Misguided border patrolling

USA Today:

By Ruben Navarrette

Because I'm not just the grandson of a Mexican immigrant but also the son of a retired cop, my views on illegal immigration are complicated. I'm convinced that immigrants — whatever their status — are America's most valuable import. Yet I wasn't raised to take lightly things such as border security or the breaking of laws.

So far, so good.

The trouble is that some proposed solutions — from putting troops on the border to denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants — bring to mind the old saying about the cure being worse than the disease. That includes this one: Allowing local police to enforce federal immigration law.

This dangerous and self-defeating concept is popular with those who think that law enforcement officers are interchangeable, and that one badge is as good as another. As proponents of this approach see it, police chase down criminals (including illegal immigrants) and it makes no difference whether their jurisdiction is local, state or federal.

This guy's not an asshat, but he gets quite a few thing wrong here. The first being that ending birthright citizenship would be a major blessing for this country.

But I digress, the big thing, the extra-super-jumbo thing he gets wrong is that local cops must be involved with immigration policing.

Why?

So glad you asked, there is a more than even chance that 9-11 would not have occured had local law enforcement agencies been involved with immigration. I forget the exact number but more than a few of the future hijackers came into contact with the fuzz and were allowed to go on their merry way.

In this post 9-11 world can we afford to be so nonchalant anymore?

H/T Beyond Borders blog

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate please go to The Uncooperative Blogger or Freedom Folks and email us. We will add you to the blogroll, and send you the rest of the info you will need.