So What happened to Senator McCain's 10 Point Border Security Plan?

.

Hey Obama and Napolitano! More than a year after Arizona based a law to help protect citiznes, and alamost a year since McCain came out with a ten point Border security Plan.  Why is the border still unsecured???



SENATORS McCAIN AND KYL'S BORDER SECURITY PLAN
10-Point Plan To Better Secure The U.S.-Mexico Border In Arizona
Introduced April 20, 2010

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) were joined today by Arizona Sheriffs Larry Dever, Cochise County and Paul Babeu, Pinal County in introducing a 10-point comprehensive border security plan to combat illegal immigration, drug and alien smuggling, and violent activity along the southwest border.

Senators McCain and Kyl’s Ten Point Border Security Action Plan:

1) Immediately deploy 3,000 National Guard Troops along the Arizona/Mexico border, along with appropriate surveillance platforms, which shall remain in place until the Governor of Arizona certifies, after consulting with state, local and tribal law enforcement, that the Federal Government has achieved operational control of the border. Permanently add 3,000 Custom and Border Protection Agents to the Arizona/Mexico border by 2015.

2) Fully fund and support Operation Streamline in Arizona’s two Border Patrol Sectors to, at a minimum, ensure that repeat illegal border crossers go to jail for 15 to 60 days. Where Operation Streamline has been implemented, the number of illegal crossings has decreased significantly. Require the Obama Administration to complete a required report detailing the justice and enforcement resources needed to fully fund this program. Fully reimburse localities for any related detention costs.

3) Provide $100M, an increase of $40M, for Operation Stonegarden, a program that provides grants and reimbursement to Arizona’s border law enforcement for additional personnel, overtime, travel and other related costs related to illegal immigration and drug smuggling along the border.

4) Offer Hardship Duty Pay to Border Patrol Agents assigned to rural, high-trafficked areas, such as the CBP Willcox and Douglas Stations in the Tucson Sector.

5) Complete the 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico and construct double- and triple- layer fencing at appropriate locations along the Arizona-Mexico border.

6) Substantially increase the 25 mobile surveillance systems and three Predator B Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in place today along the Arizona/Mexico border and ensure the border patrol has the resources necessary to operate the UAVs 24 hours a day seven days a week. Send additional fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to the Arizona-Mexico Border.

7) Increase funding for vital radio communications and interoperability between CBP and state, local, and tribal law enforcement to assist in apprehensions along the border.

8) Provide funding for additional Border Patrol stations in the Tucson Sector and explore the possibility of an additional Border Patrol sector for Arizona. Create six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases, and provide funding to upgrade the existing bases to include modular buildings, electricity and potable water. Complete construction of the planned permanent checkpoint in Arizona. Deploy additional temporary roving checkpoints and increase horse patrols throughout the Tucson Sector.

9) Require the Federal government to fully reimburse state and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. Start by at least funding the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) at its authorized level of $950 million.

10) Place one full-time Federal Magistrate in Cochise County and provide full funding for and authorization of the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative to reimburse state, county, tribal, and municipal governments for costs associated with the prosecution and pre-trial detention of federally-initiated criminal cases declined by local offices of the United States Attorneys.

Pinal sheriff: Armed conflict with drug cartels coming soon

.

Pinal sheriff: Armed conflict with drug cartels coming soon  

January 28, 2011  
eastvalleytribune.com

Paul Babeu at the Grace Inn in Ahwatukee Foothills Tuesday. Armed conflict in Arizona between sheriff's deputies and heavily equipped drug cartel squads is inevitable, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Tuesday during a speech in Ahwatukee Foothills.

"We're expecting a conflict," Babeu told the Ahwatukee Republican Women's organization at the Grace Inn, 51st Street and Elliot Road. "I absolutely believe you're going to see that happen in the next 30 to 60 days. It's not like I'm trying to start a war with the cartels. They're coming through like they own this place, and we're trying to stop them. I pray that every time, they surrender."

About 70 people turned out to hear Babeu, who was re-elected recently to a second term as president of the Arizona Sheriff's Association. A self-described friend and ally of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Babeu has risen to the forefront of the national debate over illegal immigration and is an outspoken critic of what he believes is the federal government's adversarial relationship with Arizona and federal officials' failure to secure the U.S. border with Mexico.

"The federal government has literally become an enemy who is fighting us, and I have not been afraid to fight them," he said.

Babeu ripped into Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's contention that the border is as safe and secure as it has ever been. Last year in the eastern portion of Arizona's two sectors, which includes Phoenix and Tucson, the U.S. Border Patrol reported apprehending 241,000 illegal immigrants. However, the agency estimates there were an additional 400,000 illegal border crossers in this sector that were not caught, he said.

"Close to 20 percent already have criminal records established in America," Babeu said.

A significant percentage of illegal immigrants caught in Pinal County are from countries other than Mexico, he said, including "countries of interest" such as Yemen, Somalia and Syria.

"Nations whose governments have sponsored terrorists or are anti-American," Babeu said.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the public was told to be vigilant and not be lulled into a false sense of security, he said.

"Our own federal government is the one who is trying to lull us into a false sense of security," Babeu said.

Drug seizures in Pinal County have more than doubled in the last two years, while the number of high-speed police pursuits rose from 142 in 2007 to 340 in 2010, he said.

The federal Bureau of Land Management has erected more than a dozen signs in Pinal County warning people to stay away from places designated as active drug and human smuggling areas where visitors might encounter armed criminals. Drug cartels have infiltrated the U.S. and have set up observation posts to ensure their shipments make it through, Babeu said.

He likened the cartel's activities in the U.S. to a foreign insurgency.

"Less than 30 miles from where we are now, they have 50 locations in Pinal County that are scout locations," Babeu said. "They're providing safe passage for drug and human smuggling coming though our county. They're reinforcing their supply routes."

On Oct. 25, cartel hitmen killed an informant who was working for the Sheriff's Department, shooting him a half-dozen times, he said.

"A cartel hit in Pinal County. That's what we've arrived at," Babeu said.

In another recent incident, the cartels sent a team of heavily armed assassins to Arizona to dispatch bandits that had been robbing drug mules, he said.

"Certainly they've destabilized their country," Babeu said of the Mexican cartels. "That stuff is coming here."

Deputies have discovered abandoned vehicles used by bandits that have been made up to look like police cars, complete with spotlights, sirens and red and blue lights, he said. Such tactics not only could lead illegal immigrants to distrust U.S. law enforcement, but it could touch off a gunfight if deputies attempt to confront armed men, he added.

"They may believe we're bandits saying we're the sheriff," Babeu said.

He endorsed a plan put forward by Arizona senators John McCain and Jon Kyl to send armed U.S. soldiers to the border and to construct a double-barrier security fence. Additionally, Babeu said authorities should hold illegal immigrants in custody for longer periods as a deterrent to repeat offenders, rather than using the current system of "catch and release."

"The core problem is an unsecured border," Babeu said. "I've asked (President Barack Obama) to give me a half hour and I'd give him the solution to the border. He hasn't called me back."

He accused Napolitano, Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder of "throwing up their hands and saying, ‘We can't do it'" and of portraying local authorities as racial profilers instead of as protectors and enforcers of the law.

"We do have the answer to secure the border. It's not beyond us. That is literally un-American for them to say that," Babeu said. "How have we arrived at this point in America, that it's the job of the local sheriff to fight cartels from a foreign country?"

As for the drug cartels, he said, "I want to say to them publicly, ‘You're not coming through.'"

 

Law Takes Effect, Ariz. Heads Back to Court

.
- FoxNews.com, July 29, 2010

Arizona's Altered Immigration Law Takes Effect, State Heads Back to Court

Arizona's court-altered illegal immigration law went into effect just after midnight Wednesday, hours after a federal judge blocked its most controversial provisions -- including on-the-spot police checks of suspected illegal immigrants.

Soon after Judge Susan Bolton's decision was announced, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday, asking the appellate court for a swift decision to lift the injunction and allow the blocked provisions to take effect.

Brewer vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary," in a legal process that could take years to unravel, leaving other states considering similar laws in a legislative limbo.

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory after Wednesday's ruling, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," he said

Pearce said that part of Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws. He predicted the battle over the law would eventually end up in the Supreme Court, with Arizona prevailing.

"We will appeal this immediately and we will win on appeal," he told the Arizona Republic. "This will be to the Supreme Court eventually, and I expect a 5-4 decision in our favor, perhaps even 6-3."

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, took effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
..

Arizona Immigration Law Still a 'Powerful Deterrent'

.

- FoxNews.com, July 28, 2010 

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory in a federal ruling Wednesday that blocked most of the crackdown hours before its enactment, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," Pearce said.

Pearce said that part of Judge Susan Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws.

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

She has vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Gov. Brewer to Sen Schumer, June 3, 2010 -

.
Brewer to Senator Schumer: Secure the Border First

While in Washington this week, Governor Jan Brewer responded to Senator Charles Schumer’s letter calling for a delay in implementation of Arizona’s new immigration law. Brewer rejected the lip-service paid to “comprehensive immigration reform” and reiterated her demand to secure the border.

Washington lacks credibility on immigration issues and the only way to build credibility is for the government to do something immediately to address border security and restore interior enforcement. To that point, Governor Brewer proposed a four point federal Border “Surge” strategy.

Governor Brewer responds to Senator Schumer's letter
June 3, 2010

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Chairman
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Correspondence on Border Security

Dear Senator Schumer:

I appreciate your interest in helping us secure our border and recognizing my duty as Governor to address the public security concerns of Arizonans.

Arizona's border regions, extending into metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson, have become increasingly lawless because the federal government has not effectively controlled our international border and enforced its immigration laws. The federal government's policy of securing the border in the El Paso and San Diego areas has turned Arizona into the superhighway of illegal drug and human smuggling activity. The City of Phoenix has earned the dubious distinction of being the kidnapping capital of the United States, ranking only second behind Mexico City in the world. Busts of drop houses, where illegal immigrants are often held for ransom and otherwise severely abused, are not uncommon occurrences in some Arizona neighborhoods.

Given these circumstances, I am sure you can understand that waiting a year or more based on another federal promise of getting serious this time is not an option for Arizona. As has been said here, calling for comprehensive immigration reform before securing the border is like asking for comprehensive energy policy reform before stopping the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

Here is my diagnosis of the problem and the way forward. Congress and successive Administrations (both Republican and Democrat) have lost all credibility with the American people, and Arizonans in particular, regarding border security and interior enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Unfortunately, I understand that the consensus in Washington D.C. is that nothing will be done legislatively on immigration this year and any promises of action for the rest of the year are part of some national political strategy. Neither side of the immigration debate will be fooled by that strategy. This non-action will only build the sense of alienation that Americans feel toward a federal government that won’t solve problems that affect their everyday lives. It will be more of the same “promise something, do nothing, blame someone” political spin from Washington.

How do you build credibility on immigration issues? You need to show that the federal government can do something immediately to address border security and restore interior enforcement. We do not need new federal laws, but rather action by President Obama and sufficient funding from the Congress to secure the border and enforce our current laws.

The action taken must also be significant. To that end, I would propose that the federal government adopt a “surge” strategy. The Border Surge would continue until the border is secured as demonstrated by facts on the ground and integrity is restored to our interior immigration enforcement. Thereafter, the federal government would need to keep the resources necessary on the ground to maintain a secure border and enforce its immigration laws.

What would the federal Border Surge consist of? A good place to start would be the Border Security Plan that I announced in April and the multiple requests I have sent to President Obama and his administration regarding specific, immediate actions that should be taken. I have attached those for your review.

In addition, I ask you to give another look at the ten-point border security proposal by Senators McCain and Kyl. It is based, in part, on the border security plan of the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association developed in reaction to their everyday experiences of living and working on the border and in tribute to their fellow member, the late Robert Krentz, who was killed on his ranch earlier this year.

In summary, I would highlight the following four categories of actions that would prove very helpful to the State of Arizona in the proposed Border Surge:

1. Send the National Guard troops back to the border and increase the number of Border Patrol agents. The bi-partisan group of border governors requested the redeployment of the National Guard over a year ago. Then-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano believed the National Guard was very helpful on the border under Operation Jump Start and unsuccessfully fought the Bush Administration when they were removed. Border governors renewed their joint request in April of this year. A particular need that has been identified is for more aerial support. My border security plan announced last month has redeployed Arizona’s very limited aerial resources to the border regions, and I have asked for additional support. I am happy to hear the President recently recognize that our border challenges require a National Guard response. However, I am not satisfied with the lack of specifics in his proposal. I hope to hear more when I meet with him today.

2. Complete a real border fence. The President's proposed budget provides no funds for completion of the border fence. Arizona's problem was caused in large part by the federal strategy of building a border fence only in the El Paso and San Diego areas in the 1990s. The construction and continual repair of a secure, and complete, border fence has to be part of the solution. The State of Arizona stands ready to assist in this effort. We have state prisons near the border and will supply inmate labor to build these fences in a cost-effective manner.

3. Fund federal agencies to be able to enforce current immigration laws. The McCain-Kyl Plan has a whole series of proposals to increase resources to under-manned and under-coordinated federal agencies. These proposals include funding additional Border Patrol stations in the Tucson Sector, increasing aerial assets along the border, and improving real-time radio/electronic communications capability among the different federal agencies and with state and local law enforcement agencies. Congress should also ensure adequate funding is appropriated to meet detention, processing, prosecution and other costs that result from a legitimate commitment to securing the border and enforcing federal immigration laws.

4. Reimburse Border States for costs related to the federal government’s failure to secure the border. For example, Congress has failed to reimburse the States and localities for their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens under the existing State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The State of Arizona and localities spend upwards of $150 million per year for criminal aliens in our prisons and jails. Another example is the burden on our county sheriffs dealing with all this drug and human smuggling activity. The federal government should fully fund the existing Operation Stonegarden, a program that provides funding to border law enforcement agencies. Senators McCain and Kyl have proposed increasing federal funding by $40 million for a total of $100 million.

As you know, problems do not wait for when it is politically convenient to address them. When I assumed office over a year ago, Arizona faced the worst budget deficit in the nation on a per capita basis. I proposed, and the Arizona Legislature passed, a budget that made many painful cuts. The State of Arizona has reduced its workforce by over 10 percent and cut over $2 billion out of roughly a $10 billion budget. State employees, including myself, are taking a 5% pay cut to balance the state budget. And on May 18, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved increasing the state sales tax by 1% for three years to support education, public safety and heath needs.

Arizonans, and I believe all Americans, expect their leaders to make the tough calls whether on the budget or on securing our border. If the federal government won’t secure the border, the State of Arizona will step in to complement federal efforts in a constitutional manner and protect the security of its citizens.

I believe the Border Surge strategy is the only way forward. Everyone agrees that our border is broken. Let’s do something. I sincerely desire to work with the Arizona delegation, you and your colleagues in Congress and the Obama administration on this strategy.

Sincerely,

Janice K. Brewer
Governor

Enclosures

cc: Arizona Congressional Delegation
.

Obama sending Troops to sit at desks?

.
So...after again behaving with arrogance during a private meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday, and giving them the impression that he wasn't interested in sending troops to help secure our southern border, President Obama waltzed out of the room and immediately announced that he's sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border as well and $500 million for "enhanced border protection and law enforcement."

He hadn't said a word to the Republicans, even though they had been discussing this very thing with him. In fact, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that he and Sen, McCain (R-AZ) had told Obama that McCain was introducing an amendment that very day that would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border and would be paid for with unspent stimulus money.

 "Sen. McCain spoke to it...and then I stood up. One of the things I said was we were going to the floor in a few minutes to request additional money for sending troops to the border. But that was the end of the conversation."

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who described the meeting as "testy," said the president

"wasn't embracing" the call to secure the borders before pressing forward with a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) put it a little more bluntly:

"The more he talked, the more he got upset. He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

What?  What is wrong with Obama?  Maybe the Republicans weren't questioning his motives, but I sure am. Why doesn't he seem able to sit at a table with his opponents and behave with any kind of openness and sincerity?

The last time he has a real meeting with Republicans, he did the same thing.  He goes in, puts on an anemic show of bipartisanship, all the while arrogantly keeping Republicans at arms length - and making sure he doesn't do anything that will give them any credit.  So insecure in his authority, he is loathe to give any appearance that he's not totally in control. So he leaves the meeting intending to do only that which will prove to Americans that he's the one on top.  

Last time, after the health care meeting, he continued on with his own plans despite every good idea and point made by his opposition.  This time, it was "get to the people and announce a border guard surge before McCain gets to the Senate floor."

His announcement came just as several Republican border security amendments, including McCain's, were being introduced on the Senate floor. Amazing...

McCain, whose re-election depends on appearing firmly conservative, said from the floor that he appreciates Obama's decision ...but there needs to be more.

"I think it is a recognition of the violence on the border which has been really beyond description in some respects," McCain said. "But it's simply not enough."

But will his "surge" do any good?

A White House official, who claimed Obama's announcement was "part of his comprehensive plan to secure the southwest border," has confirmed that the National Guard will "provide intelligence, surveillance," "training capacity" and support for "reconnaissance" and "counter narcotics enforcement" until more Border Patrol officers can be hired. The additional funds are to improve security technology and increase the number of agents, investigators and prosecutors for the area.

Essentially, according to Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-AZ),

..."the 1,200 border patrol troops are, in effect, desk jobs...They aren't boots on the ground at the border, they were not intended to be deployed to the border.  Rather they'll be investigating, administrative support, maybe training. Now that's all fine...but the real value of the National Guard is to be seen."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer gave a response that we hope Obama can learn from; she spoke with courtesy  regarding the deployment, even though he is an opponent and has mocked her, and even though it's obvious the deployment is simply a political gesture. She applauded his plan as a "very significant and important shift in the president's immigration and border security policy."

"I am pleased that President Obama has now, apparently, agreed that our nation must secure the border to address rampant border violence and illegal immigration without other pre-conditions, such as passage of 'comprehensive immigration reform...I am anxious to hear of the details that have not yet been disclosed of where, how, and for how long additional forces will be deployed.  With the accountability of this election year, I am pleased and grateful that at long last there has been a partial response from the Obama administration to my demands that Washington do its job."

But the CATO Institute had no trouble summing it up;

President Obama is deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and requesting $500 million more for border security. With due respect to Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who want even more troops and money, this approach is neither here nor there. (And it echoes Obama’s split-the-baby decision on Afghanistan, not willing to go for a whole-hog escalation but also not willing to rethink the overall policy.) Half-measures won’t do it here, Mr. President (and Congress). If you lack the heart (or have too much of a brain) for a full wall-and-militarization of our southern border — and perhaps mass rounding up and deportation of 12 million people — it’s time for a fundamental reorganization of the immigration system.

U.S. immigration (non-)policy is nonsensical and unworkable. We’re beyond the point of perestroika; it’s time for regime change.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-AZ), who, with others, had requested more border security after a rancher, Robert Krentz, was murdered in March by an illegal immigrant, kept her party face on and praised Obama for the deployment. She said that Arizona resident,

"... know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message."

Apparently no one told her that those boots won't actually be on the ground.

Quotes from FOXNews.com - May 25, 2010 - Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to that report.
.

Napolitano admits, just like Holder, She hasn't Read New Arizona Law, but Condemns it Anyway

.
On Monday, May 18, a Senate Committee hearing was held in Washington DC concerning the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, Sen. John McCain, (AZ-R) was present and took the opportunity to stray from the subject and ask Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, what she plans to do about border security.

In particular, McCain wanted to know the status of his past request that the Coast Guard be sent to help secure the Arizona / Mexico border.  Napolitano, a former Arizona Governor, was aware McCain had made this request.

"I want to know about whether you're going to send the Guard to the border or not," McCain asked

Napolitano answered that the question was still being considered by her department, Homeland Security, as well as the Defense Department and the White House.  She said she hoped a decision would be made "as soon as possible, but I cannot give you a date certain."

McCain responded;

"Well, meanwhile, people's homes are being violated, and their families can't take kids to the bus stop ...So I don't know what it takes for us to get a decision on it. At least the people in my state have the right to know whether ...they're going to be sent or not."

McCain also asked Napolitano, who has criticized Arizona's controversial new immigration law on television, if she'd had a chance to review the law.
"I have not reviewed it in detail," Napolitano answered, "I certainly know of it, senator."

He then asked if that meant she was not prepared to make a judgment on it.

Napolitano answered; 

"Let me just say this: As you know, and are well aware, that's not the kind of law I would have signed...I believe that it's a bad law-enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in. When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement organizations in Arizona, at that time, were opposed to such legislation."

McCain responded that he'd "be pleased maybe in writing to hear what specific aspect of the law would impede or harm law enforcement, since the majority of law enforcement in Arizona strongly supports this legislation."  He went on;

"And, unfortunately, ... the president of the United States portrayed it as a -- that someone can't even go out for ice cream without being harassed, which is one of the more outrageous statements I've ever heard, and now our own attorney general has, after condemning the law, said that he hadn't even read it....This is an important issue not just in Arizona, but around this country."

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has warned that the law can lead to racial profiling, had told the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday that he'd "glanced" at Arizona's new law, SB 1070, but hadn't actually read it.  This admission drew criticism from many conservatives, including Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's campaign. Holder said he plans to read it before determining whether it's constitutional. (Well, we sure hope so!)

On Tuesday, May 18, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he hadn't read the bill either, even though he had defended a diplomat for comparing it to Chinese human rights violations.

President Barack Obama has also drawn lots of criticism for making jokes about Arizona and the law.  More than likely, he hasn't read it either.  But not wanting to lose potential Latino votes, Obama has requested that the Justice Department and Homeland Security examine SB 1070 for any civil-rights violations.





See Video of Napolitano Statement

.