Is the U.S. Giving Mexico Intelligence about Americans?

NRO ^ | 05/10/2006 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[NapkinUser]

There is no more explosive issue on the political landscape than illegal immigration. Not only has it sharply divided the American people, who want it stopped and reversed, from the political classes, which want to legitimize and, perforce, encourage more of it. It may be singularly responsible for President Bush’s alarmingly low approval ratings.

Those, after all, are not being driven by the Left and the media. They’ve never been fans. The numbers are tanking thanks to flight by the Republican base and Reagan Democrats, who are apoplectic over the administration’s stubborn insouciance in the face of unabashed lawlessness that acutely threatens public safety.

It was inevitable that this would come to a head, and now it may have.

Michelle Malkin, who has been a stalwart on immigration, reports that the United States government has been providing Mexico with intelligence about the lawful activities of American citizens, specifically, the locations and tactics of Minuteman patrols.

The Minutemen have been maligned by pro-illegal-alien lobbyists, swaths of the mainstream media, and—infuriatingly—President Bush himself as a “vigilante” group. In fact, they are a vigilance group.

The project is a lawful association of citizens, multi-ethnic and multi-racial in background, who assiduously monitor the way government performs one of its most basic enforcement missions. That is to say, it does pretty much what CAIR and the ACLU do—except its efforts inure to the benefit of American national security rather than death-row inmates, terrorists, privacy extremists and self-styled dissidents … and thus it is frowned on by our high-minded clerisy.

The Minutemen are doing what the government refuses to do: closely watching the southern border and very publicly reporting to the under-resourced Border Patrol the tide of illegals pouring across. This sometimes shames our reluctant government into enforcing the immigration laws.

Obviously, the feds don’t like to be shamed. The reflexively pro-immigration administration thus despises the project—although, where the rubber meets the road, many Border Patrol agents are quietly thrilled that someone actually thinks their mission is important. There have thus been occasional reports, denied by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), that border agents have been ordered not to make arrests in response to Minuteman reports.

Now, however, comes a much more serious charge. As Malkin notes, Sara Carter of California’s Inland Valley Daily Bulletin has reported that DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CPB), which runs the Border Patrol, has been providing the Mexican government with the locations of Minuteman watch groups, as well as other details about Minuteman participation in detentions of illegal aliens.

According to the report, a website maintained by the Mexican secretary of foreign relations explains that U.S. agents, as a matter of routine, notify the Mexican government regarding the locations of civilian border-patrol groups.

As night follows day, this information undermines the effectiveness of the patrols, channeling immigrant smuggling away from them. As Minuteman founder Chris Simcox told Carter, “Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time.” Chagrined, Simcox added, “It’s unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.”

Apparently aware that this is a powder keg, DHS is scrambling to justify itself. Initially, a CPB spokesman confirmed the assertions of the Mexican government website. Now, however, a back-peddling DHS is labeling the Daily Bulletin story “inaccurate.”

As Malkin reports today, DHS categorically asserts that the “Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the Government of Mexico.” Rather, “During a detention of a legal or illegal immigrant that produces an allegation of improper treatment, Border Patrol reports the allegation and allows the appropriate consulate to interview the individual in custody.”

The DHS statement is noteworthy in two respects. First, while attempting to discredit the report about providing Mexico with intelligence, it does not clearly deny transmitting information about Minuteman patrols—something the CPB spokesman previously conceded quite matter-of-factly (saying, “It’s not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be”).

DHS instead says it “reports the allegation” if “improper treatment” is alleged. But we are not told what DHS considers “improper treatment” (e.g., does it consider patrols by the Minutemen—whom the President has labeled as “vigilantes”—to be improper?). Nor are we told how comprehensively DHS “reports” the matter to Mexico (e.g., does it simply notify Mexico that an arrest has been made, or does it convey an expansive summary of the case?).

Second, DHS seems to be saying that it was compelled to disclose whatever information it may have given to Mexico by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which President Nixon ratified in 1969.

This latter claim bears scrutiny. The consular-notification convention, and in particular its Article 36, comes into play whenever an alien—legal or illegal—is arrested in the United States. It absolutely does not require U.S. authorities to provide any investigative information or other intelligence to foreign governments. Indeed, it does not necessarily require our government to give a foreign government any information whatsoever.

On the contrary, it provides that when a foreign national is detained, he has a right to have his nation’s consulate in the United States informed of the fact of the arrest. If he does not want his nation so advised, the U.S. is under no obligation to provide notice.

If the detainee does assert his consular-notification rights, the U.S. must advise the consulate of the fact of the arrest, pass along any communications the detainee addresses to his consulate, and allow representatives of the consulate to visit with the detainee.

That’s it. If the foreign government is determined to educate itself about the case, it must do so by interviewing the arrestee (just like a defense lawyer) or by open source information (just like a reporter or any person curious enough to check the public record). It has no claim on investigative or intelligence information maintained by the United States government. Of course, our government may decide to share more information with the foreign government; but if it does, that is a function of choice, not a requirement of law.

The reasons for all this should be obvious. Americans themselves are not entitled to intelligence and investigative information from their own government, so foreigners clearly have no legal basis to demand it.

More to the point, though, let’s say the U.S. arrests a terrorist from a rogue nation that happens to be a Geneva signatory. Would anyone seriously contend that our government should provide, say, Iran with background intelligence about the case? Of course not. We want to comply with our obligations to notify foreign governments about the arrests—after all, that is our best assurance that foreign governments will reciprocally comply and notify our government when Americans are arrested in their jurisdictions. We do not, however, owe them more than that.

This situation calls for close attention. The American people should be told exactly what DHS’s component agencies have been telling Mexico. If, as DHS maintains, it is merely honoring U.S. treaty obligations, that is laudable and to be encouraged.

If, however, our government is gratuitously providing a suspect regime with information about the First Amendment-protected activities of American citizens, the immigration issue is headed for a whole new dimension of controversy.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe does not believe we have a conservative government. Those who hate this nation certainly understand this is the case and it causes them great angst which is why destroying confidence in Bush is of primary importance to them.

Political realists understand that more conservative officials could not have been elected by THIS electorate. 59 million voted for an admitted traitor and this apparently means nothing to you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Bogus math does not convince anyone except those who value rhetoric over reality. There are NOT such numbers coming in.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What bearing does that have on anything? A detainee will contact the consul. It makes no difference whether it is at 10:00 or 10:15. Besides MM do not arrest or detain anyone.

[taxed2death]

That's your assessment?

Well, he is not up for reelection so you can not "throw him out".

Any more brilliant observations?

[Dane]

Author should have said "ratified under President Nixon," but it is not "misleading" at all:

Actually it is since Mr. McCarthy left the impression that Presidents ratify treaties, which they do not per the US Constitution.

One would think that a "genius" at NRO would not use misleading grammar and know a basic function of the US Constitution.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Any more brilliant observations?"

Next you'll be called a p**pyhead.
Some of these people should start a "Bootlicker Ping List".

[teawithmisswilliams]

I understand that the Hysterics cannot conceive of this being about the limit possible. But they operate entirely on emotion.

Is that another bit of unintended irony? Operating on "emotion" is what the open borders types do when they talk about illegals' "good family values," the importance of "compassion," which trumps the rule of law, and the plight of illegals who "only come to do the jobs Americans won't do."

[KoRn]

"He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents' activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations."

This is starting to look pretty bad. I wonder if this Scott James guy has an axe to grind, or is all of this true? If true, this should investigated thoroughly.

[brytlea]

Well, I'm not planning to vote for anyone who supports amnesty. And btw, I don't live my life guided by what the polls say. I make up my own mind.
susie

[Ajnin]

Interestingly enough I work for the Border Patrol and I haven't heard of any orders or policy requiring the reporting of the MM to the Mex consul.

[M. Thatcher]

Only the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe does not believe we have a conservative government.

A ridiculously uninformed statement.

We have a center-right Republican President. The House of Representatives is majority conservative, but the control is slim and increasingly tenuous going into the November election. The Senate is majority Republican in name only, since the Democrats wield more power than their numbers indicate. We have intrenched government bureaucracies - responsible for actually implementing policy - which are overwhelmingly liberal. Entire Executive Branch agencies (State) are majority far left.

Our government is, in general, and for all practical purposes, decidedly not conservative.

I am a passionate Bush fan, and am enthusiastic about his leadership in many areas: national security, judges, tax policy, and so on. But I am not so naive to conclude that Bush's strengths make this a "conservative" government.

Is he far better than the alternative? Undeniably. But categorizing criticism as "lunatic" serves no one.

[M. Thatcher]

Actually it is since Mr. McCarthy left the impression that Presidents ratify treaties, which they do not per the US Constitution. One would think that a "genius" at NRO would not use misleading grammar and know a basic function of the US Constitution.

Please explain how this detail affects the analysis.

[Dane]

Please explain how this detail affects the analysis.

By stating a falsehood that Presidents ratify treaties(which he self-procalimed uber conservative should have known), Mr. McCarthy has shown that he is not immune from hyperbole and living within his own bubble and perpetuating a false story(i.e this made up brouhaha which seems started with the rights own version of mary mapes(sara clark)).

[untrained skeptic]

Bush's rating are where they are because of the Treason Media's incessant LIES about his policies. If the "conservatives" have gone mad over tangential matters then conservatives do not deserve to remain in power.

The much if not most of the media has proven itself to be very biased, and I agree that some of their actions have risen to the level of treason.

I even believe that Bush has done a considerable amount of his duties very well.

However, the level of illegal immigration problems we have is not a tangential matter.

The out of control spending and nearly unprecedented levels of pork is not a tangential matter.

The President's inability to force the CIA to clear out if not criminally prosecute those who keep leaking information to undermine our national security interests, and bring the CIA up to a reasonable level of effectiveness at the job it's supposed to be doing is not a tangential issue.

If the media were neutral, he might a bit higher approval ratings, but the main reason his ratings are so low is that he's managed to piss off just about everyone with how he's handled issues they consider to be of critical importance.

To some extent it's always going to seem like you have to accept some of the bad with the good and try and elect candidate among the choices you have.

We were fortunate to have a President who had a backbone to stand up to the liberals, the media, and the UN and take an aggressive stand against terrorism and the corruption in the UN that helps shield them.

He didn't do the job perfectly, but I believe he did it well, especially with the incompetence and opposition he had to deal with from the CIA.

However, his fiscal irresponsibility and his refusal to enforce our immigration laws or take steps to secure the border have gotten so out of control that we really can't afford his particular failings much longer.

[M. Thatcher]

By stating a falsehood that Presidents ratify treaties(which he self-procalimed uber conservative should have known), Mr. McCarthy has shown that he is not immune from hyperbole and living within his own bubble and perpetuating a false story(i.e this made up brouhaha which seems started with the rights own version of mary mapes(sara clark)).

Well, you have successfully immunized yourself from having to actually engage the material.

You typed "he" instead of "the"; you left out the hyphen between "uber" and "conservative" and between "made" and "up"; you left out the apostrophe in "right's"; you neglected three necessary space insertions; therefore I have dispensed with your argument and have no need to respond to what you actually wrote.

< / Dane mode >

[c-b 1]

Last night, when the Bush-bots began gloating over this story's "demise"; I had a feeling that they might be the ones eating crow in the end.

I have no personal knowledge of anything in this story, however I've spent enough time on the border, to have learned that what is reported in this story is possible. Do not take this to mean I am bashing the wonderful men, and women out there on the ground, that I will never do.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Classic! A Keeper! :-) LOL

[AmericanInTokyo]

It's ALL OVER the Mexican news media tonight. This emboldens illegal aliens (those that can read) to try to make it across 'the line'.If this does not contribute to an even higher flow of illegals over the next few weeks and months, I don't what will.

This is from "El Mexicano" daily newspaper from Ciudad Juarez earlier tonight:

EU revela a México las acciones de Minuteman El Universal ( 2006-05-10 06:37:03 ) LOS ÁNGELES .- La Patrulla Fronteriza estadounidense trabaja de forma coordinada con el gobierno de México para alertarle de los planes y acciones emprendidas por grupos de milicias de vigilantes como los minutemen contra inmigrantes que intentan cruzar la frontera. El portavoz del Servicio de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés), Mario Martínez, dijo al diario Inland Valley Daily Bulletin de Ontario, que el objetivo es garantizarle al gobierno mexicano que se respetan los derechos de los inmigrantes que sean interceptados por grupos de milicianos. "Con esto queremos afirmar dos cosas fundamentales: que no toleraremos la anarquía de ningún tipo, y que si un extranjero es enfrentado o detenido por un minutemen, permitiremos que su gobierno entreviste a esa persona", aseguró el funcionario. La colaboración de la Patrulla Fronteriza con las autoridades mexicanas tiene como antecedente las negociaciones entre la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores y el Departamento de Estado en marzo de 2005, para salvaguardar la integridad de los inmigrantes que caigan en manos de Minuteman o el grupo Amigos de la Patrulla Fronteriza. En aquel entonces, funcionarios del Departamento de Seguridad Interna ofrecieron garantías de que esa corporación no apoyaría, en forma alguna, las actividades de vigilancia realizadas por particulares y no condonaría violaciones a la ley. Desde la embajada de México en Washington, se aclaró, sin embargo, que ninguno de los acuerdos entre el gobierno de México y EU "permiten concluir que la Patrulla Fronteriza notifica al gobierno de México sobre la ubicación de grupos civiles que patrullan la frontera". En todo caso, la supuesta colaboración ha encolerizado a los líderes y simpatizantes de Minuteman que consideran "ilegítimo e inconcebible" que la Patrulla Fronteriza trabaje de forma coordinada con México. Según el fundador del grupo, James Gilchrist, una caravana de 200 vehículos llegará a Washington el viernes 12 de mayo para exigir al Senado una reforma migratoria más restrictiva y punitiva."

I know I know. Long but worth the read and translation.

The upshot is that the El Universal newspaper quotes the US sources that this is indeed an arrangement between the Governments of the United States and Mexico.

It further traces this bilateral arrangement/agreement directly to the Condoleeza Rice visit to Mexico in March 2005 at Tenochtitlan, whereby State Department underlings and their counterparts in the Mexican Foreign Ministry had worked out the mutual agreement for the USA to feed them intelligence on the movements of the Minutemen and such other groups on the border to "protect the rights of 'migrants'"

WTF???

This is reprehensible.

If true, God bless him, but, the President of the United States or at least his Secretary of State owe we, the citizens of America, a full explanation.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Wow. It took 29 posts for a bot to hit this thread. Y'all are off your game this evening.

[Texasforever]

If true, God bless him, but, the President of the United States or at least his Secretary of State owe we, the citizens of America, a full explanation.

Damn you are channeling Dick Durbin.