Border Patrol’s subjective moves can threaten law-abiding people
While DACA has claimed the loudest role in a game of immigration-policy chess, less talked about is U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s effort to hire 5,000 new agents. With recruitment efforts spanning NASCAR and bullfighting events, CBP hopes to increase the number of agents by 25 percent.
But when 2 out of 3 Border Patrol applicants fail a polygraph test, and with harsh workplace environments in desert or brush, hiring new agents can be difficult. Yet, with rigorous vetting, proper training, and the genuine intent to serve and protect, CBP will augment border protection with the best men and women for the job. Right?
Perhaps. But only if the agency recognizes the room for improvement.
In 2012, after returning to the U.S. from a trip to Europe, I presented my Canadian passport to a U.S. Border Patrol officer. “Oh, you’re Canadian,” he mused. “Do you know what we do to Canadians?” A strange question, I thought, but respectfully answered, “No, I don’t.” His reply — “We lynch them.” Of important note: I am a black woman. My husband, who is white and American, grabbed my hand beneath the counter and squeezed as I tried to breathe normally. When the agent stamped our passports, he looked at my husband and said, “Welcome home.”
In 2015, during a family holiday within the state where I live and work, I was locked in a cell at a roadside stop for not carrying the paperwork that identified me as a lawful resident of the U.S. Before I was placed in a cell, I heard my case agent call his supervisor: “Says she’s Canadian. LPR card. At her house. Austin.” When he hung up, I also heard the exchange between him and the agent who stood over me: “What do we do with her?” The other agent replied, “It’s up to us. Since we have her, we get to decide.”
Surely, there were rules to follow. Surely, a government position with an average salary of $75,000, and a 55-day basic training program would rely on some form of protocol. But I was mistaken.
I’ve learned my stories aren’t unique. Admittedly, fast-changing and complicated policies can make things challenging for CBP agents — as might have been the case when specialized nurses were denied entry to the U.S. because of an obscure amendment. But agents are also empowered to use their best judgment — as was the case when a group of women traveling to the U.S. from Montreal to attend the Womens’ March was denied entry for virtually no reason.
It’s true that U.S. immigration officials can admit whomever they deem worthy, but Border Patrol agents’ subjective decisions threaten the safety of people on either side. If life-threatening decision-making has been hefted onto these men and women who agree to serve and protect, perhaps they need more than 55 days of training. If the CBP touts the protection of all Americans as one of its core values, the agency itself might reflect that inclusivity — and recruitment efforts should better reach out to a broader demographic. If the CBP wants to help the American public to feel safe, it should, perhaps, refrain from telling lawful residents they can be lynched.
This spring, after a threeday vacation out of the country, I slid my passport and permanent resident card across the counter to a cheerful agent as we re-entered the U.S. We exchanged witty banter about our brief holiday and our daughter said something that made us all laugh. As passports were stamped, I breathed a sigh of relief. The agent smiled and waved at us as we walked away. A good person doing a good job.
We want to trust that the CBP selects the best candidates for this dangerous job. We want to trust that 55 days of training is enough to protect these brave men and women who’ve signed up to secure the borders. And we want to trust that CBP agents are truly committed to protecting the law-abiding American public. But until we are assured our protection isn’t tied to an agent’s whim, and until we are assured that every agent will deem all families worthy of protection, many of us will hold our breath — each time we enter the U.S.
The new Republican tax plan proposes that the standard itemized deduction be almost doubled for a married couple, to about $24,000, reducing the number of people using itemized returns, but there is a cost: the loss of medical deductions and standard exemptions.
All medical deductions are deleted from being itemized expenses in all proposed GOP plans, as are the standard individual exemptions ($8,100 for couple in 2017), being nondeductible for the first time in most of our living memories.
At present, all medical deductions over 10 percent of adjustable gross income are deductible without limit, which is crucial, considering the debate over increasing health care premiums, as well as increasing costs for actual medical expenses paid.
With these deletions, many families will be hit with catastrophic
Whether you like or don’t like Christopher Columbus, it’s amazing to me just how shortsighted most of his critics are.
How many of those very shallow people who bash him wouldn’t be here today without him? The Americas would not have electricity or modern medicine. We wouldn’t even have the wheel.
No computers, no smartphones, no air conditioning, no retirement, no modern medicine, no grocery stores. Most children would die during their first year of life. Very few people would reach the age of 50 years.
Maybe that’s the way some people would like to live — but here I am at 66 wearing glasses, alive only because of something as simple as antibiotics, with a full refrigerator, typing on my computer, sitting in my air-conditioned home with very clean running water, planning to watch my fiber TV later today.
Thank you, Christopher Columbus! I have and will continue to celebrate Columbus Day!