Coming on the heels of a decision to grant illegal aliens an amnesty specifically rejected by Congress and an earlier decision to "defer" deportation procedures against "law abiding" illegal aliens (which is an oxymoron), I'm left uncomfortable by this decision.
The Obama administration is moving to shut down nine Border Patrol stations across four states, triggering a backlash from local law enforcement, members of Congress and Border Patrol agents themselves.
Critics of the move warn the closures will undercut efforts to intercept drug and human traffickers in well-traveled corridors north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Though the affected stations are scattered throughout northern and central Texas, and three other states, the coverage areas still see plenty of illegal immigrant activity -- one soon-to-be-shuttered station in Amarillo, Texas, is right in the middle of the I-40 corridor; another in Riverside, Calif., is outside Los Angeles.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it's closing the stations in order to reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border.
One does have to wonder precisely how closing these stations is going to make the nation's borders more secure. And in light of earlier decisions -- including adopting policies that require Border Patrol Agents use beanbags instead of bullets to confront violent drug traffickers -- this rings rather hollow.
"These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally," CBP spokesman Bill Brooks said in a statement. "By redeploying and reallocating resources at or near the border, CBP will maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate and align our investments with our mission."
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration seems to have adopted a policy of "let 'em in & let 'em stay" for the bulk of those crossing our border illegally (not that any prior administration has done a better job), so I have to question what it means when they claim they are trying to "maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate."