Posted on 05/10/2006 1:48:26 AM PDT by M. Thatcher
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is refuting a Daily Bulletin report that the U.S. Border Patrol provided information to the Mexican government about the whereabouts of civilian border watch groups.
Read the disputed article: U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols
See the Mexican Government Web page: www.sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3
"Today's report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, `U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,' is inaccurate," read the statement issued Tuesday evening. "Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the government of Mexico."
Kristi Clemens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, would not elaborate on the agency's statement other than to say the U.S. gives information to Mexican officials under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which provides foreign nationals being detained by a government the right to consular access.
"This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries," according to the statement.
An August 2005 document, "Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes" -- posted on Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site -- suggests U.S. officials were giving out more details than required by the Vienna Convention. Part of that information was the location of U.S. citizens participating in volunteer border patrols.
The Daily Bulletin reported on the contents of that document and two others on the Mexican Web site in a story published in Tuesday's editions.
Mexican consulates also went beyond the boundaries of the Vienna Convention, asking U.S. Border Patrol officials to provide them with information on "vigilantes" operating along the U.S. border, according to the August 2005 document.
Some of the information cited in the Mexican document originally was given only to U.S. Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, border watch organizers said.
"Nobody but law enforcement and Border Patrol knew where we were at," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "So how is our base address on a Mexican government document dated last August? Nobody, not even media, had this information."
Ramirez said he revealed the location of his base camp only to local and federal officials. The Mexican document gives the exact location of his group's site, which was on private property near San Diego.
According to Ramirez, the group had no encounters at that site with undocumented migrants, which would have been the only cause for that information to be revealed under the Vienna Convention.
On Monday, Mario Martinez, a U.S. Customs and Border spokesman, told the Daily Bulletin that when illegal immigrants are apprehended in the U.S., they have the right, under the Convention, to be represented by their country's consulate office and to information regarding their apprehension.
Information contained in a Border Patrol agent's field report, which is filed when a person is caught, would reveal the location of the detainee and therefore the area where the volunteer group is operating, Martinez said.
Martinez did not deny that information on the border volunteers was being shared with the Mexican government. He added that the group's whereabouts also were identified by numerous media outlets.
However, the Mexican report also contains specific information on civilian groups operating much farther inside the United States.
For example, the document notes that 50 Minuteman volunteers work in Chicago, focusing mainly on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Minuteman volunteers said specific information -- such as the number of volunteers and their plans -- could have been provided only by law enforcement officials at that time. The document credits the various Mexican consul general offices in the U.S. with providing the information to the Mexican Foreign Secretary for the reports.
"How did they know the number of volunteers in Chicago? And why should the Mexican government care?" asked Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Washington, D.C.
The three reports on the Mexican Web site documented the activities of the civilian groups based on concerns the Mexican government had about volunteer patrols on the border in 2005, said Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.
"The Border Patrol does not report activity of the Minutemen to the Mexican consulate," Laveaga said. "But it's all a matter of perception. If a migrant requests to have counsel, which is their right under the Vienna Convention, then the information is provided to the counsel."
Throughout the Mexican government's reports on "vigilantes," it is noted that Mexican consulates in the U.S. contacted Border Patrol officials seeking U.S. cooperation in reporting instances of civilians monitoring the border. Among such requests:
The Mexican consul in Presidio, Texas, asked the Marfa Sector's Border Patrol chief to alert them if the U.S. detected any volunteer activity.
In Phoenix, consulate officials asked the Border Patrol to notify them if civilian groups apprehended any undocumented migrants so consulate representatives could interview them.
In San Diego, the document referred to a meeting with Border Patrol Chief Darryl Griffen stating that "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented migrant."
"It appears the border reports are the tip of the iceberg," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which began patrolling the border last April.
Such requests from Mexico, and U.S. officials acquiescing to them, are not new, say Border Patrol agents.
Scott James, a former Tucson agent, resigned after eight years of service in February, citing a lack of support for agents by the Department of Homeland Security.
He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents' activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations.
Such courtesies were not extended to consulate offices of other countries, James said.
Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carteror by phone at (909) 483-8552.
Pray tell, how does your wounding impact on this discussion? Being a former LEO is quite sufficient to make your point.
Like it or not, that's prima facie evidence you don't know the relevant from the that which isn't.
I mentioned my former LEO credentials once in another discussion, and got immediately splashed with childish insinuations about why I am a FORMER police officer.
And that was a different discussion, was it not? Why is it here? I didn't bring it.
So, I have to put that out there to preempt the inevitable personal attacks.
Inevitable? You've got my "detectors" doing backflips.
I've read your post, and while I will not dispute your experience, I have serious reservations with the quality of your analysis.
Good point. I meant openly so, and hostile to the US.
With all due respect, give me a break. Both sides in this debate have become equally childish and emotional. I myself am no exception. It's just the nature of human sociology.
It's being a cute Filipina. (/bemused cynicism)
I have searched both yesterday and today's articles by Sara Carter, and can find no line containg the phrase "whatever the Minutemen say is the actual fact, period, end of discussion." Please make your reference more specific. I, in no way, see either writer using any document as the sole basis of their articles.
Malkin's stock and trade is not analysis; it's punditry.
That's a mighty subtle distinction to hang your hat on.
Stormfront's adherents spend money that's as green as mine.
Not one of your more dignified rhetorical tactics, Sinkspur.
I'll leave it at that.
Believe it or not, Howlin...it is a bit of a comfort to know you can at least be consistently relied on to metaphorically assault the girl you caught your boyfriend kissing.
It's not subtle at all. Analysts actually analyze before they comment. Pundits need merely say what sounds good to those in the choir.
Wretchard, over at Belmont Club, qualifies as an analyst. Ms. Malkin doesn't make the grade.
Believe it or not, that's one of the ditziest responses I've ever seen on FR.
this is the ludicrousness of it all. precisely if the land were not our own, but that of one of our allies, we would have troops down there in no time flat, 'defending' democracy and freedom. as it is, since it is our own land being invaded, we are unable to get any kind of act into gear. how's that for idiocy??
I stand corrected.
Unmoved, but corrected.
Frankly, I think you and he are caviling.
As I said, you're at least consistent.
Of course, "consistent" is also a fine way to describe insipid, unimaginative, and banal.
I'll get back to you the second I care what somebody like you thinks about me.
Just like an old pair of slippers....
Strawmen often are facts. They are also irrelevant to the argument and only used to tar the opposing point of view.
"What is truly amazing is that the very people who claim to despise Mexico are now quoting heavily from a Mexican web site and taking it as absolute fact." <---- This however, is not a "fact"; it is an opinion bolstered by unsupported claims.
Maybe it is "amazing" that people construct arguments from odd sources. Maybe some people "despise Mexico". Maybe those are the same people quoting the website. Maybe they are taking the website as "absolute fact". However, all of those things are just your suppositions, some totally unprovable, juxtaposed by you to tar the opposition without addressing their argument.
Even your so-called "fact" does not hold up logically, because it is entirely possible for someone to "despise" something, but still believe it to be authoritative on a given subject. One could even turn your "fact" around and say, "Isn't it amazing that those who swallow governmental press releases whole are now dismissing official Mexican government websites?" I am sure you can see how this would be as stupidly illogical as your "fact".
Oh My Word! Why oh why didn't I find out what the meaning of paper tiger was over seven years ago when I chose it for a screen name! And to think, after all this time, no one but you has thought to bring it up!
Woe is me. I am undone!
Blast cruel fate! I knew I should have gone with "boy named Sue."
'Course, now that I think about it..."howlin" is usually done by hound-dogs, ain't it?
Aw, c'mon! You mean you've never read one of MurryMom's posts?
;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.