Thread: Could a state border patrol work?

http://www.ridgecrestca.com/articles/20 ... view01.txt


Our View

Guest Commentary


Tuesday, May 31, 2005 1:06 PM PDT

Could a state border patrol work?

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS/Commentary

Legal experts are split on whether the Constitution would allow California to set up its own border patrol, even if voters should approve the concept now being pushed by a Republican state legislator. After all, foreign relations are strictly a federal function, and what could more affect relations with the nearest foreign country than a new kind of border police force?

And fiscal experts say they're unsure the state can afford to create a whole new agency in an era of budget cuts and seemingly constant deficits.

But these are legal and political niceties. The question talk show hosts really should be asking Assemblyman Ray Haynes of Riverside County is whether a state-funded patrol could work, whether it would cut the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico into California.

The best argument for a yes answer is the experience of the Minutemen, the group President Bush labeled "vigilantes," also praised for their "terrific job" by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

During their several weeks of patrolling the Arizona segment of the Mexican border this spring, these unauthorized volunteer "cops" apparently did cause a slowing of Arizona's cross-border flow. But illegal immigration from the south is a bit like silly putty or play dough: squeeze it in one place and it will somehow find another outlet.

So it was with the Minutemen: They didn't cut the overall flow of illegals, the existing federal Border Patrol has indicated. Which probably means that the smugglers or "coyotes" who illegally lead many immigrants into America were taking their clients other places.

And regardless of where they crossed the border, the largest por
tion of those smuggled likely ended up in California. That's been the history of illegal immigration for decades. Whenever a blockade is established at one place, there's a brief downturn in the tide, but it quickly finds another ingress, and still washes up here.

That's the rub for the notion of a California border patrol. Unless the state mounts a patrol on its eastern and northern boundaries with Arizona, Nevada and Oregon, too, merely policing the southern border will likely accomplish little. For illegal immigrants, like their legal brethren, tend to go where they feel most welcome and where they feel the jobs are. That's here.

But California can't mount a patrol on its borders with other states, as this would interfere with interstate commerce and Americans' constitutional right to move freely within this country.

Meanwhile, California employers continue showing no significant reluctance to hire illegals if it will save them money. Neither is there any apparent slowdown in the number of homeowners driving by day labor pickup points to take advantage of cheap labor offered by illegal immigrants.

Which means that a vote for the Haynes proposal, filed as a possible ballot initiative by him and a group called Rescue California, might be a good way for voters to vent frustration, but would likely resolve very little.

A more constructive notion might be for the state to employ a corps of investigators to make unannounced calls on businesses of all types and check the immigration status of employees.

This is a nominal function of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one of the successor agencies to the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. But the INS never had the manpower to thoroughly canvass the employees of American business and neither does ICS.

Yet, nothing prevents state or local agencies from cooperating with the ICS, as some police forces have begun to do in trying to deport criminal illegal aliens.

Could a force of 1,300 or so investigators make a dent in California's illegal alien population? Mostly likely. Should that happen? That's another question.

Certainly the businesses that employ them don't want them deported, as that would necessitate hiring more expensive citizen or legal immigrant workers. Politicians who live off the campaign donations of these businesses also don't want mass deportations. Car dealers, farmers, developers and others who employ large numbers of illegal immigrants are among the largest donors to both Bush and Schwarzenegger.

Which may explain why the president wants to legalize a lot of the current work force of illegal immigrants and why the governor never mentions employer sanctions when he complains of the lack of border security.

Elias is author of the current book "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It," now available in an updated second edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com

HERE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM..........how this issue is being framed!

After all, foreign relations are strictly a federal function, and what could more affect relations with the nearest foreign country than a new kind of border police force?

There is NO MENTION of the reprecussions on the AMERICAN CITIZEN, our Tax Dollars, Education, Medical facilities, CRIME, the RULE OF LAW, etc. Not one mention..........it's strictly FOREIGN RELATIONS that are to be considered.

Well I say ............ NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! This time the TRUTH must be told loud and clear.

It's not foreign Relations, dummy, it's AMERICAN JUSTICE that's important!

In my opinion it would be no different then the New York State Police or any other statewide LE agency.

My only concern is its legality as the federal govt. in the past has always handled such issues. One of the 1st things the Articles of Confederation created is a little known force called the Frontier Constabulary Force which existed from 1784 till 1791 and they had the same mission as the US Border Patrol does today, they also created the Legion of the United States which would later become the US Army.

CHRIS, that has nothing to do with STATE LAWS that are being broken every day. They can't be allowed to pawn it off on the Feds.

It has NOTHING TO DO with our TAX DOLLARS being spent on State Levels on the ILLEGALS.

STATES & STATE RIGHTS & STATE LAWS.

The states need to protect their residents if the federal goverment doesnt do it's job.

The states need to protect their residents if the federal goverment doesnt do it's job

I see this very differently.

The STATES are using STATE TAX PAYERS MONEY and are ELECTED by the people of the individual STATE. They should be taking care of business no matter what the Fed does or does not do! They're only allegience is to their STATE RESIDENTS.

This rhetoric about it's "the Fed's job" MUST STOP. We've allowed them to push this crapola until it became "defacto" law.

Again.............the STATE'S OBLIGATIONS have nothing to do with BORDER CONTROL.

Legal experts are split on whether the Constitution would allow California to set up its own border patrol, even if voters should approve the concept now being pushed by a Republican state legislator.

State and local government can enforce immigration law with the permission of the Attorney General. All you have to do is ask. You CAN enforce state or local law, and can TAILOR the law to your needs.

But California can't mount a patrol on its borders with other states, as this would interfere with interstate commerce and Americans' constitutional right to move freely within this country.

Did I miss something? Isn't it the Mex border that's the problem??
Why would Ca try to PATROL borders with OTHER STATES?
HUH?