Top administration officials have directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat whenever illegal immigrants throw rocks at them, and to avoid getting in front of foreign drug-smugglers’ vehicles as they head north with their drug shipments.
“Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves,” said the instructions, issued Mar. 7, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol.
Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by. This is not unlike the Administration in Mexico pursuant to the talks that transpired between Mexico and the United States last week.
Agents cannot use guns against “a moving vehicle merely fleeing from agents,” say the instructions. Now to us this news is so encouraging we are prompted to ask, “If a fleeing vehicle moving at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour would not everyone around wonder why it is fleeing?”
The new instructions do allow agents to use guns to defend themselves from vehicles that drive at them. “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief that… deadly force is being used against an agent,” the new instructions say.
However, the instructions also suggest that officers be penalized if they do not step back. Agents “should not place themselves in the path of a motor vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path,” according to new instructions. The new policy “seems to be a response to political pressure from special interests,” Shawn P. Moran, vice president of the Border Patrol agents’ union, said in a telephone interview. After all why not look at the Open Borders advocacy group, or maybe even look into the work that Bill and Matilda Gates, George Soros, or Mark Zuckerberg are doing with their some, new found riches.
The new curbs were praised by advocates for greater immigration, including Juanita Molina, director of the Border Action Network. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, and Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Menendez is one of the drafters of the June 2013 Senate immigration bill, which would boost the inflow of legal immigrants and guest workers up to 40 million over the next decade. During the same period, roughly 40 million Americans will turn 18.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), the top Democrat on the House immigration policy and border security subcommittee, also called on Customs and Border Protection to be more forthcoming.
These activists include the leaders of such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Blurring the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, radical immigration activists depict any calls for the strict enforcement of immigration laws as manifestations of racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia.
Speaking of blurring the lines of distinction, we are not sure if any organization is more out of touch with the issues as these folks mentioned. Blurring the notions of racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are catch phrases aimed in large part to confuse or play upon the empathy of those who are borderline in their own personal decisions.
We ask this question in response, “Where is the Nation’s security even mentioned within the collective conscience of these organizations? This is why we wonder if these are noble efforts. We believe that U.S. sovereignty and national security be at the front of every decision up for consideration. Moreover, it would be nice to see this language in these organizations mission statements. But nonetheless as it shapes up concerning special interest groups, lobbyists, and advocacy groups nothing whatsoever is found in the offering documents of these organizations.
It still remains, how can we get amnesty for our membership, how can we assure illegal immigrants Constitutional rights, and the big one, how can we get the U.S. taxpayer to opt for more for these people?