Bonkers at the Border

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Bonkers at the Border
January 26, 2007; Page A10

Most people would consider corrupt border patrol agents to be part of the illegal immigration problem, not the solution. So it's passing strange that anti-immigration Republicans in Congress are calling for the federal government to release Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, two former border guards from Texas who were sent to prison last week for shooting an unarmed man in the back and then trying to cover up their crime.

Several GOP lawmakers, including outspoken restrictionists like Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, have hailed the ex-agents as American heroes. President Bush is even being urged to pardon Ramos and Compean, who received sentences of 11 years and 12 years, respectively. GOP Representative Dana Rohrabacher has gone so far as to accuse Mr. Bush of being "on the side of enemies" for allowing the men to go to jail.

(snip)

Agents Ramos and Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 17, 2005, when they encountered a van driven by Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. When the driver saw the agents he sped off, eventually abandoning the vehicle and fleeing toward the border on foot. At one point, Aldrete-Davila stopped running and raised his empty hands to surrender. But when the first border agent to approach him stumbled, Aldrete-Davila took off again toward the Rio Grande. At this point, Agents Ramos and Compean opened fire, shooting at the back of a suspect who they knew was unarmed. They fired 14 rounds in all -- Agent Compean even paused to reload -- finally hitting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks. The suspect was wounded but still managed to make it across the border and escape.

It later was determined that Aldrete-Davila was in the country illegally and smuggling drugs. Nearly 750 pounds of marijuana were found in the van. But Ramos and Compean didn't know the suspect's immigration status when they shot him. Nor did they know the contents of the vehicle he was driving. What the agents did know is that they had broken any number of border patrol policies.

(snip)

The Congressmen who are exploiting the episode haven't made an issue of the agents' guilt, which is by and large conceded. Rather, the restrictionists argue that Compean and Ramos should be given a pass because the victim of their crime was a drug-smuggling illegal alien. This is an odd argument coming from immigration hard-liners, who typically say that while they love legal immigrants the U.S. must "enforce the law" on the border. That the agents have been held accountable for misconduct shows that no one is above the law. Letting the agents off the hook would also send a terrible message to honest border agents who perform a difficult and dangerous job.

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116978121155888636.html (subscription)

[meegbear]

1. The Wall Street Journal editorial page not supporting repugs?!?1!!

Has the world gone topsy-turvy? :crazy:

[Robson]

2. Wall Street Journal - A Progressive Newspaper?

If I heard right on Lou Dobbs, the issue is that the chimp is withholding justice dept information on this case and these Congressmen are accusing the government of covering up the real facts.

BTW the article that you posted came from the Wall Street Journal and you can bet it subverted the facts to make Bush look good. Like any good capitalist, corporatist, elitist, publication, the journal has consistently supported the need for more low wage workers to replace American citizens. They want to see less border enforcement, less business labor law enforcement and more illegal immigrants that they can abuse and not worry about being sued or getting workman's comp, etc. Bottom line more illegals means more $$$$$$$$$ and more profits and bigger CEO bonuses.

I like the way the WSJ uses "restrictionist" to describe those who oppose illegal immigration and the enforcement of immigration law. It's restrictionist to corporate profits.

[question everything]

3. Of course. While the WSJ news reports are of excellent quality

their editorials - like the one, above - are usually of the rabid style.

Yet I found this interesting. I have not followed the issue closely, except for Lou Dobbs' side, thus this editorial places the entire event in a different light.