In the San Diego Reader, more on a bill passed last week by The U.S. House Judiciary Committee to help law enforcement crack down on illicit tunnels along the US-Mexico border: "The bill would allow law enforcement to prosecute landowners, prosecute those that fund the tunnels, and wiretap communications in suspected buildings that house tunnels. Previously wiretaps were only available with proof of drugs or contraband."

20 Responses to “US to go after "Border Tunnels" by prosecuting landowners, wiretapping communications”

  1. DewiMorgan says:

    “…or if the telco gave them their own room to make whatever wiretaps they wanted.”

  2. Mari Lwyd says:

    I’m always curious whether the machine guns will turn inward if a wall is ever completed.

  3. Kaibaman says:

    Another example of our Liberties being tossed aside, I mean really? Prosecute Landowners and Wiretap them if a Border Tunnel just happens to go under their house? What The Fuck!?

    • Carl Beckelheimer says:

      I just read the full text of the bill. It appears to be very clear that you have to either participate in or have some knowledge of the tunnel to be prosecuted for anything.

      • redjon says:

        Hear, hear!  Always a good thing to actually read legislation before criticizing it.

        …and it DOES seem to be kind of a “fish or cut bait” issue.  When’t the last time we heard of anyone prosecuted and JAILED for conveniently not having bothered to check eVerify before hiring, and subsequently hiring tens if not hundreds of undocumented people?  Seems like there was a major scandal where the company in charge of building the border fence was found to have been using illegal workers.

        We hear a lot of talk about reducing the supply of drugs by reducing the demand, but, seriously, how interested are we in actually doing anything about illegal immigration other than posturing?

        • Marja Erwin says:

          You’re assuming it’s okay to go after undocumented immigrants. I think it’s inhuman to go after someone for being born on the other side of an accursed border. And official documentation policies, and systems like eVerify, can create no end of trouble for those of us who have errors in our official documentation, corrected on some documents, not corrected on others.

          • Miami_Adam says:

             Just to be clear, no one is suggesting we go after the illegal immigrants just because they were “born on the other side on an accursed border,” but rather because they broke the law by crossing that border illegally. This is not about some sort of clerical error regarding documentation or eVerify; it’s a concerted effort to circumvent the law.

          • Marja Erwin says:

            I am trying to figure out how pro-border anti-immigrant positions are supposed to make sense. I can’t because obviously they don’t make sense. All borders are tools of the ruling class.

            The most common reason people support anti-immigrant policies seems to be because they are racists/nationalists. It’s no secret that many anti-immigrant groups, such as AmRen, are neo-Nazi front groups, and the Arizona law was written by neo-Nazis and their allies. And that’s where the deliberately-dehumanizing rhetoric ['Untermenchsen,' 'anchor babies,' etc.] comes from.

            The next most common reason seems to be authoritarianism. Many people think other people should need permission from the ruling class to exercise basic human rights such as speech or travel. Maybe that’s where this obsession with whether someone followed the right procedures and fits within the quotas.

            The next most common reason seems to be, as I’d mentioned above, the belief that there is some morally-justifiable reason to treat people born on the other side of some border differently from people born on the same side of that border. But how could there be?

            And that leaves aside the problem that I would be collateral damage from the proposed ‘solution’ to the nonproblem.

          • redjon says:

            Actually, I am NOT assuming it’s okay to go after undocumented immigrants, but I’m glad you brought that up because…  what I AM assuming, not really assuming but it is my opinion for the time being, is that the crime, if there is a crime at all, is luring immigrants to the U.S. with the promise of gainful employment but then taking advantage of the perpetual risk in order to keep immigrants in a state of perpetual servitude in which, if they dare to complain about working conditions or lack of benefits, etc., an employer can threaten to turn them in to the authorities.

            This very morning, I heard on the radio a recording of what I am sure was a third- or perhaps fourth-generation American state that Barack Obama has no legal right to be president because, according to the Constitution, one of the qualifications for the presidency is to be the child of two parents who are both American citizens.  Knowing how clearly so many American citizens are not familiar with our own laws, it seems to me that expecting people from other countries to already be familiar with our legal system before arriving here is not reasonable.

            BUT, it IS reasonable, in my opinion, to expect American employers to be familiar with the law.

            If American employers who KNOW the law are not prosecuted for knowingly breaking the law, then how can we in good conscience prosecute immigrants who clearly have not had the same advantage of language and familiarity with the law(s) of the land?

            My point, then, is to go after people who KNOWINGLY violate U.S. law by knowingly hiring undocumented workers, rather than going after undocumented workers who, for all any of us know, innocently come here thinking that the reason they pay coyotes such a high price is because the U.S. of A. is such a desireable place to be and that they must COMPETE in order to find a place in our wonderful and oh-so-just society.

          • redjon says:

            Short version:  I agree.  Borders are not productive, and functionally obsolete.

            Those who believe illegal immigration is a problem should either put up, or shut up.  Either jail the employers who knowingly create the demand for undocumented workers, or accept that the demand is a real and necessary part of the international economy.

            The courage to literally risk a known future (anywhere… the place doesn’t even matter) against the possibility of a better future for ourselves and/or our children based on a willingness to work hard and do whatever it takes to succeed is certainly not a thing to be discouraged.  That’s what American is about, is it not?

            If anyone is to be penalized, it should be citizens who knowingly violate the law of the land.

      • Kaibaman says:

         That may be what it always starts as…but we all know how easy it can be to be abused.

        • Miami_Adam says:

          What liberty do you think exists allowing one to hide an illegal border tunnel that is used to import and export drugs and PEOPLE?

          And as long as you’re making this a liberty issue, do you want to spend any time thinking of the liberty of the people smuggled out of America against their will through those tunnels?

          I don’t understand the opposition against the government intervening to shut down these incredibly dangerous (and totally illegal) operations.

      • Malcolm Kyle says:

        The DOJ have a nasty habit of ignoring the rules, or deliberately construing them for their own advantage. Try googling “Motel Caswell” or “Red Carpet Inn” together with “forfeiture” – Even if the owners have informed law enforcement of suspicions of criminality, they can still, and often do, have their property taken.

  4. A Nonny Moose says:

    Yeah. Is there any provision for proving that the landowner was aware of the tunnel? If not, I predict an uphill battle with the Federal courts.

    • Malcolm Kyle says:

      You’re quite right to be concerned!

      Try googling “Motel Caswell” or “Red Carpet Inn” together with “forfeiture” – Even if the owners have informed law enforcement of suspicions of criminality, they can still, and often do, have their property taken.

  5. Kyle mcclung says:

    Yeah that’s a good idea. But we should still let wells fargo slide  on letting them use there private planes to smuggle in cases of cocaine and laundering there money because that’s how we make money right? No? OOOooo I see, just the banks.

    • Miami_Adam says:

       Ah, the “Let’s Not Stop One Bad Thing Because it is Not the Only Bad Thing” Argument. Logically sound in the world where two wrongs DO make a right.

  6. bolamig says:

    Someday we will wise up and use the same strategies for keeping our borders safe that we use against foreigner terrorists.   Going after the money isn’t rocket science.

Leave a Reply