Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[jpccusa]

And yet the US Border Patrol has not been hiring for quite a while now...:shrugs: If they are bumping up the numbers of people down there, wouldn't they need to hire more people to cover their slots where they are being pulled from? Or is my logic completely wrong?

Can you backup your claim that the US Border Patrol has not been hiring for quite a while (vague)?

If you look at facts, border is more secure than ever

Arizona has endured more than its share of challenges stemming from our southwestern border. I know this from personal experience, having worked directly on border issues since 1993 - as U.S. attorney, as Arizona governor and attorney general, and now as U.S. secretary of Homeland Security.

I share the frustration that Arizona and other border communities feel, from the cartel-related violence in Mexico to the tragic murder of Robert Krentz in Cochise County. These events make clear that we still have significant work ahead of us. But the notion that we have somehow ignored the border is simply false.

The people of Arizona need to know that our border - the U.S.-Mexican border - has been one of my key priorities as secretary.

Over the past year and a half, this administration has pursued a new border-security strategy with an unprecedented sense of urgency. And despite the unfortunate misperceptions that continue to make their way into the public debate, the reality is we've actually achieved significant progress securing the border.

You might not get this impression from those looking to score political points by saying the border is spinning out of control. But the numbers tell the accurate story - and they're going in the right direction.

Illegal crossings along the southwestern border last year were down 23 percent from the year before and are a fraction of their all-time high. Last year, seizures of contraband rose significantly across the board: Homeland Security seized 14 percent more illegal bulk cash, 29 percent more illegal weapons and 15 percent more illegal drugs than the year before. And, by all measurable standards, crime levels in U.S. border towns have actually remained flat or dropped for most of the past decade.

We're seeing these results because the U.S. government has devoted more resources - in terms of manpower, technology, infrastructure - to the southwestern border over the past 16 months than at any point in America's history.

The Border Patrol is better staffed today than ever before as we nearly doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 to more than 20,000 today. And we've deployed more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel to work strategically on investigations, intelligence and interagency task forces to combat smuggling and human trafficking.

We also have more scanning technology looking for smuggling shipments, and more airplanes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles working the border than ever before.

In terms of infrastructure, the 652 miles of fencing that Congress asked Homeland Security to build is nearly complete, with the next 6 miles expected by the end of the year.

The federal government is also collaborating with state and local law enforcement along the border, conducting joint operations, sharing information and intelligence, and boosting the funds state and local law enforcement can use to combat border-related crime.

On top of all that, this administration has partnered with the government of Mexico in ways that are simply unprecedented, allowing us to put more pressure on the Mexican drug-trafficking organizations that run smuggling operations into the United States.

Could we still use more resources at the border? Absolutely. That's why President Barack Obama recently requested $500 million more to bolster law enforcement and security at the southwestern border and will deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to assist the ongoing efforts to secure the border and combat the cartels. These are common-sense measures to strengthen and expand efforts that have already proved successful.

Securing our border requires constant pressure. Yet, maximizing our efforts - especially against traffickers and criminals - will require more than resources. It will require Congress, working across party lines, to enact changes to our immigration laws so that we have a comprehensive set of reforms that meet the needs of our country.

There's no magic bullet here, but there is no doubt that this administration has made every conceivable effort to secure our border through unprecedented investments in personnel, technology and infrastructure.

These steps can and should be combined with legitimate efforts at the state and local level to keep our communities safe.

Too often, lately, political bumper-sticker slogans are being presented as real solutions.

They aren't. Arizonans know better and can be assured that this administration and the Department of Homeland Security will continue to take every action needed to secure our border and pursue real immigration reform.

Janet Napolitano is secretary of Homeland Security.

 

[Outcast]

Sure, my future father in law is Border Patrol. And they have not been hiring for a few months. Though he says they are going to try to start back up before too much longer. Probably after the fiscal year.

 

[jpccusa]

With all due respect, I doubt you father in law is able to be a support to your claim, unless he is in a high up position in the agency.
That's great news they will start hiring again soon. Hopefully that will make the no-sayers happier and therefore entice them to engage in bipartisanship in order to try to find a solution to the illegal immigration problem.

 

[Outcast]

Its funny because I was on the phone with him while I was typing that response. He told me what I typed. So you can go ahead and keep trying to say that I don't know what I am talking about. I know who to ask, and who to believe. The border patrol put a freeze on hiring a few months ago. He is one of the people who hire's for the El Paso District. It was a federal freeze.

 

[vetusvates]

JP, I fixed your post. (For a YouTube embed, just use that weird code thingy.)

White House: Senator Kyl Not Telling Truth About Immigration Reform Conversation

White House officials challenged the veracity Monday of an account of a private conversation Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said he had with President Obama.

On June 18, Kyl, the Senate Republican Whip, told a North Tempe Tea Party town hall that in an Oval Office conversation between the two of them about securing the US-Mexico border, "here's what the president said: 'The problem is,' he said, 'if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

The White House Monday rejected Kyl's account.

“The President didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told ABC News. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”





Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said the senator stood by his account, which he said was "about as straight forward as you can get."

"There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfeiffer was not one of them. Senator Kyl stands by his remarks, and the White House spokesman’s pushback that you must have comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border only confirms Senator Kyl’s account."

Kyl's account was first reported on the conservative website Red State.

To back up its claim that President Obama has already moved forward on securing the southern border, the White House provided background on President Obama's "Strategic and Integrated Southwest Border Strategy," stating that in the past year the US government has doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, tripled the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement intelligence analysts; and required the Department of Homeland Security to -- for the first time -- screen all southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash; among other steps.

 

[tsst]

[sarcasm font]Makes perfect sense.[/sarcasm font]

The fed suing a state for attempting to accomplish what the fed has FAILED to do for decades.

[sarcasm font]Makes perfect sense.[/sarcasm font]

Why put the effort and my money into doing the job they are required by the constitution to do when it is far easier to sue the state for calling attention to their FAILURE. :headbang::headbang::headbang:

Well I guess the fed at least continues to show where their allegiance lays when it comes to our constitution and citizens versus law breakers from a foreign country. It lays squarely on the side of the law breakers. :shrugs:

It seemingly brings into question how serious BO took his oath of office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And he must have really missed reading article 4 section 4 ... "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
I am no history major but would think 11 million persons illegally entering this country has to constitute one of the largest invasions in global history doesn't it?

 

[kathylove]

But the Federal gov't is going to protect us from...

PYTHON INVASIONS! That is such an important use of our limited resources that there won't be much left for such mundane problems as human invasions! It is always nice to know they have their priorities straight!

Exaggeration? Yes, maybe it is. But it is just another example of why I am thoroughly disgusted with the Feds, and want to see more power given back to the states, as per the original plan. Immigration policy is one of the FEW things the Constitution delegated to the Federal government, and they seem to want to oversee every part of our lives EXCEPT what they are really supposed to be doing!

 

[Buzzard]

Kathy, Your so correct(in my eyes)

Ben Franklin once said something to the effect .... A gov't strong enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take everthing. ... How so true....

 

[jpccusa]

I'm sure this will stir some #%$@&

Mexico asks court to reject Ariz. immigration law

By PAUL DAVENPORT (AP) – 13 hours ago

PHOENIX — Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one U.S. state.

Mexico also said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combatting drug trafficking and related violence.

"Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention," the brief said.

It will be to a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, Brewer said she was "very disappointed" to learn of Mexico's filing and reiterated that "Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional."

"I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional," Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

Mexican officials previously had voiced opposition to the Arizona law, with President Felipe Calderon saying June 8 that the law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity" by promoting racial profiling and potentially leading to an authoritarian society.

Calderon voiced similar criticism of the law during a May visit to Washington.

U.S. officials have said the Obama administration has serious concerns about the law and may challenge it in court. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently went further by saying a lawsuit is planned.

 

[Outcast]

1st. Where in the world does Mexico get the gal to think they are covered under the US constitution?

2nd. If the people are here legally, they don't need to worry. They will have a passport, or some other form of identification stating that they are here legally.

Since when is requiring that people carry an ID unconstitutional? I always have 3 forms of ID on me at all times. Drivers license, reserve ID, and VA ID. If I was in another country, my Passport would be on me at all times.
Honestly I do not see a problem with Arizona's law, I believe that every border state should follow their lead and mirror that law. North and South boarder, also east and west coast.

 

[jpccusa]

President Obama once again giving a step closer towards bipartisanship, and yet, there are people already saying it is still not enough (a Democrat, allegedly, in this case). What those people don't understand is that more security would come WITH the immigration reform.

Obama Requests Money for Border Security

LOS ANGELES — The Obama administration is asking Congress for money to expand the Border Patrol by 1,000 agents, add scores of other federal law enforcement officers and deploy two more aerial drones as part of heightened security at the Mexican border.
The request came in a letter on Tuesday from President Obama to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, asking for $500 million in additional border security spending to go with 1,200 National Guard troops Mr. Obama plans to send.

“This request responds to urgent and essential needs,” Mr. Obama wrote without elaborating, though administration officials have previously said that their plans fit an 18-month effort to increase border security.

Mr. Obama is following in the footsteps of President George W. Bush, who likewise, in the face of a stalled effort to revamp federal immigration law, came under pressure to increase security.

Although Obama administration officials have said the border is more secure than it has ever been, Mr. Obama bowed to concerns from members of his own party as well as Republicans and agreed last month to send in the National Guard and increase spending on border security.

Concerns about drug smuggling and illegal immigration have emerged as potent issues in Congressional midterm campaigns, particularly in Arizona, where a rancher was killed in March in a crime with suspected links to drug smuggling. In April, lawmakers there enacted a state law intended to deport illegal immigrants.

The Justice Department plans to challenge the law in court, and on Tuesday the Mexican government filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting one of five suits pending against the law, warning about potential discrimination against its citizens.

The additional Border Patrol agents would give the agency 21,000 agents. Mr. Obama is also asking for 160 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and several teams of antismuggling agents from various agencies.

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, an Arizona Democrat and member of the House Homeland Security Committee, praised the additional resources but said they were not enough.

“If Washington is truly serious about permanently strengthening our security, it must go beyond this request,” Ms. Kirkpatrick said.

 

[wstphal]

1st. Where in the world does Mexico get the gal to think they are covered under the US constitution?

Actually, if I understand this correctly, Mexico filed an "amicus brief". I believe EVERYONE in the world has the opportunity to hire US lawyers to do so if they have an interest in an issue before a US court.

 

[Outcast]

Actually, if I understand this correctly, Mexico filed an "amicus brief". I believe EVERYONE in the world has the opportunity to hire US lawyers to do so if they have an interest in an issue before a US court.

Ok, I understand that... but from what I read, I may have mis-inturpreted, the Mexican government thinks that its citizens are covered under our constitution and should have every right American Citizens have, even if they are here illegally... Doesn't Mexico have its own constitution?

 

[wstphal]

Ok, I understand that... but from what I read, I may have mis-inturpreted, the Mexican government thinks that its citizens are covered under our constitution and should have every right American Citizens have, even if they are here illegally... Doesn't Mexico have its own constitution?

Well, wouldn't it be to Mexico's advantage if Mexican citizens are covered under OUR constitution when they are here illegally? I think it would. The one quasi-legal source of income in Mexico is remittances after all. And our legal system allows amicus briefs from just about anyone, including wackos, so why not allow one from a foreign government?

And yes, I think Mexico has a constitution, but more & more it looks like a "failed state" down there, similar to, say, Afghanistan.

 

[Outcast]

I understand protecting those that are here legally under our constitution. If they weren't protected, there would be many problems. Its the protecting the ones who do not belong here, that I have a problem with. They have broken immigration laws and therefore should have action taken against them.

 

[jpccusa]

It is my understanding that the US Constitution protects people's natural rights, not American's natural rights only. So, in other words, the constitution protects everyone in the US and every American abroad (to some extent). Am I wrong?
And Aaron, I agree with your last sentence. I just don't see how it justifies not protecting illegal immigrants' rights. Those are 2 separate issues.

 

[jpccusa]

Another good article from the New York Times.

On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas

When Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, announced that the Obama administration would send as many as 1,200 additional National Guard troops to bolster security at the Mexican border, she held up a photograph of Robert Krentz, a mild-mannered rancher who was shot to death this year on his vast property. The authorities suspected that the culprit was linked to smuggling.

“Robert Krentz really is the face behind the violence at the U.S.-Mexico border,” Ms. Giffords said.

It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement.

But the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe.

That Mr. Krentz’s death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process.

Judith Gans, who studies immigration at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, said that what social psychologists call self-serving perception bias seemed to be at play. Both sides in the immigration debate accept information that confirms their biases, she said, and discard, ignore or rationalize information that does not. There is no better example than the role of crime in Arizona’s tumultuous immigration debate.

“If an illegal immigrant commits a crime, this confirms our view that illegal immigrants are criminals,” Ms. Gans said. “If an illegal immigrant doesn’t commit a crime, either they just didn’t get caught or it’s a fluke of the situation.”

Ms. Gans noted that sponsors of Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law have made careers of promising to rid the state of illegal immigrants through tough legislation.

“Their repeated characterization of illegal immigrants as criminals — easy to do since they broke immigration laws — makes it easy for people to ignore statistics,” she said.

Moreover, crime statistics, however rosy, are abstract. It takes only one well-publicized crime, like Mr. Krentz’s shooting, to drive up fear.

It is also an election year, and crime and illegal immigration — and especially forging a link between the two — remain a potent boost for any campaign. Gov. Jan Brewer’s popularity, once in question over promoting a sales tax increase, surged after signing the immigration bill, which is known as SB 1070 but officially called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.

No matter that manpower and technology are at unprecedented levels at the border, it may never be secure enough in Arizona’s hothouse political climate when Congressional seats, the governor’s office and other positions are at stake in the Aug. 24 primaries.

It took the Obama administration a few weeks to bow to that political reality and go from trumpeting the border as more secure than it had ever been to ordering National Guard troops to take up position there — most of them in Arizona, Mr. Obama assured Ms. Brewer in a private meeting — because it was not secure enough.

Crime figures, in fact, present a more mixed picture, with the likes of Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator behind the immigration enforcement law, playing up the darkest side while immigrant advocacy groups like Coalición de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Coalition), based in Tucson, circulate news reports and studies showing that crime is not as bad as it may seem.

For instance, statistics show that even as Arizona’s population swelled, buoyed in part by illegal immigrants funneling across the border, violent crime rates declined, to 447 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2008, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available from the F.B.I. In 2000, the rate was 532 incidents per 100,000.

Nationally, the crime rate declined to 455 incidents per 100,000 people, from 507 in 2000.

But the rate for property crime, the kind that people may experience most often, increased in the state, to 4,082 per 100,000 residents in 2008 from 3,682 in 2000. Preliminary data for 2009 suggests that this rate may also be falling in the state’s biggest cities.

What is harder to pin down is how much of the crime was committed by illegal immigrants.

Phoenix’s police chief, Jack Harris, who opposes the new law, said that about 13 percent of his department’s arrests are illegal immigrants, a number close to the estimated percentage of illegal immigrants in the local population. But the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, which runs the jail for Phoenix and surrounding cities and is headed by Joe Arpaio, a fervent supporter of the law, has said that 19 percent of its inmates are illegal immigrants.

Scott Decker, a criminologist at Arizona State University, said a battery of studies have suggested that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes, in part because they tend to come from interior cities and villages in their home country with low crime rates and generally try to keep out of trouble to not risk being sent home.

But he understood why people’s perceptions of crime might lag behind what the statistics show. “Hard as it is to change the crime rate, it may be more difficult to change public perceptions about the crime rate, particularly when those perceptions are linked to public events,” Mr. Decker said.

He added, “There is nothing more powerful than a story about a gruesome murder or assault that leads in the local news and drives public opinion that it is not safe anywhere.”

Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who helped write the Arizona immigration law, pointed to crimes like a wave of kidnappings related to the drug and human smuggling business in Phoenix, something Ms. Brewer herself noted when she signed the law.

Although the reports have dipped in the past couple of years, the police responded to 315 such cases last year.

“That’s scary to people, and people react to that all over the state,” Mr. Kobach said. “They are concerned. ‘That might happen in my part of the city eventually.’ ”

Terry Goddard, the state attorney general, who does not support the immigration law, said the drop in violent crime rates might not reflect the continued violence, often unreported, that is associated with smuggling organizations.

Mr. Goddard said he doubted that the immigration law would put a dent in the smuggling-related crime that grabs attention in the state. For that reason, Mr. Goddard, who is running to be the Democratic nominee for governor in the primary, said he backed the deployment of National Guard troops and supports increasing manpower and spending on police and prosecutor anti-smuggling units.

Brian L. Livingston, executive director of the Arizona Police Association, said he would prefer more attention on the border, too. But until then, he said, laws like Arizona’s are necessary.

“We know the majority of people crossing across are not criminal, but unfortunately some criminal elements are embedded with them,” he said, adding, “Governor Brewer gets that.”

As Ms. Brewer put it just after signing the bill: “We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.”

 

[wade]

JP you need a good hobby. Have you ever looked at vegetable gardening?

 

[tsst]

Personally I could give a rat's behind what the statistics say. In my opinion if ONE American dies or is raped or is robbed or etc at the hands of an illegal immigrant then MORE needs done to stop illegal immigrants. Period.

 

[Dinah]

I thought we already went over how crime is bad and that there is no such thing as good crimes and bad crimes or ok crimes and not ok crimes. People who don't want to be called and treated like criminals shouldn't do things that are against the law. They could be saints for all I care they are still here illegally which is a crime so they are still criminals.