Posted on 05/10/2006 10:22:29 AM PDT by 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.
Well, it appears Dane has showed up with the intention of either derailing the discussion or getting the thread moved into the Backroom. I would suggest that we just continue to insist that Dane actually address the allegations in the article and not rise to his attempts to start a flame war. I know it will be difficult, given that Dane appears hell-bent to outdo his usual inanity, but let's not fall for his usual stunts.
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.
Nothing hamstrings independent, rational thought faster than investing in a political personality over political ideals.
Actually that treaty was ratified by the duly elected US Senate in 1969 and not President Nixon.
Strike out there, already misleading.
And it is the perview of the Executive branch to enforce such treaties per the US Constitution.
If you have a problem with the way that treaty is being follwed through, it is up to SCOTUS, not misleading hyperbole from a journalist.
No one is stopping you from petitoning a court on a treaty, knock yourself out.
Just being a good "true conservative" who actually reads the US Constitution and not hyperbolic journalism.
Nice try, Dane - but now try discussing the actual application of the treaty as the BP is claiming.
But, then again, you're really not here to discuss that, are you?
Uh dirty I actually know that Presidents don't ratify treaties.
Your problem is with the author of this article, Andrew McCarthy, maybe give him a lesson on which political body actually ratifies treaties per the US Constitution.
"1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:
(a) Consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) If he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving state shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending state if, within its consular district, a national of that state is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph.
(c) Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended."
So I posted the actual text of Article 36. Unless you wish to claim that either we never ratified the Convention in question, perhaps you could get over the mistake the author made that is irrelevant to the larger discussion, and tell me what in article 36 compels the government to give any more information to Mexican authorities than the fact that a national is in custody and wishes to notify his consulate.
Actually I am not a spelling nazi, but do know that Presidents don't ratify treaties(the US Senate does).
Like I said before take up the ignorance of who actually ratifies treaties per the US Constituion with your hero and writer of the article and "true American and conservative", Andrew McCarthy.
Have you seen Michelle Malkin's video that came out today? In the background there is a marquee warning Mexicans, in Mexico, of the location of the Minutemen.
If we knew a group was going to protest on our northern border and expected there would be a counter protest in the Canadian side and that there might be a potential for some conflict, I would expect that we would notify the Canadian government so they could have law enforcement prepared to deal with anything that might happen on their side of the border while we dealt with our side.
It's part of cooperating on border security and being good neighbors.
We do have treaties with Mexico about cooperating on border security. Mexico obviously doesn't live up to their obligations under them, and their government makes clear statements that make it obvious that they have no intention to live up to their obligations, and they are in many cases working in opposition to their obligations.
Mexico is not cooperating with us on securing the border, except for some cooperation on smuggling.
We need to stop treating the Mexican government as a ally on this issue, and start treating them as the enemy that they are in regards to illegal immigration.
Dane, once again, I posted the actual section of the Convention that applies here. Please examine it and tell me where in those guidelines that the federal government is in any way compelled to report that border groups were involved in the apprehension of an illegal alien.
So we should believe the Queen of the Hysterics regurgitation of a fifth rate rag's version of what has been said and done? This overly long attempt to support the initial LIE is a failure.
The LIE is growing larger and now the claim is that the BP is telling the Mexican Army. What next direct lines to Smuggler Central to tell it first?
It is hard to say whether this is funnier or just more stupid than the original lie which was obviously a LIE as soon as it was released by that crackerjack news organization. Its biggest story prior to that was Clem having Ellie Mae over for lunch last month.
Remarkable how the Zealots will believe anything NO MATTER THE SOURCE but can never believe an actual authority.
This wasn't written by Malkin. It was written by Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO. And he raised this issue regarding Article 36 of the Vienna Convention:
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.
And I posted the text of Article 36 in reply #42. Perhaps you would be kind enough to examine Article 36 and tell me where the government is compelled to tell Mexican authorities anything more than the fact that they have a national in custody.
Nothing funny about it. Most rational people are concerned about much more important issues and cannot spend all their time tracking down the LIES spread by the Zealots determined to bring down the president.
As soon as the story from this two-bit rag surfaced it was obvious that it was a lie. So who should care what it said. Naturally it was understood that the Zealots would buy it hook line and sinker and sure enough...
Unless, of course, the government version is problematic as well and is not substantiated by the actual text of the convention cited. Since I have posted the actual text, perhaps you can show me where the government was required or compelled to report to Mexican authorities of any involvement by border groups in the apprehension of an illegal.
Dane, should this nation have control of it's borders to the point that non-citizens cannot illegally enter the country? If so, who should do it and what means should they use to do it?
Thanks for making my point for me. There was no compulsion under the Vienna Conventions to provide to Mexican officials any information about how the illegal was detained. Therefore, if the BP did provide that information, it was not due to treaty obligations as they inferred.
McCarthy was just working from the Queen of Hysterics script clearly without realizing that there was nothing behind it except a two bit newsletter. It is his embarassment.
No one has claimed that treaty implementation always provides only the minimum required. Cooperation between friendly nations extends beyond the minimum required though in this case there has not been much more extended.
Of course, those of you who prefer to get their information from sources with no authority and little credibility could care less about any fact which does not fit in with the Obsession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.