Posted on 05/10/2006 12:53:49 PM PDT by the anti-liberal
***update from Daily Bulletin: " Scott James, a former Tucson agent, resigned after eight years of service in February, citing a lack of support for agents by the Department of Homeland Security. 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. Such courtesies were not extended to consulate offices of other countries, James said."***
My latest column takes on color-coded cronyism at DHS.
New Vent asks where all the privocrats are to protest the Border Patrol/Mexican government monitoring of the Minutemen. Yoo-hoo:
John Derbyshire says he's seen the last straw.
Andrew McCarthy takes a closer look and adds his usual, invaluable insight:
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.
And Allah Pundit pays Photoshop tribute to the person in charge of our immigration policies:
***
Glenn Reynolds observes: "I think we're seeing a general meltdown in support for the entire governing class as the result of a perception (which is largely true) that it lacks the seriousness and self-restraint necessary to run a major nation."
Mark Tapscott looks at why conservatives are abandoning ship.
Kaus illuminates the obvious.
John Hinderaker has some free advice:
Give a major speech in prime time. Say that you still think that a long-term solution to the immigration issue should include a guest worker program. Acknowledge, however, that many Americans disagree and there is currently no consensus on a long-range policy. Say that, more fundamentally, you're now convinced that our first priority has to be getting control over our borders. Until we control our borders, and know who is coming and going, any immigration policy we may announce will be meaningless anyway.
So, discussion about long-term approaches to immigration will continue. But in the meantime, your priority will be securing the borders and enforcing the laws currently on the books. Which means that the crackdown on employers of illegals will be expanded. Announce some specific measures to begin securing the Mexican border, preferably including some kind of fence.
This simple act will cause your approval ratings to begin rebounding, re-energize Republicans, and assure that the party keeps its Congressional majorities in November. If you really want to get the conservative base back in your corner, go and meet with the Minutemen--on camera--and tell them you appreciate what they're doing.
Good advice. But I think we'll see pigs fly first.
"If you want to continue to believe in mistranslated documents, shoddy reports, misrepresentations, and hysterical Michele Malkin, go ahead. It's your liver."
--- Instead you want me to believe that the legal representatives of a country whose stated goal is to move its citizens illegally into the US, who prints maps and guides directing illegals how to sneak into my country, and denies that there is any problem ... somehow also is working with our legal system to catch and deport those same illegals?
"There have been over 6 million illegal aliens expelled from the U.S. since Bush took office"
--- Your own linked site on the prior post only lists 4.1mm.
If 'over 6 million' have been expelled, then how can there still be only 12 million?
How many of these "catch & throw back / pretty please show up for your hearing" illegals actually show up?
No, I don't want you to believe the Mexican government official.
You're the one who keeps believing on a Mexican government website report as described in the Daily Bulletin.
As guess you pick and choose which Mexican representative to believe, and then you don't see the inconsistency.
I believe that Customs and Border Patrol officer who spoke live on Foxnews and deny the baseless allegations reported in the Daily Bulletin. He even asked for a retraction from the newspaper.
"You're the one who keeps believing on a Mexican government website report as described in the Daily Bulletin. As guess you pick and choose which Mexican representative to believe, and then you don't see the inconsistency."
--- No, I tend to believe the MANY Mexican officials interviewed in MANY venues. From Vincente Fox, through the consular officiers in several of the United States to officials in Mexico city.
Huh?
You accused me of asking you to believe in Mexican officials. I responded that I don't want you to believe in Mexican officials.
Now you respond saying that you do believe the Mexican officials.
I hope you never took a critical thinking course. If you did, you wasted your money and your time.
"Now you respond saying that you do believe the Mexican officials. I hope you never took a critical thinking course. If you did, you wasted your money and your time."
--- Wow, it only took you three responses to run out of ideas and revert to insults and incorrect statement of my position.
Your challenge was that we should believe one story about a Mexican official working to deport its countries illegal emigrants.
I countered that I would not believe one official when he was in direct contradiction to his own president and to officials at all levels of the Mexican govt whose official policy is to increase illegals in the US. Unstated was the evident acceptance of this policy by Dubya & the INS.
Unless of course, you are claiming that every word spoken by Mexican (& US) officials related to the illegals is "mistranslated", "shoddy reports" or "misrepresented" ... except for the one Mexican official who is working for deportation
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.