Cascadia Journal

Here we go again!  According to a Seattle Times article this week, The Border patrol is again protecting our borders on some highways far from the border in Washington.  This week they were set up for five hours on SR 104 near the Hood Canal Bridge, apparently protecting the border of Kitsap County from terrorists, and also any illegal immigrants or other law-breakers that they might stumble upon.

They have also admitted to setting up these roadblocks in other areas of the Olympic Peninsula, but we only know the results of the latest stop:  No terrorists, seven illegal immigrants, one wanted person with a felony warrant, and someone suspected of illegally harvesting plants from the forests of the Olympic Peninsula.  Based upon the methods they are using, I am really starting to question what they are really doing.

First, I will say that I do support the duties of the US Border Patrol.  Their stated goal is “a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. It also has a responsibility for securing and facilitating trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S. regulations, including immigration and drug laws.”  That is, of course, an important mission.

The US Constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizures, and the right to not be searched without probable cause.  The courts have ruled that this does not necessarily apply to those protecting our borders, a concept that I agree with.  I also understand that the Border Patrol will have to do their jobs, in some cases, away from the actual border lines of US territory.  This is all fine and appropriate.

However, the US Border Patrol is not limiting their investigations and activities to guarding our borders in this case.  They are, without probable cause, stopping US citizens going about their daily lives, and checking them out to determine whether they have arrest warrants or whether they have committed ANY crime.  One item is telling: “They’re also used with local law enforcement to arrest felons and seize drugs and weapons, he said.”  This starts to gnaw at my comfort level.  Local law enforcement is not allowed to stop someone without probable cause.  So, all we need is to have the Border Patrol, an agency that can stop people under certain circumstances, to stop everyone.  At that point, with the person “stopped”, the local police can then investigate further the people who were stopped to see if they are committing a crime.  This seems like law enforcement trying to get around the law themselves.  This is not proper behavior.

I know there are folks out there who will say that since they have nothing to hide, they would not mind being stopped and investigated by the police.  Sorry, I have nothing to hide either, but I am not willing to give up my constitutional rights that easily.  If we become comfortable with this, what more invasive procedures will we eventually become comfortable with?

Actually, I would question the purpose for the Border Patrol choosing these sites anyway.  Unless they have some advance notice that a suspected terrorist is coming through, it seems like pretty slim chances that they would happen upon a terrorist.  Secondly, they are looking for illegal aliens.  I suppose you could put a roadblock anywhere in the state and eventually find one illegal alien per hour, like they did in this case.  Again, this really can’t be the most efficient way to do this, as it would be much easier to find places where such people congregate.  (Hint: If you live anywhere in Cascadia with a population over 50,000 there is a place in your town where you can find day laborers on a street corner looking for work.  If I know this, why don’t they?)  Finally, it seems difficult for me to believe that one of the goals of the Border Patrol is to round up local forest harvesters.  If that is the case, then there is no excuse for them to not have the borders sealed tight with nothing to worry about.

Two contradictory statements came to my attention in the Times article.  One was the statement that “Friday’s checkpoint required vehicles heading eastbound on State Highway 104 to stop briefly while agents looked them over and asked some questions of the drivers.”  So everyone was stopped and questioned.  The other was a statement by Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Michael Bermudez who said “he doesn’t think traffic came to a halt at any time during the checkpoint.”  So, are they stopping traffic or not?  I think the Border Patrol needs to get their story straight.

The worst case scenerio is this:  If we “get used to” being stopped by Federal law enforcement on a regular basis, perhaps we won’t mind it happening so much later.  I certainly hope this is not part of a plan to condition us to giving up our constitutional rights in the name of “terrorism” so that the government can stop us on the streets at will.  This is a situation that we need to be viligant about keeping track of.  Police checkpoints should be rare and used only when absolutely necessary.  I have not heard anything yet that would indicate the necessity of these actions.