Showing posts with label Arizona Illegal Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona Illegal Immigration. Show all posts

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Illegal Immigrant Arrested Inside Arizona Nuclear Facility

This country is a hair's width away from a terrorist attack.  Things are out of control.  Unless, of course, you're an ordinary American who has to travel for work or chooses to travel for pleasure.  Then, the TSA is all over your grandmas adult diaper.


Sheriff: Security allowed him in with fake ID

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says his deputies arrested an illegal immigrant working inside the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Station, the nation's largest nuclear plant.

According to Arpaio, 32-year-old Cruz Loya Alvares was denied entrance at the facility's security checkpoint on Monday, when he was the driver of a work truck belonging to a private contractor doing work at Palo Verde. Security guards noticed the man's Mexican driver's license was expired. On Tuesday, Alvares was admitted to the plant as a passenger in a work truck, using an Arizona ID card. However, at a secondary checkpoint, Arpaio says further examination by authorities determined that the Arizona ID was falsified.

The sheriff says he doesn't know how long Alvares had been working inside Palo Verde, and whether Monday was the first time he had attempted to get in.

"To some extent," Arpaio says, "security at this nuclear power plant worked. But still, an illegal immigrant was permitted to gain access. This raises the question: how safe is Palo Verde really if an illegal alien can gain access to this nation's largest nuclear power facility?"

The sheriff says the incident brings into question the effectiveness of the security at other government facilities.

Arpaio says his deputies have been made aware of other incidents of illegal immigrants working in buildings containing various federal, state, and local government workplaces.

Monday, June 06, 2011

Arizona Boycott - FAIL!

Last year about this time there were calls across the land to boycott my beloved state of Arizona.  Just look at my own blogging on the topic from May, June, and July of 2010 for a sampling.  Well, well, well, here we are a year later and we find that pretty much no boycott happened.  Few contracts were cancelled in the face of city councils being ordered to review contracts with firms in Arizona.  Typical leftsts counting on the ignorance of their constituents.


A year after the City Council approved the sanction, little has changed. There's not even an ordinance specifying how the boycott should work.

In May 2010, Los Angeles was a part of wave of cities that voted to boycott Arizona after lawmakers in that state passed a controversial law targeting illegal immigrants.

City Hall staffers were ordered to review contracts with Arizona companies for possible termination, and official travel to Arizona was supposed to be suspended.

But a year later, little has changed in the way Los Angeles does business with the state next door.

The city still buys street sweeper parts from one Arizona firm and has a contract for emergency sewer repairs with another, officials say. The Harbor Department alone has four contracts with Arizona companies that total nearly $26 million.

A similar pattern can be seen across California. Boycotts in Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles County made headlines last year but have since delivered little punch.

None of those jurisdictions has canceled a contract with an Arizona-based company because of the boycott — leading some immigrant-rights activists to dismiss the high-profile calls for economic sanctions as empty symbolism.

The disappointment is especially felt in Los Angeles, where Latino elected leaders strongly backed the sanctions.

"This is a moment of hypocrisy if the city of Los Angeles says one thing and does another," said Rabbi Jonathan Klein, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. Klein was speaking to a crowd of protesters gathered at City Hall to demand follow-through on the business ban.

Protesters have complained about several exemptions the City Council has granted in the last year, including approvals of contracts for made-in-Arizona Taser guns and red-light traffic cameras, as well as a contract with a Los Angeles International Airport shuttle provider that has offices in the state.

Councilman Ed Reyes, who wrote the boycott, voted to approve those exceptions. He said the deals were in the best interest of the city. Reyes said he, too, was disappointed with the boycott's slow progress, but he blamed City Atty. Carmen Trutanich's office for taking more than a year to draw up an ordinance specifying the terms of the ban. A spokesman for Trutanich said an ordinance is still in the works. (Kirly - what a hypocrit Reyes is!  He WROTE the boycott and then voted to approve exceptions!)

Despite the lack of clear guidelines, Reyes said there had been at least one boycott victory: Last year the Los Angeles Police Department opted not to send a team of helicopter pilots to a training conference in Phoenix.

Reyes also pointed to a March letter sent to the president of the Arizona state Senate by several dozen leaders of companies with headquarters or major subsidiaries in Arizona. The letter urged rejection of five proposed anti-illegal-immigration laws, saying that when controversial laws are passed, "unintended consequences inevitably occur."

Dozens of local governments across the country imposed boycotts on Arizona after the state passed SB 1070, which required police to check the status of those they suspected of being in the country illegally. Critics said the law would promote discrimination; state officials disagreed.

In their letter, the Arizona business leaders wrote that the boycotts cost the state jobs and hurt its economy, and that further anti-immigration legislation could do more harm. None of the five laws passed.

Lawrence Glickman, a boycott expert at the University of South Carolina, said boycott organizers should count that as a success. Most boycotts end more ambiguously than the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1950s, which ended segregation on buses, or the grape campaign of the 1960s, which won fieldworkers contracts with growers, he said. (Kirly - a letter should be counted as a success???  uhm, ok, lefties, you got your letter so you're "winning".)

In the case of the Arizona boycotts, he said the target — an entire state — is less clear than a company or industry. "As an entity, a state is pretty amorphous," Glickman said.

Los Angeles city officials have struggled to define what it means for a company to be "headquartered in Arizona," the language used in the council's boycott motion.

The issue came up recently when the Board of Public Works considered a $100-million contract for a wastewater treatment plant with Honeywell, a multinational corporation that has divisions and employees based in Arizona. The board approved the contract. (Kirly - typical leftist idiots.  Honeywell is not headquarted in Arizona.)

The boycott movement lost some urgency last year when one of the law's most controversial provisions was struck down in federal court. That ruling, which halted the requirement that police check the status of suspected illegal immigrants, was upheld in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Several California entities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles County, voted to suspend their boycotts until the court case is decided.

More than 20 Los Angeles County contracts were approved while the boycott was active because they met certain exemptions, records show.

In one report to the Board of Supervisors, the county's chief executive said a contract with an Arizona company that makes undershirts for jail inmates was exempted because "additional cost, time and resources are required to resolicit the services or supplies." (Kirly - so they were basically too lazy to do the work to support their own boycott!)

Ellen Sandt, an L.A. County deputy chief executive, said the boycott was important even if it had produced few tangible results in the way the county spends its money. For the supervisors who passed it, "it was important for them to take a stand," she said. (Kirly - yep, all symbolixm and no substance with leftists.)

The boycott has been more than symbolic for at least one city. Last year, Santa Monica officials chose not to award a $3-million contract to an Arizona-based firm to replace 20 mobile homes in a city-owned park, according to Kate Vernez in the city manager's office.

They gave the business to a California company instead.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Embarrassed BLM Changes Signs in AZ Desert Spending Your Tax Dollars

The Bureau of Land Management used Federal funds ($600 Million to increase border security measures was granted) to update their signs in the Arizona desert.  You remember the signs.  I posted about them a few times:  Public Lands South of I-8 now a no-go area, Just How Far North Is This?We Can't Protect You South of Interstate 8.

 

 

The new signs say
  • Active Federal Law Enforcement Patrol Area
  • Clean-up and restoration crews at work

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Donors Send Millions to Defend Arizona Law

Thank you Mr. Mellon and the more than 42000 others who have sent donations to help Arizona defend itself against the federal government!


Arizona has attracted more than $3.6 million of donations to help defend its law to crack down on illegal immigration, with one whopping contribution—and thousands of smaller ones—from out of state.

Timothy Mellon, an heir to a Pittsburgh steel and banking dynasty, has donated $1.5 million to a legal-defense fund established by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, according to the governor's office.

Mr. Mellon, who is identified on a donor list as a Wyoming resident, is among more than 42,000 people who have contributed to the border state's legal battle for the right to enforce the law, which Arizona's legislature passed earlier this year.

The law makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if they suspect they are in the state unlawfully.

Mr. Mellon's contribution is an anomaly. Through Sept. 9, the latest date for which information is available, most of the donations have been small, many between $20 and $100. Sympathizers from all 50 states and the District of Columbia have contributed to the fund. Most of the individual online contributions have come from Arizona, followed by California, Texas, Florida and New York.

Since Ms. Brewer signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 in April, her popularity has soared, bolstering the Republican's chances in next Tuesday's gubernatorial election. Polls show her with a lead of more than 10 percentage points over state Attorney General Terry Goddard.

The law sparked a national debate and propelled illegal immigration to the forefront of the midterm election campaign. Candidates in more than 25 states have said they would draft similar laws if they were elected, according to ImmigrationWorks USA, a pro-business group that favors changing immigration policy.

Arizona is widely regarded as a testing ground for tackling illegal immigration. SB1070 could culminate in a U.S. Supreme Court clash over state versus federal power that backers of the measure hope will establish a new legal precedent that delegates more authority over immigration to the states.

In May, amid lawsuits from individuals and civil-rights groups, Ms. Brewer signed an executive order creating the Border Security and Illegal Immigration Defense Fund to raise money from private citizens to help pay the state's legal costs.

The state is represented by Snell & Wilmer, a big Phoenix law firm that is charging $225 to $450 an hour. Ms. Brewer tapped outside counsel after Mr. Goddard, her Democratic rival in the gubernatorial election, expressed reservations about defending the law against the suits, according to the governor's spokesman.

A spokesman for Mr. Goddard said he stepped aside after the Arizona legislature enacted a statute that deprived him of the authority to defend SB1070 in court and gave the governor the authority to hire outside counsel.

In early July, the Obama administration filed suit over the statute, saying the state had "crossed a constitutional line" and was interfering with federal authority over immigration. Most out-of-state donations began flowing to Arizona after that suit was filed.

On July 29, a federal judge temporarily stopped key provisions of the law from taking effect, saying it was unlikely Arizona would prevail in challenges to provisions such as requiring police to question and detain suspected illegal immigrants during routine stops. Arizona appealed the decision, setting in motion what is likely to be a protracted legal battle with Washington.

About 220 attorneys have taken part in the suits so far, and there have been more than 1,000 legal filings, the governor's spokesman said. The state has paid more than $441,000 in legal fees, according to invoices from Snell & Wilmer reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Those expenditures are for only two months and are likely to increase quickly.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will consider the Obama administration's suit beginning Monday.

"Gov. Brewer has stated that she is prepared to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court," said Paul Senseman, the governor's deputy chief of staff.

If the case were to reach the high court, attorneys fees could soar to $10 million, according to Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonpartisan research group in Los Angeles.

Mr. Mellon was unavailable for comment. "We believe the donation speaks for itself," said Robert Culliford, general counsel for Pan Am Systems Inc., a private shipping and freight concern of which Mr. Mellon is chairman.

Mr. Mellon has donated money to several GOP candidates during the current election cycle, including U.S. Senate hopefuls Carly Fiorina in California and Marco Rubio in Florida and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks political contributions.

AZ DPS Patrol Vehicle Stolen by Presumed Illegal

It's an AP article so I can't link and copy it here.

A Department of Public Safety officer made a traffic stop of a stolen pikcup truck suspected of carrying illegal immigrants north of Casa Grande this afternoon - near the Sacaton rest stop along west bound Interstate 10. Casa Grande is near where the Sheriff Deputy was shot earlier this year and near where two illegals used a cell phone to call for help but were dead by the time they were found - that was a likely case of one cartel attacking another.

A scuffle ensued and the patrol car was stolen. The driver later abandoned the patrol car 30 miles south of Phoenix. The driver was arrested. Strange. They don't report his immigration status.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Editorial: The High Cost of Border Insecurity

There is a great editorial at copanews (that is Maricopa County News).  I'm including it here in it's entirety.  It has one flaw - it fails to note why the Yuma sector is so much more secure is that they have a fence and the border patrol quickly jails for two weeks you if you're caught once, 30 days the second time, and so forth.

E.M. Murray

With the controversy in the State of Arizona over illegal immigration -- particularly since the passage and signing into law of Senate Bill 1070 -- we have been inundated with news clips of angry people on both sides of  the issue. We have also been lulled nearly to sleep by the talking heads on the evening news spouting figures about illegal immigration that have little or no meaning to us. Depending upon which television channel you watch, the numbers may even be different.

We hear one figure one day and a different figure another day. What is the real story behind the numbers? Does anyone have accurate figures? Are there any figures we can believe?

It is virtually impossible to obtain accurate figures, either for the number of undocumented aliens in the United States (for obvious reasons) or the cost to US citizens of having those undocumented aliens here. There are, however, credible sources who give numbers based on research instead of on emotion. This article will use those sources.

A publication from the Majority Staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” (www.house.gov/sites/members/tx10_mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf), is a report that every concerned citizen should read. Don’t read it just before going to bed at night, though – it may give you nightmares.

The numbers

The United States shares nearly 6,000 miles of international border with Mexico and Canada. This article focuses on the US/Mexican border, since that is the area of interest to Arizonans. According to the report, during 2005, approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens were apprehended. Let’s see what that number actually looks like: 1,200,000. That is one of those numbers too large for most of us to really comprehend. Of those 1.2 million aliens, 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico (OTM). Of those 165,000, approximately 650 were from special interest countries (SIC).

Those special interest countries are a concern for both the United States and Arizona because they are “designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism” (quoted from a written statement of David Aguilar, Chief, Border Patrol, U.S. Department of Homeland Security).

The Tucson Sector of Border Patrol (the sector we reside in) is the busiest and biggest sector in the Border Patrol Service. It is so large and so busy that agents from other sectors are on loan to the Tucson Sector. According to Colleen Agle of the Tucson Sector, in the period of October 1, 2009 through July 31, 2010, there were 194,000 apprehensions in the sector. Border Patrol estimates (or guesstimates!) that for every one undocumented alien apprehended, 2.6 get away. Using that figure, 504,400 – over half a million -- entered the US through that one sector alone and were not caught. Those uncaught aliens could populate a city the size of Tucson. The Federal government estimates that only 10 to 30 percent of illegal aliens are apprehended, meaning that for the 194,000 caught in the Tucson sector, up to 1,746,000 came into the US illegally – and were not apprehended. That is a population the size of Phoenix!

Drugs, drugs, and more drugs

A large portion of illegal activity at the border has to do with illegal drug smuggling. In the fiscal year 2005, Federal drug seizures amounted to 222,714 kilograms (490,995 pounds or 245 and a half tons) of cocaine and 1,162,509 kilograms (over 2,562,867 pounds or more than 1,281 tons) of marijuana. So much for the “war on drugs.”

Pinal County numbers

What do the numbers have to do with us here in Maricopa? In 2009, the Pinal County Jail booked 325 illegal aliens. During much of the year, nation of origin was not recorded, but of those that were, there were 42 OTM undocumented aliens. Of those, two were from SICs – one from Cuba and one from Iran. Bear in mind that these people were not booked into the jail for being in the country illegally. They were booked for violations of law including DUI and extreme DUI, smuggling (people and/or drugs), assault with intent, child abuse, child molestation, aggravated assault on an officer, aggravated assault, theft, forgery, arson, identity theft, money laundering, kidnapping, unlawful flight from law enforcement, burglary, and just about any other crime one can think of.

From January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010, the Pinal County Jail booked 191 undocumented aliens. Of those, 30 were OTMs. Of those 30, seven were NOIs, including one from Brazil and one from Colombia.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) called the U.S. Border Patrol 249 times in 2009 and 237 times in 2010 (as of August 9th). Many of those calls were for multiple persons.

The Pinal County Adult Detention Facility has an agreement to house illegal aliens, who are turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). In 2008, they housed 6,728 of these individuals. In 2009, that number was 6,549.

According to Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Tim Gaffney, the cost to house a prisoner is $59.64 per person per day. Multiply the inmate numbers by $60 and you begin to see the staggering amounts of money spent. Is it any wonder that it seems like Sheriff Paul Babeu is always asking the Board of Supervisors for more money?

In addition to the obvious dangers to the citizens of the county due to crimes committed by undocumented aliens, there is another major issue. The majority of vehicle pursuits by the PCSO involve drug and human trafficking. These pursuits put everyone on the road at risk, both unsuspecting citizens and the deputies. In 2007, there were 142 vehicle pursuits in the county. In 2008, there were 140. In 2009, the number of vehicle pursuits was up to 289. Through (only!) July 31st of this year, there have been 246 pursuits. In some cases, the deputies have dropped pursuits when the risk to citizens was too high to warrant further pursuit. However, even ending a pursuit does not guarantee safety. (See http://www.copanews.com/Article.aspx?ID=1616 for an example.)

The human costs

In addition to threats, risks, and losses to the public due to crimes committed by illegal aliens, there are also human costs. Deaths in the desert are all too common. (Actually, even one death is too many.) The slow or infirm are often left behind by the “coyotes” (human traffickers) to make their own way – or die – in the desert. Through July 15, 2010, the Pima County Medical Examiner handled 134 deceased illegal immigrants (an increase from 93 last year). On October 6, 2010, The Washington Independent reported 252 bodies were recovered in Pima County. The office was so overloaded with bodies that the medical examiner had to get a refrigerated truck to store some of them. It is estimated that 2/3 of the deceased are never identified, leaving hundreds of families to worry and wonder about their loved one.

In Pinal County this year, through August 12, 2010, 12 bodies were recovered from the desert. While many of those people died of exposure, either to cold nights in the winter or heat in the summer, two were officially ruled as homicides. Five of the deceased have not been identified; their families will never know what became of them.

In addition, the television news has a story about a “drop house” nearly every week. Houses where men – and women -- and children – are held against their will, starved, and abused, while their families in Mexico are extorted to obtain their release.

Yuma Sector: doing the job

The Yuma Sector of Border Patrol, on the other hand, was bragging in September that they have had no border-crossing fatalities this fiscal year (www.YumaSun.com). In recent years, enforcement was stepped up in that sector. (Now-Sheriff Babeu was a participant in the increased Yuma Sector enforcement.) Border enforcement in the sector is so tight that word has gone out not to try to cross there. If you are caught, you will be summarily jailed and then deported. “Catch and release” is no longer the way things are done in Yuma Sector.

No money for enforcement

One problem Pinal County has in relation to being a “smuggling corridor” is that we are not technically a “border county.” Although trafficking, both human and drugs, is a serious problem in our county, and related violence is escalating (see http://www.copanews.com/Article.aspx?ID=1158), we are not included in funds for enforcement because we are not a “border county.” Washington cannot conceive that we would need enforcement funds – after all, we’re miles away from the US/Mexican border!

Arizona dollars

While the “FAIR Report” has been termed unfair by some, it offers a conservative estimate of the cost of Arizona’s illegal immigrant population. The organization’s estimate comes to about $1.3 billion per year – ONLY for education, medical care, and incarceration (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters5e3f). In case that figure doesn’t impress you, it’s $1,300,000,000 of your tax money. This does not include a lot of other costs: displacement of legal workers by illegal immigrants willing to accept lower wages, law enforcement costs for prevention and enforcement and judicial process (court) costs, the need for bi-lingual employees in numerous industries, bi-lingual printing costs for documents (including voting materials), higher insurance rates associated with illegal immigration related crimes such as property loss and auto theft, US money sent to Mexico -- and on and on it goes.

The education costs do not include things such as ESL instruction and school nutrition programs. Look at the cost of supporting illegal aliens and then look at the Arizona State budget deficit; you may see a connection there.

Your family is paying (the figure may be considerably higher now) about $717 per year just to support illegal immigrants. If you don’t like the large class sizes at your child’s school, consider this: 15 to 20% of the students in his or her class are illegal immigrants. If you have ever been forced to wait for hours at the Emergency Room, be aware that the preferred medical provider of illegal immigrants (who will never pay the bill, by the way) is the Emergency Room. In addition, your medical bills are high in order to cover the cost of those who are uninsured and never pay.

Governor Brewer has taken a solid stand against illegal immigration in signing Senate Bill 1070. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County is still doing his raids to arrest illegal immigrants. Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County has become a vocal opponent of illegal immigration due to recent crimes in our county. More and more states have passed or are passing laws similar to our SB 1070.

What you can do

When you go to the polling place on November 2 to exercise your right – and your responsibility – to vote, consider the platforms and the promises of the candidates. If you see illegal immigration as a problem for Pinal County and for Arizona, vote for those who see it the same way and say they will do something about it.

If you see people you suspect of being illegal aliens, call 9-1-1. The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office has authorization to apprehend undocumented aliens, who are then turned over to I.C.E.

Note: The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office was very cooperative and willing to help with research for this article and provided numerous facts, figures, and interviews. The local media has carried articles about illegal trafficking in Maricopa but when asked for data regarding stops of undocumented aliens by the Maricopa Police Department, we received the following communication from the Public Information Officer of the Department: “Per our Departmental policy we do not ask people whether they are undocumented aliens. Subsequently, we do not have stats surrounding those circumstances.” For this reason, there is no information specific to Maricopa in this article

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Border Crashers; Douglas, AZ Refuses to Recognize Reality

I am posting this in it's entirety with a minimum of introduction since it needs nothing further from me.  This is the reality in the border areas.  The violence is here.  And it will only get worse.  Please read the whole thing.

Ashurst: A Border Manifesto #4

At approximately 1:00a.m., the morning of August 26, 2010, three vehicles loaded with dope and driven by Mexican Narco Terrorists, broke through the International Boundary Fence on the east side of Douglas, AZ. Unfortunately for them they were quickly spotted and subsequently chased by several carloads of authorities, both federal and local. The chase started on what is locally known as the Geronimo Trail, an extension of 15th Ave. Due to the close proximity to the town, the chase almost immediately found itself within Douglas city limits. The outlaws in their haste to get away tried every trick to evade the law officers. The chase finally reached speeds of 80 miles an hour through residential as well as business districts, the outlaws driving with no headlights. Perhaps because of the time of night only a few law enforcement vehicles were involved. They were not able to apprehend the outlaws, but they did get them turned around and eventually chased them back through the very same hole they had created when entering the United States, thereby, escaping south back into Mexico.

On July 6, 2010, I attended a Douglas City Council Meeting at City Hall. It was a special meeting called by Mayor Mike Gomez to try for a second time to pass a resolution stating that the U.S.–Mexican Border had reached a point where it was out of control and had become lawless and therefore dangerous to the citizens of Douglas and the surrounding area. This resolution was not a statue or law with subsequent penalties or boundaries; it was merely a resolution, or statement; a sort of cry out of the wilderness so to speak declaring the need for some assistance from the federal and/or state level to shut down illegal outlaw activity on the Mexican Border. The Arizona League of Cities had encouraged Mayor Mike Gomez to get this passed and had promised unanimous support. They planned to send it on to Washington D. C., with every city in Arizona signing along with Douglas. The resolution, it was hoped, would pull some weight and get the attention of the powers that be at the national level. In what one television reporter called “The most bizarre meeting I have ever attended,” the city council turned down the resolution.

The meeting was packed out with a standing room only crowd that was extremely polarized to say the least. Many ranchers from the surrounding ranching community were there who, along with many residents within the city limits, were in support of the resolution. Also in attendance were some open border advocates, who claimed to stand for civil rights (they looked like professional protesters to me). The meeting was heated by arguments both pro and con about the resolution. One council person spoke stating that she couldn’t vote yes on the resolution because it would be admitting Douglas was a lawless place and she felt safe there and it would be sending the wrong message. Another council person stated he couldn’t vote yes because his constituents wouldn’t approve.

Many local ranchers pleaded for the passage of the resolution reminding the council of the murder of Rob Krentz and a multitude of other incidents where people had been molested by illegal aliens. Upon hearing these pleas for help a council person replied “You people have got some problems.” And then repeating himself, “You people have got some problems,” emphasizing “you” so everyone present would observe a deliberate disconnect between him and anyone advocating the resolution. Even through nothing about the resolution would be legally binding, four council members stated that in their opinion the border was not out of control and passing it would be sending the wrong message to the outside world. As far as they were concerned the status quo was just fine. The resolution was voted down with four council members voting no, and one council member, along with the Mayor, voting yes. They had spoken; Douglas was just a nice little border town, peaceful and quiet, and there was no need to get in an uproar about the outlaw activity on the border.


The Arizona Rancher
While all this goes on, it is business as usual for the outlaw trade on the Mexican line. Due to the media attention of Rob Krentz’s murder the Border Patrol has swamped the San Bernardino Valley east of Douglas with agents, so the illegal alien traffic is down substantially in that area, but there is still a considerable amount of dope filtering through. To the west, though, it is a different story. In the area around Naco and the Huachuca Mountains the traffic is going strong. You can go to youtube and watch numerous videos of aliens hiking through these areas. The Sasabe area, including the Baboquivari Mountains southwest of Tucson, is particularly hot right now. But perhaps the hottest spot of all is the Tohono O’odham Reservation and Organ Pipe National Monument near Ajo and Sells, AZ where dope and contraband flow like a river.

Upon pondering these things I would like to ask a few questions of our elected officials and other people. I would like to know if the members of the Douglas City Council still feel safe in Douglas, AZ?

I wonder how many times Mexican outlaws would have to bust through the border fence and drive around Douglas 80 miles an hour with headlights off in the middle of the night before these council members would get concerned? Perhaps the outlaws know where they live, and out of respect they deliberately avoid their neighborhoods while on their 80 mile an hour sojourn through town? If they can’t vote yes on the resolution because it would go against their constituent’s wishes, I would like to know just who their constituents are and how they make a living? Who would oppose a plea for assistance to establish law and order? I wonder if the councilman who purposefully established the disconnect between himself and anyone who was having problems, thinks perhaps there is a problem now? I suppose this recent high speed chase through residential areas of Douglas wouldn’t warrant his concern. I wonder how many high speed chases it would take to get his attention? Perhaps a few innocent bystanders being killed by the outlaw’s speeding car would rattle his chain. I wonder if Janet Napolitano still thinks the border is safer than ever. I suppose she’s under strict orders to never say “uncle” even though every day another story emerges from somewhere between Brownsville and San Diego of another Narco Terrorist invasion, or another murder or kidnapping, and tons of contraband being seized, all at the expense of the tax paying, law abiding American citizens.

But that leads to another question. How have law abiding American citizens suddenly become the enemy in this nation? We recently had to endure the scourging of Felipe Calderon, speaking from our own capitol building at the invitation of Barack Obama, and now there is talk that Obama is dragging us before the United Nations so they can reprimand us for such violations as defending our border.

Sheriffs Larry Dever and Paul Babeau are neither members of the AZ State Legislature or the United States Senate or House of Representatives. They have no law making responsibility or power. Their purpose is to enforce the laws of the land, written by the politicians that we elect. Because they are merely doing their job they are now being sued by members of Obama’s radical left. A lawsuit is senseless and will do nothing but deplete their resources and energy, precious commodities they need to accomplish a duty they took a solemn pledge to fulfill when they took office. Why have they become the enemy?

This leads to more questions. How did we get here? Larry Devers, Paul Babeau, and Jan Brewer all took oaths pledging to fulfill the duties of their office and to enforce the laws of the land. SB1070 is merely a reflection of Federal law passed by elected officials. Why are they being crucified for trying to establish some sort of order in the midst of chaos? Are there people who just don’t get it? Is there some sort of disconnect here, some sort of breakdown in the natural order of things? It seems like we suffer from a lack of direction, a loss of knowing the truth, we’ve shifted off of the foundations we built upon, and I believe the assault flows from the top downward.

One wonders who Barack Obama’s constituents are. Are they the citizens of Arizona and Texas? Or are they the citizens of a larger world? One wonders where his loyalties lay. Perhaps the United States isn’t big enough for him?
Obama loves to use tax payer’s money to host parties for Bush bashers like Paul McCartney. Obama can shuck and jive with the best of them on the Ellen Degeneres and Oprah shows. He has straight white teeth and a good looking wife, but these are not the ingredients of a statesman. Campaign speeches and signs proclaiming change you can believe in aren’t worth much when the ship needs a pilot to guide it through troubled waters.

That leads to another question. I wonder how seriously Barack Obama took his oath of office. Was he pledging allegiance to the Constitution of the United States or the Bylaws of the United Nations? I wonder who his heroes are, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, or Samir Shabaz? It seems he’s more comfortable around Hugo Chavez and Felipe Calderon than he is Jan Brewer or Dick Chaney. After all, they are merely U.S. citizens.

So I asked myself, who are my heroes? At the top of my list are George Washington and Winston Churchhill. I always root for the underdog, so I added to my list: Larry Dever, Paul Bebeau, Joe Arpaio, and Jan Brewer. I realize that I’m just a dumb cowhand and I don’t understand the intricacies of international politics and high-minded, political innuendo, (like the intellectually stimulating writings of Karl Marx, or the mastery of political skill by individuals like Adolph Hitler) but for an old cowboy like myself there’s just something appealing about someone who will get a bull by the juevos and hold on while they are getting the living crap stomped out of them.

Ed Ashurst
Apache, AZ

Submitted to the Federal Observer, by the author for publication.


Published originally at Federal Observer.com“: Republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

We Can't Protect You South of Interstate 8

I'm basically reposting what I just saw at NewZealI posted a map of this area before.



Here is the sign again:


And here is a map of Arizona showing Interstate 8 and the huge portion of Arizona which is now off limits to Americans:

National Day Laborer Organizing Network

The day laborers have a union.
NDLON's mission is to improve the lives of day laborers in the United States. NDLON unifies and strengthens its member organizations to be more strategic and effective in their efforts to develop leadership, mobilize day laborers in order to protect and expand their civil, labor and human rights. NDLON fosters safer and more humane environments for day laborers, both men and women, to earn a living, contribute to society, and to integrate into the community. NDLON's vision aspires to live in a world of diverse communities where day laborers live with full rights and responsibilities in an environment of mutual respect, peace, harmony and justice.
And here they lie about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and state that their marches are "peaceful".

That should make the commies in the Federal government very happy.

But, before you decide to pick up a few of those unsavory characters hanging out at the local home improvement store, you should be aware that they basically have a union and could sue you.  And that's just if you're lucky and don't happen to pick up one of the repeat violent offenders.

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.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

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.