California Border Patrol

Though the federal government should be spearheading the issue of illegal immigration, California Assemblyman Ray Haynes is attempting to re-form the line that ought to be protecting our state from alien invasion. Assemblyman Haynes has proposed a state constitutional amendment that would create a California Border Patrol to perform internal enforcement of federal immigration laws (internal, as opposed to enforcement that only happens at the border). The amusing thing is that notoriously wasteful California Democrats are objecting to the proposal based on cost.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said if a new police force required "spending more state dollars, I think we have to take a second look at that because we do have to be fiscally prudent."

Yeah, the same Fabian Nuñez who attempts to get illegal immigrants driver's licenses every single year -- but he doesn't immediately call the plan "racist", which raises some interesting questions. Personally, I'm in favor of creating a CBP, and I think we should send the tab to DC. Furthermore, the CBP would pay for itself.

A state border patrol, which would be a first, would cut the costs to taxpayers from an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants in California, [Dave] Gilliard [the measure's political strategist] said: "We estimate it would to save $5 billion to $7 billion (annually). California currently spends $9 billion to $10 billion for services, or for incarceration costs, on illegal immigrants."

The new state police agency, allowed by 1996 federal law, would employ more than 2,000 officers at a cost of $300 million to $400 million annually, Gilliard said. "Because they gave the states the authority to do this, there is no reason California shouldn't do it on its own," he said.

Eric Hogue at CRO thinks he knows why the plan isn't being denounced as "racist": because of Republican triangulation. (Here's the link to the post at his radio station blog.)

Why are the Dems not ranting over this new initiative? Because it has them trapped with their constituency.

The Democrat's 'union supporters' do not like illegal worker taking up ALL of the jobs in the state. When Member Haynes states that this is an initiative to reinforce our laws, he is messaging safely and placing the Democrats on the 'hot seat'...the unions want to 'limit' the flow of competition into the state and this Border Patrol addresses their concerns.

The Border Patrol will limit the flow of illegal immigration and work force competition, and it will also create more public employee, peace officer jobs for the state and the union - and the unions like the additional jobs and the additional union dues for political purposes.

Kevin Griffith at California Mafia interviewed Assemblyman Haynes and has posted some of the responses he received.

This raised my next question, what would the focus of the CBP be?

Assemblyman Haynes said that the CBP would have the ability and the authority to "go where they can be most effective" - however, whether that would be the border itself, ports and airports, or else where would be left to the head of the agency once it is in place. However, Assemblyman Haynes pointed to the employment aspect of the illegal immigration as a place where the CBP would likely be active.

I was a bit concerned about the bill taxpayers would get because of this new agency. Especially since we face such a major structural problem here in California when it comes to the budget. I asked the Assemblyman if part of the bill would go to the federal government.

Assemblyman Haynes assured me that the State would push to get the federal government to pay as much as was possible for the agency. He also pointed out that one of the major problems we face is that the State is currently losing several billion dollars a year right now because the federal government is not reimbursing the State for welfare, medicare/medicaid/medical payments and other several government programs that illegal immigrants are using. He further, pointed out that "we could pay for half the cost of the agency if we eliminated state employment services for illegals."

Don't forget the cost of educating both legal and illegal children of illegal immigrants.

On the other side, Bob Morris at Politics in the Zeros (which is a pretty cool name for a blog) thinks the idea is hypocritical because law enforcement rarely goes after the corporations who hire illegal immigrants.

Well, when your polls ratings are sinking alarmingly, what better route for a lunkhead governor to take than to mobilize his hard right racist core by attacking the defenseless. It's what former Governor Pete Wilson did when he was behind in a race with Kathleen Brown - and he won. Now some in California want to get another Prop 187-like initiative on the ballot, this time to create a California border patrol of 1,000-2,000 police. It's all so cynical. Businesses who hire such immigrants are rarely prosecuted and California agriculture would stop if not for immigrant labor - but they're defenseless, so let's attack them to boost our political ratings.

"First they came for the immigrants and I did nothing because I was not an immigrant ..."

I wasn't aware that California has a "hard right racist core", but I'm certainly not a part of it. However, I do think our immigration laws should be enforced, and I do think that companies who hire illegal immigrants should be prosecuted. Would Mr. Morris be satisfied with additional immigration enforcement if it targets the corporations doing the hiring in addition to the illegal immigrants themselves?

As for his final thought, "they" are coming for illegal immigrants, and the distinction is quite important. Once again, I've got no problem with immigrants. However, I don't like people who ignore our laws for their own convenience and then enrich themselves at our expense. That's called theft, and it's no different than walking into our homes and stealing our stuff. If we want a more open immigration policy, then let's vote on it. As it stands, existing laws should be enforced until and unless they are changed by the democratic process.