{"id":22584,"date":"2020-02-26T14:12:22","date_gmt":"2020-02-26T19:12:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22584"},"modified":"2020-02-26T14:12:26","modified_gmt":"2020-02-26T19:12:26","slug":"illegal-aliens-greyhound-ice-courts-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/02\/26\/illegal-aliens-greyhound-ice-courts-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Greyhound to Border Patrol: Show Us Your Papers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Bowing to illegal-alien advocates, Greyhound<\/a> says it will no longer allow Border Patrol agents to conduct immigration checks on its buses without a warrant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coincidental or not, Greyhound\u2019s policy reversal came three weeks after a leaked memo in which now-retired Border Patrol chief Carla Provost<\/a> opined that warrants are required for such checks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also the conjecture that the presence\nof law enforcement was driving off some of Greyhound\u2019s sketchier passengers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe\npolicy of\nletting border agents do immigration checks without reasonable suspicion\nor without a warrant was a bit surprising,\u201d Rich Kelsey, former law dean at\nGeorge Mason University and frequent writer on immigration issues, told FAIR\nthis week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\nsaid, Kelsey thinks Greyhound\u2019s warrant demand is shaky. \u201cNo officer requires a\nwarrant if there exist contemporaneous facts that rise to the level of\nreasonable suspicion for a search. That’s something less than probable cause.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As America\u2019s largest interstate bus company (currently up for sale by the publicly traded U.K. firm FirstGroup<\/a>), Greyhound is a public conveyance licensed and regulated by the federal government. As such, Dan Cadman<\/a> of the Center for Immigration Studies, notes a public interest \u201cin assuring that [Greyhound] is not, intentionally or unintentionally, facilitating illegal activity in the conduct of their business, most especially not on interstate highways whose construction and maintenance are, by and large, funded by U.S. taxpayers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking from years of experience at U.S.\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Cadman says bus checks\n\u201chave repeatedly proven their worth because they have, often enough, resulted\nin arrests of previously deported felons making their way from border areas\nback into the interior, [and]halted migrant trafficking schemes, leading to\nthe rescue of minors or women being forced into sex slavery.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greyhound executives, crassly calculating that\nillegal-alien cash spends the same as anyone else\u2019s, may not care about any of\nthis. But the company\u2019s buses are more like passenger trains and commercial\nairlines than they are to private motor vehicles. And even those vehicles can\nbe halted for Border Patrol checks anywhere within 100 miles of the border. No\nwarrants required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which prompts Cadman to ask: \u201cIf such checks are lawful, as the Supreme Court<\/a> says they are [Ms. Provost\u2019s Fourth Amendment musings notwithstanding], why would a warrant be needed to conduct a cursory check of a public bus getting ready to depart from, say, El Paso to Chicago?\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good question. It\u2019s one that the Department of\nHomeland Security and the Justice Department should vigorously pursue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bowing to illegal-alien advocates, Greyhound says it will no longer allow Border Patrol agents to conduct immigration checks on its buses without a warrant. Coincidental or not, Greyhound\u2019s policy reversal came three weeks after a leaked memo in which now-retired Border Patrol chief Carla Provost opined that warrants are required for such checks. There\u2019s also<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":22585,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[5],"tags":[470,864,1524,71],"yst_prominent_words":[2623,2043,2042,3058,4971,7826,5139,7825,4970,7827,1963,7823,2030,2120,2095,1975,7824,6236,7074,7828],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22584"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22584"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22584\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22586,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22584\/revisions\/22586"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22585"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22584"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}