“Is it ever in one’s best interest as a citizen of the
United States to waive his or her Constitutional rights?”

Dr. Sean Chadwell

To the editor:

As a native Crackerlandian (I’m from East-Central Crackerlandia and grew up in one of the flour-bleaching centers of the region: "You Can’t Make Whitebread Without the White!"), I would also like to complain about the editorial bigotry in LareDOS; evidently MarÌa Eugenia wasn't thinking of the potential harm to the image of Crackerlandia when she made the casual and bigoted association between my homeland and border patrol agents. The apparent ignorance and self-aggrandizing self-righteousness of la migra (especially as it is represented by Monty Guthrie -- maybe letting that guy post his public missives is a way of demonstrating that they do recognize at least one of the first ten amendments to the constitution) does not reflect well on the rest of us crackers. The real problem, of course, is that in Crackerlandia, we have a healthy respect for the Constitution; USBP agents -- and many, admittedly, back at home – don’t believe the Constitution counts down here.

Before I continue, I’d like to point out that many people I hold in high esteem also hold the border patrol in high esteem, seriously valuing its work, especially here in Encinal (a crossroads for all kinds of non-highway traffic headed north). I also want to remind even those generally opposed to the uniformed branch of the INS that its agents do often save the lives of Mexican nationals (to whom I have nonetheless heard agents refer as "wets" in casual conversation) unfortunate enough to find themselves in some of the many inhospitable prairies of South Texas and the Southwest generally. Finally, the recent sting of Tyson Foods by the INS is a real coup de grace for the USBP’s parent agency -- genuinely important and exactly the kind of work they ought to be doing (this was not, of course, the USBP); more on this below.

I want to address some central issues -- all raised in one way or another by Guthrie -- in the discussion between Guerra and Guthrie.

The first is a small matter, a point of rhetorical clarification. Guthrie suggested in his February letter that drug trafficking is a crime just like "raping, robbing, and killing," pointing out that, just because we’re losing the war on drugs doesn’t mean we should stop enforcing the law. He uses this analogy to argue that, according to Guerra’s logic, we should stop fighting all kinds of crime. His looks like a pretty convincing argument. But analogies like these are misleading: raping, robbing, and killing are not market-driven crimes like drug trafficking (even if "robbing" is economically motivated, there are not "market forces" at work here). I’m consistently surprised that, in a country that so celebrates the power of the market, people can ignore the economic element of drug trafficking. Ironically, drivers are even treated to a billboard at the I-35 roadblock which advertises the drugs seized by the USBP -- in dollar equivalents. Unfortunately, the demand for drugs isn’t changing. There has not been a (criminally) economic demand for rape, however, since the 19th century.

And speaking of economics, how about that INS/Tyson Foods case? In this case, the INS used undercover officers (I’m assuming these were not USBP agents but I could be mistaken) to gather evidence rather clearly demonstrating that Tyson foods not only hired undocumented workers but recruited the illegal immigration of some of those workers. Tyson did this to capitalize further on the profit they garner by selling mass-bred, mass-processed chicken to estadounidenses. I was elated to hear about this sting operation because it approached the problem of illegal immigration and undocumented workers from the only angle that makes any sense; Mexican nationals would not cross the border were they incapable of finding work. They certainly don’t come here for the enchiladas de pollo.

As in the case of drug trafficking, the invasive practices of the USBP not only do not contribute to the solution of the problem of illegal immigration, but instead very likely exacerbate that problem. In fact, if you’re, say, in charge of Tyson Foods, isn’t the USBP doing you the favor of keeping production costs low by its partial effectiveness?

In considering this question, remember that USBP agents have dangerous jobs, as Guthrie reminds us: it is no small matter to risk your life on the South Texas border. What’s the payoff? Access to cheap chicken? Again, if our targets were Tyson Foods and other employers, we wouldn’t be talking about Constitutional rights or property rights at all. Frankly, I pity USBP agents in this regard: as long as there are employers willing to illegally hire undocumented immigrants, trying to stop the flow of those immigrants into the United States will be like trying to stop gravity. The USBP is working for Tyson and against it at the same time. Meanwhile, folks back in Crackerlandia are persuaded that an angry horde of Mexican nationals waits to invade the United States as soon as the USBP turns its collective back (friends really did ask if I weren’t "scared" to move to the border).

Americans are continually reminded of the threat of illegal immigrants because the illegality of immigrants works in favor of Tyson Foods (this is why Vicente Fox proposes to solve the problem by documenting the undocumented; but then US employers would have to pay them and pay taxes! So Bush ignored Fox on this issue). Tyson and others can keep costs low, keep profiting, keep immigrants in dangerous jobs -- and when those illegals are hurt by chicken processing equipment or when they get sick because of overexposure to antibiotics, US citizens raise a fuss that Mexicans are crowding emergency rooms without paying for them. This leads to the simplistic outcry for more border patrolling and a willingness to accept Constitutional compromise -- on the border, not in Crackerlandia -- in exchange for security.

We could all make life safer for the USBP and the illegals they police by not buying products from companies like Tyson Foods. Sadly, that’s probably asking too much of Americans.

I would even suggest that the principal reason for the immigrant arrest drop in recent months is economic in nature. And, tellingly, in a February 10 San Antonio Express-News story about the drop (the drop over the last four months is the most severe in 17 years), USBP supervisor Steve Loring was quoted: "Hopefully, we will have some traffic tonight. I would hate to have one of those nights when we hardly catch anyone."

This sounds to me like a man justifying his job. Remarkably, Loring doesn’t seem to care that fewer illegals may be trying to cross (which would be good news, right?); he just wants to "catch" one. Tyson loves this kind of stuff: as long as they’re illegal, they’re cheap. How do you keep them illegal? Keep chasing them.

But, as Guthrie points out, many ranchers and landowners in South Texas have no problem with the USBP’s presence on their land; we ignore your property rights, explains Guthrie, in order to protect your property. As long as US employers continue luring illegals through ranch lands, many ranchers will likely (and rightly) feel threatened enough for this to sound acceptable. Here’s an analogy: we protect your rights as citizens by violating your rights repeatedly and without cause. And Guthrie would like for us to believe that this is a simple choice we must make: either accept the paradox or have your ranch houses broken into; either accept the paradox or have illegals crowding schools and emergency rooms.

Don’t accept the paradox. Stop buying cheap chicken.

Finally, the big problem I want to address -- and I see it as someone subject to the I-35 roadblock five or six days a week -- is that border patrol agents are serial violators of the Constitution. Though it’s very likely these agents swore to uphold the Constitution (as federal employees do), it is not clear they’ve read it.

Now this is where Guthrie is likely to object. He and others can claim -- as he did in his last letter -- that federal law permits border patrol agents to enter private land within 25 miles of the border. It is also true that "287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357 (a) (3), provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances ‘within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States,’ as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines ‘reasonable distance’ as ‘within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States.’" Again, this is the paradox: we suspend your rights to protect them.

So I am not disputing the present legality of the fact that I have been told (not asked) to get out of my car and told (not asked) open the trunk for agents at the roadblock. Clearly, this is now legal. But present legality does not make it Constitutional -- the Supreme Court has heard several cases about this Fourth Amendment issue (notable among these is Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) and United States v. Ortiz (1975)).

At the roadblock, I have little immediate recourse as a United States citizen; in being ordered from my car, I do not feel confident that I can resist on Constitutional grounds (again, it is not clear that USBP agents are familiar with the Constitution in the first place) without being subject to immediate further penalty. As a citizen whose rights are so officiously ignored, I feel I have few options in the face of an armed agent. I fear that resisting on Constitutional grounds will, at best, involve months of legal disputes aimed at combing through the differences between the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution. Because I have to drive through this roadblock almost daily, isn’t it in my best interest to waive, say, the first few Amendments to the Constitution in order that USBP agents don’t make my life difficult?

Fear is the problem, of course. In his apologia for the USBP, Guthrie can never seem to decide what he wants to say: on the one hand, he seems to be asking for respect, claiming that the USBP never gets any (he occasionally asks for pity, too, as in the case of the agents working during holidays); on the other hand, he almost constantly reminds MarÌa Eugenia and the readers of LareDOS that the USBP can act with impunity, can legally act in what are clearly unconstitutional ways. The USBP, he reminds us all frequently, can do pretty much whatever it wants to do to whomever it wants to do it.

Fear and respect, often confused by people who act with such impunity, are at least as far apart as the road is long between here and Crackerlandia. And here’s the part where I’m ashamed: I’m scared of the Border Patrol. I don’t respect its agents, but I’m afraid of what power they have, of what they can do or have done to me; as defensibly righteous as I would like to be as I approach the roadblock, I just answer questions (and I get plenty, for some reason) and drive on through. And, again, I constantly ask myself: isn’t it just in my best interest quietly to endure what I know are Constitutional violations? After all, I’m breaking no laws.

Is it ever in one’s best interest as a citizen of the United States to waive his or her Constitutional rights?

This is an old question and my immediate dilemma; and I’m a fully employed cracker. I won’t do my many Hispanic neighbors the disservice of imagining what the roadblock is to them. Instead, I fear that in not challenging the practices of the USBP, I’m complicit in the gradual erosion of Constitutional rights in this country. So I resolve to challenge them as MarÌa Eugenia has done, in writing. And I’ll try to be more courageous in the face of impunity.

But I don’t want some cracker-to-cracker dialogue with Guthrie. It’s pretty clear we don’t have anything to talk about. In fact, if I weren’t blinded by my fear of USBP agents, I’d probably just feel sorry for them, stranded as they are between the fear of Crackerlandia and the reprehensible economics of US employers on the border.

Besides, I have long decided that, given their quick and remarkably inaccurate assessment of me, I have to assume that border patrol agents aren’t really that good at making assessments. In my personal experience, the deductive and/or intuitive skills of USBP agents are, statistically speaking, amazingly unsound, as I am for a number of reasons, apparently, a suspicious type to many agents but am guilty exactly zero percent of the time. I rarely get home in the evening without an extra dog-tour around the truck or the inquiry (so, so tiresome, now): "Is this your car?" But I know I’m breaking no laws. The ironic end result of all of this is that just admitting to me that you’re a border patrol agent is as good as saying: "I am very often arrogantly incorrect in my professional judgment." My point, in other words, is: don’t bother responding to me, Monty. The green uniform vitiates your credibility, and you’re already fighting enough battles you'll never win.

Dr. Sean Chadwell