Border Patrol checkpoints, cameras and government spending run amok
August 4, 8:10 AM
Comment

On a recent trip to Brownsville, I passed by the familiar Border Patrol checkpoint that is ostensibly in the middle of a barren wasteland known as the King Ranch, but is said to be located in the small town of Sarita. I have made the trip between Brownsville and Austin dozens of times and each time heading north, have been stopped at the checkpoint to answer the obligatory "Are you a U.S. citizen?" question. But this time heading south, as I passed the checkpoint station to my left, I noticed a series of devices that appeared to be cameras of some kind positioned on both sides of the highway. It made me wonder: Why would the Border Patrol monitor traffic heading south?

My inquisitive nature led me to conduct a little research on the Border Patrol. As most people are well aware (unless they've been hiding under a rock), illegal immigration has been a political hot potato for many years. While all sides of the political spectrum seem to agree illegal immigration is a problem, consensus has been elusive, with conservatives calling for stricter enforcement of current laws and the more moderate and liberal segments of the population calling for a "guest worker" program or some sort of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.

Caught in the middle of the debate has been the Border Patrol, whose mission has been to secure the borders with Canada and Mexico and to curb the flow of illegal aliens and drugs, particularly from Mexico. In 1993, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) implemented a strategy called Operation Hold-the-Line, a four-phase strategy designed to incrementally increase control of the Southwest border in areas with the highest concentration of illegal alien activity: the San Diego, El Paso, and McAllen sectors. During this period, so-called interior checkpoints, like the one in Sarita, were beefed up with more agents, surveillance equipment, and structural improvements so as to make them permanent bases of operation in areas with high numbers of illegal crossings.

So how effective was Operation Hold-the-Line? In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report evaluating the performance of the Border Patrol, including the effectiveness of the permanent checkpoints. The report found that while effectively reducing illegal crossings in those sectors, the unintended consequences of the approach led to a substantial increase along the Arizona border, particularly in the Tucson sector. According to the GAO report, in the period between 1993 and 2000, the illegal activity in the Tucson sector increased seven-fold, while apprehensions in the eight other Southwest sectors combined declined 28 percent.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the smugglers simply shifted their crossing point to the Tucson sector, the one sector, interestingly, that does not have a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint like the one I passed through in Sarita. In fact, at the urging of Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona), Congress has prohibited the construction of Border Patrol checkpoints in the Tucson sector since fiscal year 1999. That's right, the one sector with such a Congressional prohibition is the same one that has experienced a seven-fold increase in illegal crossings.

The Border Patrol had requested a new checkpoint on Interstate 19, north of Nogales. But Congressman Kolbe's constituents complained it would disrupt traffic and lead to increased numbers of illegal aliens crossing through residential areas, so Kolbe was successful at quashing the $1 million project. As a good Republican who didn't want to be perceived as "weak" on national security, however, his excuse for blocking the project was that the money could be better spent in some other area of the Border Patrol.
It's a good line coming from a Republican that wants to appeal to fiscal conservatives, but it rings hollow when one considers that Congressman Kolbe is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and the Border Patrol's budget has sky-rocketed on his watch. What led to the big increase in spending? The GAO report says:

"...[The Border Patrol's] priority mission since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States between official ports of entry. In addition, the Border Patrol has a traditional mission of preventing illegal aliens, smugglers, narcotics, and other contraband from entering the country, as these activities directly affect the safety and security of the United States."

If the events of September 11, 2001, have taught us anything, it's that the federal government knows how to not let a good crisis go to waste. September 11 has been the rationale for a rash of new government spending and it seems the Border Patrol is no exception. In 1993, when Operation Hold-the-Line went into effect, the Border Patrol's annual budget was around $362 million. At the time of the 2005 GAO report, the budget was a staggering $1.4 billion. So much for fiscal conservatism.

With such a massive budget and policies that seem to be more driven by a congressman's constituents than by thoughtful analysis, it shouldn't be surprising that several expensive looking cameras positioned along the highway would now be part of the Border Patrol's arsenal. But I still couldn't understand why the cameras would be monitoring southbound traffic. How do these cameras, "prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States between official ports of entry"? How do they, "prevent illegal aliens, smugglers, narcotics, and other contraband from entering the country"? They're pointing the wrong direction!

The best answer I was able to find is that these camera devices have been set up and are being used by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and not the Border Patrol per se. In an interview with KFox, a Fox affiliate in New Mexico, the DEA acknowledged that such cameras are in use at a checkpoint in Las Cruces, N.M., as an "investigative tool," but declined to elaborate further. One is left supposing that one bloated government agency simply scratches the back of another.

The DEA revelation creates more questions than answers, however. Under what authority (the Patriot Act?) were these cameras deployed and under whose supervision? What type of information do the cameras gather? Do they use face recognition technology? Who has access to the gathered data and what are they permitted to do with it? Is it strictly used to apprehend drug smugglers, or can it be used to apprehend anyone of interest to the authorities? What do these cameras cost the taxpayers and are they worth it?

In a time when the budget deficit is at unprecedented levels and the government is increasing in size by the minute, a few cameras along the side of the road may not seem like a big deal. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, they really aren't such a big deal. But in their own little way, they are just another visual reminder of how utterly and completely in servitude we now are to a government that once upon a time... served us.

www.examiner.com