrong. The third link is Janet doing the back flip. Whoever asked how she got and keeps her job wins the best question of the year award.
 
Does anyone have the feeling that all this anti-terrorism fence building at the US-Canada border is a little like the Soviet Union's anti-capitalism fence building was at its borders? First they tell you that it is in your protection, then they turn it inside out and trap you into it. Since the US-Canada fence cuts through town parks and private gardens, it certainly stops people, but only the average people, not the terrorists with well crafted evasion plans. I think it resembles the Berlin Wall now and this time we are the DDR folks. Which country will be the America that frees us? (Maybe China, what's your take?)
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have the feeling that all this anti-terrorism fence building at the US-Canada border is a little like the Soviet Union's anti-capitalism fence building was at its borders? First they tell you that it is in your protection, then they turn it inside out and trap you into it. Since the US-Canada fence cuts through town parks and private gardens, it certainly stops people, but only the average people, not the terrorists with well crafted evasion plans. I think it resembles the Berlin Wall now and this time we are the DDR folks. Which country will be the America that frees us? (Maybe China, what's your take?)
If only I had a dollar for every time some pro-illegal tried to make some idiotic retarded comparison of a border fence to the Berlin wall I would be rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom