Friday, July 23, 2010

ACLU sues Fremont, Nebraska over citizens vote to ban renting and hiring illegals

Remember Fremont, Nebraska where the citizens voted to make it illegal to rent to or hire illegal aliens?  And you know how some folks who are against AZ SB 1070 say things to you like "well, why don't you go after the employers then?".  Never mind that these idiots are completely unaware that it is already illegal to hire illegals in the first place (sorry to be so redundant on that but it's hard to fight idiocy without showing the ridiculousnous of it) and that Arizona is also being sued for creating and implementing a law which would revoke the business license of anyone knowingly hiring illegals.  And now, so is little Fremont.

Support Fremont, Nebraska

Well, now the ACLU is suing little Fremont, Nebraska

Remember Fremont, Nebraska? In June, citizens of the 25,000-person town voted in favor of banning illegal immigrants from renting property or landing a job in the town.

The law, which requires town officials to evaluate the citizenship of anyone renting property, has put the town at the center of the roiling immigration debate.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of landlords, tenants and employers in Fremont.

The suit claims that Fremont’s law interferes with the federal government’s authority over immigration matters and further that it has a discriminatory effect on those who look or sound “foreign.”

“This law encourages discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Amy Miller, Legal Director of ACLU Nebraska, said in a statement. “We’re going to do all we can to make sure this extreme law, which would lead to individuals losing housing and jobs because of their appearance and language accent, never goes into effect.”

Here’s an article from the Fremont Tribune.

“We are reviewing the lawsuits and what they say,” Fremont City Administrator Bob Hartwig told the paper. “It will take a day or two to look at it.”

“Let’s make it clear that the unlawful parties here are the immigrants that chose to break federal and state laws by coming here illegally in the first place,” Nebraska State Sen. Charlie Janssen said in a statement.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund also filed suit yesterday against the Fremont law, according to the Tribune. MALDEF likewise alleges the law violates the Constitution’s supremacy and equal protection clauses.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Amicus Brief filed by bipartisan Immigration Reform Causus - doesn't include 8 of 10 Arizonans in Congress

I see that the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus (76 members of the HofR and 5 Senators) have field an amicus brief in support of Arizona in the Federal Governments attack lawsuit on AZ.  I had already posted a snippet or two about this.  But, today, I see a list of the names of those 81 individuals.  And I see an amazing lack of Arizonans on the list.  No Senator McCain.  No Senator Kyl.  And only 2 of our 8 Congressional Representatives.  Why?  Why isn't every member of the Arizona Congressional Delegation a member of this caucus?  Even if you aren't a member, why didn't you sign on anyway?  Where are you McCain?  Or shall I call you McAmnesty?  And you Kyl?  Where are you?  I know you supported McCain in 2007 when he led the charge for amnesty.  And, contrary to the lies he told in the debate with Hayworth and Deakin last weekend, that's the only thing McCain has led in years including his own pathetic, anemic campaign for President in 2008.

Congressional Support for Arizona in Lawsuit Amicus Brief
The bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus, 76 members of the House of Representatives and five U.S. Senators have waded into the lawsuit by the Obama administration in U.S. vs. Arizona in support of Arizona.

Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) have filed an Amicus Curiae, or Friend of the Court Brief, with the United States District Court in Arizona opposing the Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

The Congressional amicus brief asserts that Congress has plenary power over immigration and the Obama administration claims that SB 1070 -- Arizona’s beleaguered immigration enforcement law -- preempt federal laws are without merit.

From House Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Bilbray:

"Arizona has every right to defend itself against illegal immigration," Bilbray said. "The federal government has failed to live up to its responsibility to enforce federal law concerning immigration, and Arizona's law does not preempt federal statutes. It is time to stop playing politics, roll up our sleeves and get to work on a bipartisan immigration bill that addresses America's border security, goes after employers who exploit illegal immigrants and reduces identity theft."

"I stand by my claim: the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus is ready and willing to meet with President Obama to address bipartisan and meaningful immigration reform," Bilbray added.

From Rep. Franks:

"President Obama is going to end up having to sue several states, including Rhode Island and others, if the Administration wants to sue everyone who tries to enforce immigration law. This is in addition to the numerous other states who have either introduced legislation similar to Arizona's (such as Michigan, South Carolina, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania,) and as many as 15 others have expressed a desire to pass a law similar to SB 1070,” Franks said. “Furthermore, the Administration's lawsuit is politically disastrous, since more than 55% of Americans disagree with the lawsuit. The American people want an effective, enforced federal immigration policy and secure borders. The last thing this ridiculous lawsuit is doing is making our laws more clear or our border more secure, and President Obama must continue to hear that the Members who signed this brief, along with the American people, strongly oppose the ongoing politicization of this serious national security and federal immigration issue."

From Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Smith:

"The Obama administration is wrong to sue the State of Arizona. The Arizona law is favored by a majority of Arizonans and Americans. Also the Arizona law mirrors federal law and is only necessary because the Obama administration has failed to do its job," Smith said. "Instead of suing Arizona, the Obama administration should stand up for citizens and legal immigrants, enforce our immigration laws and secure the border."

The Congressional amicus brief is posted here at the House Judiciary Republicans’ website.

The following Members of the House and Senate have signed onto the brief:

1) Congressman Trent Franks - AZ
2) Congressman Brian Bilbray
3) Congressman John Campbell
4) Congressman Gary Miller
5) Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
6) Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
7) Congressman Duncan Hunter
8) Congressman Bill Posey
9) Congressman Ted Poe
10) Congressman Howard Coble
11) Congressman Todd Tiahrt
12) Congressman Rodney Alexander
13) Congressman John Sullivan
14) Congresswoman Virginia Foxx
15) Congressman John Fleming
16) Congressman Jerry Moran
17) Congressman Steve King
18) Congresswoman Sue Myrick
19) Congressman John Duncan
20) Congressman Jeff Miller
21) Congressman Mike Simpson
22) Congressman Scott Garrett
23) Congressman Mike Coffman
24) Congressman Jim Jordan
25) Congressman Thaddeus McCotter
26) Congressman Walter Jones
27) Congressman Paul Broun
28) Congressman John Culberson
29) Congressman John Boozman
30) Congressman Ed Royce
31) Congressman Jack Kingston
32) Congressman J. Gresham Barrett
33) Congressman Pete Hoekstra
34) Congressman John Carter
35) Congressman Tom McClintock
36) Congressman Ed Whitfield
37) Congressman Patrick McHenry
38) Congresswoman Jean Schmidt
39) Congressman Robert Aderholt
40) Congressman John Kline
41) Congressman Phil Gingrey
42) Congressman Joe Pitts
43) Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis
44) Congressman John Shadegg - AZ
45) Congressman Michael Burgess
46) Congressman Spencer Bachus
47) Congressman Lamar Smith
48) Congressman Kevin Brady
49) Congressman Todd Platts
50) Congressman Jason Chaffetz
51) Congressman Robert Latta
52) Congressman Phil Roe
53) Congressman Mike Rogers
54) Congressman Rob Wittman
55) Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
56) Congressman Elton Gallegly
57) Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite
58) Congressman Louie Gohmert
59) Congressman Wally Herger
60) Congressman Gene Taylor
61) Congressman Geoff Davis
62) Congressman Tom Graves
63) Congressman Tom Price
64) Congressman Cliff Stearns
65) Congressman Jerry Lewis
66) Congressman Gus Bilirakis
67) Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins
68) Congressman Tim Murphy
69) Congressman Randy Neugebauer
70) Congressman Doug Lamborn
71) Congressman Bob Goodlatte
72) Congressman Ken Calvert
73) Congressman Michael McCaul
74) Congressman David Dreier
75) Congressman Rob Bishop
76) Congressman J. Randy Forbes
77) Senator Roger Wicker
78) Senator Jim DeMint
79) Senator David Vitter
80) Senator James Inhofe
81) Senator John Barrasso

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

The Federation For American Immigration Reform has issued a report entitled The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.

Executive Summary
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The study also
estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

KEY FINDINGS

  • Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84.2 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

  • The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per nativeheaded household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality

  • Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

  • At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

  • Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claimingtax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.
With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens. New York’s $6.8 billion deficit is smaller than its $9.5 billion in yearly illegal alien costs.

The report examines the likely consequences if an amnesty for the illegal alien population were adopted similar to the one adopted in 1986. The report notes that while tax collections from the illegal alien population would likely increase only marginally, the new legal status would make them eligible for receiving Social Security retirement benefits that would further jeopardize the future of the already shaky system. An amnesty would also result in this large population of illegal aliens becoming eligible for numerous social assistance programs available for low-income populations for which they are not now eligible. The overall result would, therefore, be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden.

(Click on each of the pictures below to see larger versions of each - Kirls)






Supporters of AZ SB 1070

The bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus,76 members of the United States House of Representatives and 5 Senators, support SB 1070.

Arizona Latino Republicans Association supports SB 1070.

The expectation is that 90%-100% of this law will indeed go into effect next Thursday.

63 percent of Nevadans surveyed support an Arizona-style law targeting illegal immigrants.



Congress, Latino Republicans join immigration debate

Nearly one out of every seven members of Congress, including two from Arizona, want a federal judge hearing a challenge to the state's new immigration to know that they don't believe it is preempted by federal statutes.

In legal papers filed Wednesday in federal court, the 76 members of the House and five senators argue that the U.S. Department of Justice "fundamentally misapprehends the nature of its authority to enforce immigration law.''

Separately, a group known as the Arizona Latino Republicans Association asked for permission to actively intervene in the lawsuit to help Gov. Jan Brewer defend SB 1070.

...

"The executive's powers to enforce federal immigration law does not confer the power to preempt state immigration enforcement by choosing, for foreign policy or other reasons, to selectively enforce the laws,'' they said.

That brief also says there is evidence Congress wants local police involved in enforcing federal immigration laws. That includes a statute that specifically bars cities enacting policies that bar police officers from sending information about illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

The federal lawmakers acknowledged that Congress passed a special law in 1996 allowing state and local police to receive special training, known as 287(g), to enforce federal immigration laws.

"But Congress reaffirmed that each state's inherent authority to enforce federal immigration laws was not restricted and that states could continue to assist in immigration enforcement,'' the members of Congress said.

The legal brief was signed by Trent Franks and John Shadegg, two of the 10 members of the state's congressional delegation.

It was filed for the members of Congress by two legal organizations: the Immigration Reform Law Institute which says it works to fight the damages caused by illegal immigrants, and the American Center for Law and Justice which bills itself as a public interest law firm working to protect the constitutional rights of religious groups.

No ruling on SB 1070 lawsuit

Attorney for the ACLU actually says that federal lawmakers never made it a crime for those in this country illegally to seek casual employment.  Really?  What is eVerify then?

Judge grills lawyers on Arizona immigration law

A federal judge peppered attorneys fighting over the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law with questions about their assumptions of what the law means.

At a pair of hearings Thursday, Omar Jadwat, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, said Congress never made it a crime for those in this country illegally to seek casual employment. He told U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton that shows federal lawmakers wanted to specifically preempt what Arizona has done with a provision of SB 1070 making it a violation of state law for undocumented workers to try to get work.

But Bolton told Jadwat he is making a presumption about what federal lawmakers intended by their silence.

“Or did they just not deal with it?’’ she asked. The judge cited other sections of federal immigration laws which contain specific provisions barring actions by state and local governments.

“We know Congress knows how to preempt expressly,’’ the judge said.

But Bolton did not spare John Bouma, the attorney for Gov. Jan Brewer, from her inquisitions.

One section of the law that appeared to be giving the judge heartburn spells out that anyone arrested for any reason cannot be released until their immigration status is checked with federal officials.

She pointed out that police “arrest’’ people all the time for minor crimes, issue them a citation and let them go about their business. Bolton said this provision of SB 1070 would appear to require police to hold people for some extra period of time — one attorney said it can take an average of 88 minutes to get a response from Immigration and Customs Enforcement — beyond what is necessary to cite and release. (if you're accused of something serious enough to be arrested for, then 88 more minutes of your life is a minor inconvenience. - Kirls)

Bouma said lawmakers meant to apply that only to people who actually are taken into custody and “booked’’ into jail.

“That’s what they should have said then,’’ Bolton responded. She said it could result in detaining tens of thousands of people “who otherwise could be cited and released.’’

But Bolton also questioned Edwin Kneedler of the federal solicitor general’s office about the federal contention in a separate lawsuit brought by the Obama administration that the requirement to check everyone arrested is preempted by federal law. She pointed out that other federal statutes specifically requires the Law Enforcement Support Center, operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to respond to every query by state and local police about someone’s legal status.

Kneedler said mandating queries for every traffic stop would overwhelm the system. (In Arizona, you have to prove citizenship to get a drivers license.  You show your license, get your warning or your ticket and you're on your way.  - Kirls)

Bolton said that may be true. But she said that doesn’t make the new Arizona requirement an illegal intrusion into the exclusive powers of the federal government to control immigration policy.

The questioning is significant because the judge is weighing each of the provisions in the law to determine if there is sufficient legal reason to bar any or all of them from taking effect as scheduled on July 29.

As part of that determination, the judge needs to make at least a preliminary decision on whether the provisions of the law are constitutional. If she believes some sections are not legal — and if she determines there the harms to some if the law is allowed to proceed are sufficient — then she will place the law on “hold’’ until there can be a full hearing on its legality.

Bolton’s questioning made it clear, though, that she will not invalidate the entire law.

She said there are sections of the measure that do not directly relate to the questioning of suspected illegal immigrants.

The judge also pointed to a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld ordinances of a California community which restricted where day laborers can solicit employment. Bolton said that likely upholds sections in SB 1070 which make it illegal to stop on public streets to hire temporary workers or try to seek employment in those situations.

Lawmakers who crafted the statute apparently anticipated such a possibility: SB 1070 contains a “severability clause,’’ saying a court declaration that one or more sections are illegal does not invalidate the entire measure.

That can be significant as the law contains several key provisions.

One of the more controversial requires police who have stopped someone for any reason to check their immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion’’ they are in this country illegally. Another makes it a state crime for a non-citizen not to carry the federally required identification documents, language that foes say effectively lets state and local police charge illegal immigrants with violating state laws.

But there are other sections that no one is seriously challenging, such as minor changes in Arizona’s separate law allowing a judge to suspend or revoke the licenses of companies that knowingly employ undocumented workers.

Constitutional issues aside, Bolton was also focused on that issue of harm, a key element in any decision she has to make about granting an injunction. Bouma said the claims presented by the individuals and groups represented by the ACLU and others are speculative at best.

“People talk about what they fear will happen,’’ he said.

But Nina Perales, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said there are real dangers to some. That specifically includes residents of New Mexico.

SB 1070 lists those documents someone can produce to prove legal presence in this country. That includes an Arizona driver’s license and the licenses from any other state which require motorists to show they have a right to be in this country. (See? - Kirls)

Several states, however, including New Mexico, do not have that requirement, making their licenses useless in proving, if questioned, they are legal residents of this country. (well, then I guess New Mexico should make sure that they issue drivers licenses to people who prove citizenship or legal presence in the country. - Kirls)

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Arizona Smuggling Corridors

I saw this at the Rose Law blog and thought you should all see it.  But, they don't have a direct link to the story.  I see it's also posted at The Westerner however, I'm posting it with full credit to both blogs but exactly as it appears at the Rose Law blog.




The Arizona smuggling corridors
A profile of government in disarray

By David B. Ham and Stephen L. Wilmeth

Perhaps the greatest threat to the security of the United States today is the 2045 miles of Mexican border. It is there that the drug war in Mexico can be heard at night. It is there that the politics of environmental radicalism has breached the independent thinking of conservation minded leaders. It is there that the very existence of the American experiment may face its toughest challenge.

Prior to 1924, border conflicts were handled by the states or various military operations depending on actions from Washington. The most violent border conflict in the history of the United States occurred in Texas. That conflict was not a single event. Rather, it was a conflict that began before statehood and continued following the Mexican American War when the United States government largely removed its military presence from south Texas.

Texas mounted its own protective service in what it called its Ranger force. Over time, the Texas Rangers evolved from a largely Indian fighting force to a special assignment and border protective service in the days and times up to 1904. During World War I, a United States contingent called “Mounted Inspectors” was put afield due to concerns of national security. Texas also responded to the war effort by beefing up its own security and sent additional Rangers to the border.

The United States Border Patrol was established by Congress in 1924 in response to the demand by Border States to halt illegal immigration. The first offices were established in Detroit and El Paso. Subsequent offices were established on the basis of what is now called “corridor development”. That was also extended to maritime locations where illegal entry expansion was occurring. The early Border Patrol was an organization that hired its officer force largely from candidates that had roots in the border region. They were men with a common background to the American citizens whose security they pledged to protect.

From the inception until the Bracero Program in the ‘50s, the Border Patrol did its work without a great deal of fanfare. If there was conflict it was largely with landowners who employed illegals. Thousands of miles of fence and other infrastructure were built by Mexican labor at that time. That conflict ultimately prompted the idea of the Bracero Program, whereby Mexican workers were allowed conditional entry into the United States in exchange for legal employment. The plan required the Border Patrol to enforce the conditions of the program as well as to oversee the return of the same workers following their temporary visits.

The demand for labor across a wider segment of American business accelerated in the ‘60s. As a result, the country experienced a dramatic expansion in illegal immigration. Interaction with the Border Patrol and a broader profile of American business spectrum took place.

By the ‘70s, the number and the profile of illegal aliens were changing. The border was becoming a more intense and the motives of illegals were changing. Drugs, and the war on drugs, were starting to shape a new and dangerous challenge.

By 1986, the Border Patrol had to start shifting its focus from the border to areas more inland. This change in the mission of the Border Patrol was largely the result of Congressional action. The Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) was passed. It mandated that an amnesty program be implemented, and it authorized the prosecution of American employers who hired illegals. Congress was putting the burden of proof on American business to determine the legal status of aliens. The Congressional mandate to secure the border was being passed to American businesses.

By the early ‘90s, Americans living in urban border centers were in near revolt as the hordes of illegal immigrants swarmed across the largely open borders and quickly disappeared into the mass of humanity on the American side. Something had to be done, and the Border Patrol figured out a plan that worked.

Starting in El Paso, the idea of going back to the actual border, making eye contact with illegals, and pinching off the flows was started. The operation was instituted and the horde of illegal border crossings was stopped. The numbers went down in El Paso, and the Border Patrol was able to reduce the numbers crossing in the Sector as a whole.

The next operation was instituted in the urban centers of southern California. This operation made use of what was learned in El Paso but it also incorporated higher tech ideas. It brought to the border increased agent numbers, border fencing, stadium lighting, and ideas in high tech monitoring. This more sophisticated approach also worked. Numbers of illegals entering San Diego went down and the San Diego Sector numbers were down as well. The idea of putting pressure on the border at the point of corridor entry was working. It only needed to be expanded.

Following the success at El Paso and the urban centers of southern California, the Border Patrol was intent on expanding the idea into southern Arizona. Nogales and the greater Tucson Sector was the target. That operation brought the factors learned at El Paso and San Diego to the Arizona border at Nogales. The operation failed.

What the illegals found in Arizona was exactly what made the efforts in El Paso and southern California work. The immense and harsh conditions of the open desert outside of the Nogales entry became a major entry into the United States. Unlike the urban centers of southern California and El Paso, the Arizona lands outside of the preferred entry points were not fully patrolled and controlled by the Border Patrol. Much of the Arizona border allowed the Border Patrol only conditional and limited access.

The hordes of illegals found the American invention of federally designated Wilderness, and the United States has been at an ever increasing risk ever since. The powerful United States Border Patrol couldn’t access the millions of acres of wilderness, but the human and drug smugglers certainly could, and they did.

A closer look at the corridor concept

The Border Patrol first started using the corridor concept as a method of controlling illegal immigration in the late ‘80s. The concept was developed by David Aguilar and his staff at the Border Patrol’s Southern Region office in Dallas. The purpose was to control the heavy influx of illegal aliens from Central American entering illegally through the McAllen Sector. There were a lot of factors that led to the heavy influx including natural disasters, protected status for certain aliens from El Salvador, and a policy of releasing the other than Mexicans (OTMs) from detention facilities because of absence of funding to detain them. Regardless of the reason, the McAllen Sector of the Border Patrol was inundated by OTMs from Central America.

To combat this problem, Aguilar created the McAllen Corridor and soon resources and manpower began to flow into the Sector. Agents were pulled from other Border Patrol Sectors to implement the staffing in the Sector on a temporary basis. Anti-smuggling agents and resources, including operational funding, were taken away from different Sectors all over the nation to reinforce the McAllen corridor.

Eventually, the OTM invasion slowed and resources were returned to their respective Border Patrol Sectors, but the corridor concept was established. To determine what might qualify for the creation of a corridor, Border Patrol Stations were required to report a whole new set of metrics that were created to measure what was going on in their respective station areas. Line watch stations, stations whose area of responsibility were adjacent to the Mexican border, were instructed to divide their areas of responsibility into zones and report the activity that occurred in a respective zone. “Zone Reports”, “Got aways”, and “turn backs” were examples of the new metrics.

With the amnesty and employer sanction provisions of IRCA, apprehensions in the late ‘80s dropped. The lull didn’t last long, though, when it became apparent that the Clinton administration wasn’t serious about enforcing employer sanctions. By the early ‘90s, apprehensions across the southern border were again increasing.

In 1991, El Paso, Texas was approaching chaos. Crime had increased dramatically, auto theft was rampant, beggars and windshield cleaners were at almost every intersection in the city. To combat this problem, El Paso Sector Border Patrol Chief Sylvestre Reyes and his staff created Operation “Hold the Line”. The idea was simple. Instead of chasing illegal aliens after they entered the United States, the Agents would prevent them from entering illegally by deploying right on the border. Interestingly, this plan wasn’t approved by the regional hierarchy because El Paso was not an approved corridor.

Although it was a struggle, the plan worked. Gradually the illegal aliens began to realize that things had changed and the days of being able to cross whenever and wherever they wanted in El Paso had changed. Reyes’s idea had been to close the urban border and force the aliens out into the desert where it would be easier to apprehend them. The success of “Hold the Line” soon led the San Diego Sector to adopt a similar strategy with the implementation of Operation “Gatekeeper”. At that time, the San Diego Sector had been the consistent leader nationwide in apprehensions (McAllen and El Paso battled for second). The Tucson Sector was still considered a Sector where nothing much happened. Its harsh, isolated border expanses were not yet seen as a pathway into the United States.

As anticipated, the illegals began to move out of the El Paso/ Juarez metro area and seek easier ways to cross into the United States. Apprehensions in the Deming, New Mexico station area 100 miles to the west began to skyrocket. In the far western reaches of the Sector area at Lordsburg, New Mexico large increases in apprehensions occurred as well. The Deming corridor was created and by the late ‘90s other stations in the El Paso Sector were being asked to detail agents and equipment to Deming to try and stem the flow. Deming tried to emulate the El Paso strategy of forward deployment of its agents, but the aliens would continually outflank them. The farming area west of Columbus, New Mexico was soon overrun by illegal aliens entering on foot and in vehicles headed north. The chaos that had been happening in El Paso was now pushed into the Deming corridor.

The chaos would soon hit the Tucson Sector as well. Douglas and Nogales, Arizona soon experienced the effects of increased illegal entry. By then, David Aguilar was in Tucson as the Sector Chief and he had brought many of his staff officers from the Southern Region to help gain control in that Sector.

In 2003, Chief Aguilar was sent to Washington D.C. to take the place of retiring Chief of the Border Patrol Gustavo De La Vina. The Tucson Corridor had been created and accordingly extra manpower and technology had been poured into the area. Zones and special enforcement areas were created, and different strategies were created almost monthly, but nothing seemed to work as entries continued to soar.

In 2004, a new theory of border control began to evolve and it became the Border Patrol mantra for achieving control of the border. It was believed, and ultimately shown, that with the right mixture of personnel, technology, mobility, and infrastructure control of the border could be achieved. This strategy was developed in conjunction with the pending implementation of the Secure Border Initiative (SBInet). Using this strategy Deming began to gain control of its area of responsibility. With increased numbers of agents, camera surveillance technology, improved infrastructure, and the authority to go anywhere without constraint, the Border Patrol was able to develop a plan that was effective in the farming area west of Columbus. Apprehensions dropped and a more orderly operational control of the area was returned.

By 2009, apprehensions were down all across the nation largely because of the economy. The El Paso Sector, once among the top two most active Sectors in the nation, had experienced a whopping 51% decrease in apprehensions. That was the largest decrease in the nation. Meanwhile, Tucson’s share of illegal apprehensions soared as a percent of the whole. That year, nearly half (241,673) of the 540,865 apprehensions caught nationwide occurred in the Tucson Sector.

While alien apprehensions were down nation wide, narcotic seizures increased by 57%. As with human smuggling numbers, the Tucson Sector led the way with 1,204,702 pounds of narcotics seized. That was a nearly 48% of all marijuana interdiction along all United States borders.

Another measurement suggests the extent of the problem. The Tucson Sector represents about 13% of the entire Mexican border, but, in 2009, the rate of human apprehensions occurred at about 920 per mile of border for the year. The southern border as a whole experienced a rate of 167 per mile of border, but the El Paso Sector had an apprehension rate of just fewer than 6% of the Tucson result, or just 54 per mile. Those results would suggest that El Paso still has pressure, but Tucson is out of control.

The Tucson Sector has received more manpower and technology in the past ten years than any Sector, yet it has not achieved control of its border. The question must be asked, “Why”? The answer is access to the border. Prohibitions against accessing border wilderness areas, wildlife management areas, wilderness study areas, a large Indian reservation on the border and Department of Agriculture forest lands have dramatically hampered the Border Patrol’s ability to patrol and control that segment of the border. At the same time, illegal aliens and drug smugglers aren’t constrained by the prohibitions and are accessing and abusing those areas.

Corridor profile

The most violent and explosive growth of the Arizona human and drug smuggling corridors is a fact of life in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector. It is ground zero where the unexpected circumstances of Operation “Safeguard” and the displacement of illegals from “Hold the Line” and “Gate Keeper” took root and flourished. What is unique about the Tucson Sector that has created such danger even with the presence of increased manpower and technology?

Starting at the New Mexico/Arizona line and running west, that stretch of border is dominated by federal land holdings. The corridor entry points discovered by illegals following Operation “Safeguard” were expanded from the east into designated Wilderness dominated lands of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Coronado National Forest, and other Departments of Interior and Agriculture managed lands. These lands all have some common characteristics. Those similarities are:

1. The corridors have wilderness/de facto wilderness safe havens.

2. They have east /west highway access north and south of the corridors.

3. They have rugged and complex north/south mountain and drainage orientation which provides channels of movement.

4. They are almost entirely or heavily dominated by federal land agency management.

5. The concentration of American private property rights at risk is limited as is the presence of resident American habitation.

6. All corridors have high, strategically located points of observation.

The first step toward solution

The lessons from history in Texas and in the urban centers now indicate that success of controlling the border will come only by taking the fight back to the border itself. Success cannot be achieved by dropping back and focusing on peripheral issues. Silvestre Reyes’ simplistic order to his officers in the Operation Hold the Line to “go to the border and make eye contact with illegals” is more valid today than it has ever been. The problem is the Border Patrol cannot do that in Arizona. They are constrained in the wilderness and de facto wilderness areas as discussed, but the federal government has also created a loop hole whereby they can be blocked from entry to other federal lands.

By statutory authority, the Border Patrol has the right to enter into any private property for any reason and without announcement within 25 miles of the Mexican border. That authority was granted years ago in order to defend the sovereignty of our nation. Nothing was deemed more important than the need to protect American citizenry.

The Border Patrol, however, has no similar access authority to federal land holdings. An individual American cannot lock his or her gate and keep the Border Patrol off private property, but the United States can do the same thing and preclude the Border Patrol from entering. At the time the private entry authorization was done, nobody dreamed that a federal agent would ever be restricted from accessing federal lands. The federal land management agencies and the converging Wilderness and Rewilding agenda of the environmental movement have changed that situation. That agenda is trumping national security, they have done much to confound Border Patrol activity, and they have created havoc on the Arizona border.

Implications of that double standard played into the March, 2010, murder of rancher Rob Krentz. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Regional Manager, Benjamin Tuggle, wrote three letters to the Border Patrol in 2009 detailing how, henceforth, they would have only conditional access to the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge directly on the border east from Douglas, Arizona. The stipulations were that the Border Patrol would only be allowed onto the refuge in the event of life or death (human) conditions. Normal, mechanical access for patrolling and illegal interdiction would be denied and if the Border Patrol did not abide by the demand all access would be removed and future access would take place only on the basis of a special use permit.

Money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was used to rebuild fences and barriers around the refuge on the condition of National Security enhancement. The majority of the money was spent on fencing that blocks Border Patrol mechanical access. The actual portion of the work that blocks illegal alien entry was the lesser amount of the total project. The Krentz murderer used the sanctuary of the refuge both for accessing the United States as well as for his escape back into Mexico. Based on the conditions set forth by Tuggle and his staff, the Border Patrol could not have interdicted the murderer with mechanical means even if they had known the exact location of the murderer.

The blind insistence that more and more lands be protected for the purposes of creating an environment largely “untrammeled by man” has made it dangerous for traditional and legal activities in those lands. The void that is being created is being filled by drug and human smugglers. The Border Patrol cannot fully accomplish its mission, few Americans now want to visit those areas, and far too few productive endeavors that maintain a presence of Americans with property rights at risk are allowed and cultured by the federal agencies managing those lands. In the place of a protective and historical American presence, the proliferation of corridor expansion and the escalation of the war to control that growth have exploded.

At a minimum, the Border Patrol must have the same rights and authority to enter federal lands within 25 miles of the border as they do on private land holdings. That organization cannot be encumbered and denied access in order to attempt to carry out its mission while at the same time drug and human smugglers make full use of the lands where that access is conditional or denied. The universal message to Congress should be, “Start defending this country by installing the full rights and authority of the Border Patrol by allowing full and unencumbered access to any and all lands, at any and all times, without any time or conditional constraints to the 25 mile buffer along the entire Mexican border from Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean”. The Border Patrol has demonstrated in the El Paso Sector that, if it has such authority, it can control the border and the human and drug smuggling corridors. Without it, it is a defensive war that America is losing.

David B. Ham served the United States 31 years as a Border Patrol Officer. He was instrumental in establishing the Anti-smuggling team in the El Paso Sector. At the time of his retirement in 2003, he was the El Paso Sector Assistant Chief. He has extensive experience in the areas of southern New Mexico being considered for federal wilderness designation. He is adamantly opposed the any restriction to Border Patrol activities within 25 miles of the Mexican border. He is the current President of the Board of Governors of the National Border Patrol Museum. Mr. Ham is a native of Andrews, Texas and resides in El Paso.

Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. He believes that long established desert ranches are ecosystems within the greater landscape of the Southwest. Any disruption in best management practices affects the balance of those stewardship units, and the designation of wilderness poses the highest risk of all artificially imposed restrictions. The disruption of established water systems, the curtailment of turf improvement projects, the elimination of brush control, and the elimination of land stewards are threats to wildlife, and, in the case of border ranches, outright threats to the security of the United States.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

62% Believe Arizona Will Win Lawsuit

The East Valley Tribune has an article Experts dissect SB 1070's legality which might be worth reading if only for the references to other cases.  There is also a poll attached to it.  Results as of about 930am MST (Arizona doesn't use Daylight Saving Time) and following my own vote are:


That Phoenix police officer who sued the state because he says that SB 1070 would force him to racially profile in spite of the law making racial profiling illegal wants his case combined with the Federal suit.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

First anti-SB 1070 lawsuit in court

The first of what will likely be many lawsuits against AZ SB 1070 hit court on Thursday.  This one filed by Phoenix police Officer David Salgado, who says the law will force him to racially profile even though the law makes racial profiling illegal, and the non-profit group Chicanos Por La Causa, a self described progressive community based organization (gee, doesn't that sound familiar?) which says it will harm the children who may not produce proof of legal presence fast enough.  That's right, the big mean horrible state of Arizona is in the habit of deporting children without bothering to contact their parents.
Three reports...

2 very good reports from local news organizations
Battle over SB 1070 gets first day in court

Immigration law gets first major court hearing

1 from the New York Times (wow, they are really worried about AZ winning, aren't they?)
Debate Over Arizona Immigration Law Comes to U.S. Court

30 lawmakers to file amicus brief in defense of AZ SB 1070

The first half of this Politico article is dedicated to the Federal Government and others like Grijalva (D-AZ), who is calling for a boycott of his own state, and Gutierrez (D-Ill), who is just another cog in the Chicago politcal machine.  These are open borders advocates and members of La Raza who are against AZ SB 1070, of course.  But scroll down to the bottom of the article and find that 30 lawmakers have signed onto an amicus brief to be filed ins upport of AZ SB 1070.
After the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in May to reverse the Arizona law, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) this week drafted 17 House colleagues to become party to a friend of the court brief backing the state.

Most of the GOP’s participation and focus, however, has centered on the Justice Department suit.

This week, two border state congressmen, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), have been collecting signatures from the nearly 100 members of the Immigration Reform Caucus for an amicus brief that will be filed in support of Arizona on Monday. By Thursday, about 30 lawmakers had signed on.

“Arizona has not created a counter policy. It is completely parallel and consistent with federal law,” said Bilbray, the caucus chairman who represents a San Diego-area district. “All [Arizona has] done is taken the federal law, moderated it, actually put more protection against (racial) profiling.”

DeMint and Vitter, meanwhile, are using the congressional amendment process to try to undermine the Justice Department. The two introduced an appropriations amendment to a small business bill that would ban federal funds from being used in any lawsuit seeking to overturn provisions of Arizona’s strict immigration law. The bill is set to be debated on the floor next week.

Vitter declined to comment Thursday but noted in a statement that polls show a majority of Americans reject the Justice Department suit.

“The state of Arizona is simply taking responsibility for a problem that the federal government has neglected for years, but Washington’s only response is to oppose these new enforcement efforts and take them to court,” Vitter said. “The Obama administration should not use taxpayers’ money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.”

Illegal Immigrants and their impact on Maricopa County Arizona

Illegal Immigrants in Maricopa County Arizona.  That is the name of a report i found at icarizona which reposted this September 2008 report on Illegal Immigration from then Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas (Dowloand PDF).  It seems icarizona's purpose is to illustrate the dramatic difference between Andrew Thomas and the current Maricopa County Attorney.

My purpose in posting it here is entirely different.  I want to help educate the rest of the world on the state of affairs in Phoenix, in Maricopa County, and in Arizona in general.  The document is heavily footnoted and linked but the new County Attorney has moved some of the documents.  A secondary purpose is to address those who whine (yes, i said whine!) that we are focusing on the Southern border rather than the Northern border.  The implication is that we are racist and focusing on the brown people.  That claim is ludicrous since the Southern border is where the vast majority of the problem is occurring.  The report shows that claim to be what it is - misguided racism on the part of those making the claim.

Some highlights:
Executive Summary
  • In June 2008, the Arizona prison system reported a population of 5,173 Mexican Nationals.
  • In 2004, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated the annual cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants in Arizona prisons and jails equal to $80 million. (2008 estimate is $114 million annually)
  • Law enforcement and criminal prosecutions linked to illegal immigration costs the Arizona border counties of Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma millions annually. A recent study estimates that these four border counties in Arizona costs were $26.6 million in 2006.
  • In 2005, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducted sample studies using a pool of more than 55,000 illegal immigrants
    • The group was arrested a total of 459, 614 times, averaging 8 arrests per illegal immigrant
    • They were arrested for a total of 700,000 offenses, averaging 13 offenses per illegal immigrant.
    • 12% of these offenses were violent offenses like robbery, assualt, and sex-related crimes.
    • 15% were propety related offenses like burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and property damage.
    • 45% were drug or immigration offenses
    • the remaining 28% were for other offenses (traffic, DUI, fraud, weapons violations, obstruction of justiced, etc)
    • 80% of all arrests occurred in three states: California, Texas, and Arizona. (Yes, Peggy, Arizona is indeed a border state just like Texas! - K)
Illegal Immigration Statistics

Arizona
...the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported the state's illegal immigrant population to be 530,000.  This is a 62% increase from 330,000 they reported in 2000.  In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies reported Arizona's illegal immigrant population to be 9% (579,000 people).  A study from the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy reports the non-citizen immigrant population in Arizona to be 619,800 people.... a reasonable average of these studies is that approximately 9% of Arizona's population is comprised of illegal immigrants.

Maricopa County
...An analysis has found that in 2007 18.7% of defendants sentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court were illegal immigrants.....total percentage of illegal immigrant defendants sentenced for felonies in Maricopa County Superior court is 21.8%
Click this picture.  Red is the % of that crime committed by illegals.  Blue is the % of those crimes by by people who are legally present in this country.



Illegal Immigration's Impact on Maricopa County Crime
...16.5% of violent crimes can be linked to illegal immigrants.  In 2007, 18,100 violent crimes were reported to Maricopa County law enforcement....2,973... committed by illegal immigrants....the financial hardship imposed on Maricopa County citizens totaled approximately $59 million dollars in 2007.
...18.5% of poperty crimes can be linked to illegal immigrants.  In 2007, 165,743 property crimes were reported to Maricopa County law enforcement.... 6,684...committed by illegal immigrants....the financial hardship imposted on Maricopa County citizens in property alone totaled approximately $24 million in 2007.

Illegal Immigration Legislation
2005
Senate Bill 1372 made human smuggling a crime...Class 4 felony punishable with up to three years in prison.
2006
Proposition 100... prohibits bail for any person who is charged with a serious felony offense and who is unlawfully in the U.S.  As a result illegal immigrants who are charged with serious felonies can no longer be released.
2007
Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA)...allows a court to suspend or revoke the business license of employers found to have knowlingly hired illegal workers.  The bill also strengthened the State's ID theft laws against persons who use false documents to obtain employement.
2008
LAWA amendments to punish an employer who knowingly accepts false identification from an applicant for employment.
2010 (not from the 2008 report, of course), SB 1070 was passed codifying into state law that state, county, and local law enforcement are required to enforce federal law.