The Border Patrol says three measures prove Operation Streamline is a success. First, it says, few of those convicted try to cross the border again. Second, it points to the decrease in the total number of people being apprehended crossing illegally. And third, the government says Operation Streamline has allowed it to concentrate on more serious crime.
"Along with our other efforts," Chandler says, "Operation Streamline has shown its effectiveness and continues to be a valuable tool in decreasing the number of individuals attempting to illegally enter the United States."
Marc Miller doesn’t buy that argument. Miller is a law professor at the University of Arizona, specializing in criminal procedure and sentencing. He says there's no way a misdemeanor conviction will deter significant numbers of people from crossing.
"If dying in the desert is not a deterrent, it's hard to imagine why spending no or little time in federal prison and being returned to your home country is a deterrent," Miller says.
He doesn't even think giving Operation Streamline defendants the maximum sentence would matter.
"I don't think six months would make a difference here, either. The drivers of immigration are economics, not sanctions," he says.
Historically, illegal immigration rises when more jobs are available. That fact challenges the government's second measure of Operation Streamline's success: that apprehensions along the border are way down because of the program.
Not only is there a recession keeping people away, but over the same time Operation Streamline has been implemented, the government has doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, built nearly 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, and added detection devices such as cameras and sensors.
Read/Listen to Part 2 of 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment