Border Patrol checkpoints, cameras, and an out of control government

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 rational 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. I guess one bloated government agency scratches the back of another.

The DEA revelation creates more questions than answers, however. What type of information do the cameras gather? Do they use face recognition technology? Who all has access to the gathered data? Is it strictly used to apprehend drug smugglers, or can it be used to apprehend anyone? 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. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, they really aren’t a very 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 served us.

Federal Reserve Audit Bill Gaining Momentum

With a populace steadily losing faith in the so-called “stimulus package” actually improving the economy, HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, continues to gain momentum. The bill has now secured 279 co-sponsors, including all 178 Republican members of the House. Authored by Republican Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14), the bill has easily surpassed the 220 co-sponsors needed to survive on the House floor. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, Democrat (TX-25), whose district includes Austin, is among 101 Democrat members of the House who have all signed on as co-sponsors.

Paul, who has long been a critic of the Fed's unfettered power and lack of public accountability, says Congress and the American people have minimal, if any, oversight over the trillions of dollars that the Fed controls.

"Now more than ever, we need to know what the Fed has been doing in secret. I am pleased that all of my Republican colleagues in the House, as well as many Democrats, understand the need for this kind of transparency,” he said.

Federal reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, has spoken out strongly against legislative efforts to force an audit. Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, Bernanke claimed such a review would "compromise independence." He added that if the General Accounting Office was to make judgments about the Fed's policy decisions, it would effectively amount to a "takeover of policy" by the Congress and such scrutiny would be "highly destructive to the stability of the financial system."

The bill is now with the 71-member House Committee on Financial Services, which Paul describes as the "most important step" in the bill's evolution. "If it doesn't make it out of committee, it will never come to a vote," he said, urging supporters to contact their representatives to make their voices heard.

Obama Creates Distraction With Cambridge Police and Buddy

Well it seems there is no end to the distractions that keep steering the attention of the American people away from the important issues of the day. I’m beginning to suspect that President Obama may actually be enjoying these distractions, even if he is largely responsible for them.

Take the recent snooze fest that was billed as a “press conference” on the proposed healthcare reform, for example. At the very end of the conference, Obama calls on Lynn Sweet from the Chicago Sun Times for the last question of the night and, loe and behold, it’s about the arrest of a black professor named Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA. Ordinarily such an arrest might seem trivial and certainly not relevant to a nationally broadcast press conference with the President of the United States, but as it turns out, Professor Gates, described as a “scholar,” is a personal friend of President Obama, so the president had plenty to say on the matter.

“Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact," Obama concluded.

Obama’s decision to characterize the Cambridge police as acting “stupidly” for arresting his buddy is quite revealing. In recent weeks, he has remained silent on topics such as the CEO bonuses and the election protests in Iran, stating he needed more time to assess the facts. But right out of the box he comments on a local matter in Cambridge involving civilians, and during a press conference that was supposed to talk about health care, no less.

With the healthcare discussion sending many folks off into a deep visit to the Land of Nod, my cynical side has to wonder: Was Obama’s decision to wade into obviously controversial territory by design, or is it really that hard for him to pass up an opportunity to engage in racial politics? Or was this the perfect distraction at a time when Congress is trying to pass the most radical and sweeping overhaul of healthcare in our nation’s history? Whatever the case, it has come to light that the arresting officer is highly respected by both black and white officers in his department AND was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach recruits about avoiding racial profiling. So now, in an effort to engage in damage control, the President of the United States is left hosting a beer party for the two estranged parties. Meanwhile, what’s to become of the gazillion dollar healthcare reform bill? Who cares… just pour me another cold one!

Why I May Skip 'Bruno'

I recently read where Sasha Baron Cohen’s new movie, “Bruno,” features a scene where Bruno has a meeting with Congressman Ron Paul. Ostensibly the meeting is for an “interview” to discuss Austrian economics, but at some point Bruno, who is supposed to be a gay fashion reporter from Austria, propositions Paul. When Paul rebuffs him, Bruno then drops his pants, at which time Paul angrily gets up and leaves the room. Supposedly Paul’s reaction to the set-up reveals a certain level of “homophobia,” but I guess I’ll have to wait and see for myself.

The problem is I don’t know if I want to see for myself. This is a complete 180 for me because I have been a big fan of Cohen’s brand of irreverent comedy in the past. But his ambush interviews that seek to humiliate real people are only funny to the degree that the interviewee is a deserving target for the ambush.  In the “Borat” movie, for example, most of the humor came from the awkward reactions ordinary folks had to the socially inept Borat. Occasionally, however, the movie tracked a fine line between using unsuspecting folks as props for the joke and using them as the butts of the joke. Then there were a few scenes that seemed purposely mean-spirited, where Borat would ramp up his crude ineptitude to the point where even the most good-natured, sugary sweet grandma would be driven to kill him with her own bare hands.

Now, having seen the previews for “Bruno” and hearing a description of the scene with Congressman Paul, my suspicion is that Cohen’s latest offering has slipped over the edge into just plain mean-spiritedness. No matter what one may think of Ron Paul’s politics, from all accounts he is an upstanding man of integrity, a rare find in Washington D.C. Cohen’s alter egos--Ali G, Borat, and now Bruno-- have typically been used as humorous vehicles for exposing hypocrisy. But Paul has a reputation for being a straight shooter whose policy positions are consistently based on the restrictions the Constitution places on an increasingly over-reaching federal government.  The joke may have had some contextual relevance had it been perpetrated on, say, Larry Craig or Barney Frank. But Ron Paul?

Most likely, Paul was the only major candidate from the most recent presidential election willing to be, presumably, interviewed by an unknown Austrian reporter.  It’s hard to imagine John McCain’s or Mitt Romney’s people green-lighting that offer!  But in addition to his consistent Libertarian views, Paul has a well-known reputation for being just a plain nice guy, thus making him the perfect patsy for Cohen’s shtick. But If Paul was additionally sought for the bit because Cohen believes him to be a “homophobe,” then Cohen is either seriously misinformed, or he’s very disingenuous.  Either way, it’s a cheap shot for cheap laughs. If that’s what I’m looking for in my entertainment, I’ll stay home and watch David Letterman.