El Paso Inc.
November 24, 2013
by David Crowder
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has weighed
into the fray over plans to fill in the half-mile gap in the border
fence at the historic site of the first Spanish crossing, Hart’s Mill
and Old Fort Bliss.
U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, has organized a last-minute
campaign to persuade U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, to
reconsider the project and to work with El Paso leaders and stakeholders
before proceeding.
On Wednesday, Cornyn wrote to Thomas Winkowski, CBP’s acting commissioner, after meeting with O’Rourke.
“I understand that the project is near
significant cultural and historical sites, and I would strongly
encourage you to work closely with the El Paso community to ensure
preservation of sensitive areas,” Cornyn wrote.
Construction of the 17-foot steel wall was to
start last Wednesday and even though it didn’t, Border Patrol spokesman
Doug Mosier said CBP has notified the contractor to proceed.
Called by some the epicenter of El Paso’s
history, the site on West Paisano Drive is now in the midst of several
large construction projects.
They include taking down the Yandell Street
overpass while putting up massive concrete supports for the toll road
that will complete the last leg of Loop 375.
In his letter, Cornyn noted that CBP “conducted
Environmental Stewardship Plans to consider the impact of the proposed
pedestrian fencing on significant historic sites in the Hart’s Mill
area.”
The result of that survey was that “the project would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources in October 2011.”
“While I recognize the efforts of CBP to consider
sensitive resources in the region I would urge you to coordinate
closely with local stakeholders and consider any further action which
may be necessary to balance project goals with historic preservation,”
Cornyn’s letter concluded.
O’Rourke’s chief of staff, David Wysong, said Winkowski “is the only one who could, theoretically, halt it.”
Six signers
On Tuesday, Winkowski received a similar letter
signed by O’Rourke and five more House members: Democrats Pete Gallego,
Filemon Vela and Rubén Hinojosa of Texas, and from California, Democrats
Tony Cárdenas and Eric Swalwell.
Their letter, stronger than Cornyn’s, refers to
the site as the place where Spanish explorer Juan de Oñate crossed the
Rio Grande in 1598, a rocky ford that came to be known as the Paso del
Norte.
“The proposed fence construction is antithetical
to Congress’ intentions in establishing Oñate’s crossing as part of the
National Historic Trail in October 2000 and will hamper future
development and improvements to this site that adequately reflect its
historical and cultural significance,” their letter states.
They call on the Border Patrol to delay construction.
“Preserving the historic significance of this
area should be our first priority and we strongly believe that a
compromise can be reached,” the representatives’ letter continues.
It notes that the El Paso sector has a 93-percent
level of operational control, which far exceeds other sectors on the
U.S.-Mexico border.
“This has contributed to the recognition of El
Paso as the safest city in America for the third straight year,” the
letter reads. “It seems that there is little need to construct
additional fence from a safety perspective when taxpayer dollars could
be used more effectively in other areas of the border.”
Border Patrol spokesman Mosier said that while
Congress has set aside some environmental and archaeological protections
to speed the fence, CBP “has made a commitment to responsible
environmental stewardship.”
In an email, Mosier said, “Specific to the Hart’s
Mill area, in order to protect cultural resources, CBP conducted
intensive cultural resources surveys and consulted with the Texas state
historic preservation office, who concurred with CBP’s determination
that no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur as a
result of fence construction,”
The CBP has arranged to have an independent environmental monitor on-site during fence construction, Mosier added.
Although the site has never been developed as a
tourist attraction beyond construction of historic markers, the Texas
Historical Commission’s executive director Mark Wolfe, in a Nov. 19
letter, said the National Park Service has recognized it as a “high
potential site.”
Wolfe, the state’s historic preservation officer,
told El Paso Inc. that his agency agrees with CBP’s archaeological
review that determined “no features of concern would be disturbed by the
project.”
Property owner Chip Johns said he wonders when
the archaeological review was conducted and by whom. He owns the acreage
that takes in the Oñate crossing, the Old Fort Bliss officers’ barracks
and the mid-1800s home of Simeon Hart, best known as the Hacienda
Restaurant, which is now closed.
“If they came on the property, they never asked
me,” Johns said, adding he finds it hard to believe there is nothing of
historical or archaeological significance in the path of the fence,
given that it was a very busy place for hundreds of years.
Wolfe sent his letter to state Sen. Jose
Rodriguez, D-El Paso, who conceded that neither the city nor the county
have done anything to protect or develop the site. But that’s no reason
not to protect it, he said.
“The mayor and City Council ought to be involved
in preventing the federal government from going forward,” Rodriguez
said. “We can’t lose another one of our historic treasures.”
O’Rourke, he said, is doing everything he can “but it’s up to the federal government to step back and reassess the project.”
El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser was ill and could not
be reached for a comment, but city spokeswoman Juli Lozano released a
statement from him saying O’Rourke has kept him up to date on the issue.
“I want to stress that at this time, the city is
allowing Congressman O’Rourke to handle the issue and will rely on his
diligence to do what is necessary to address the issues,” the statement
says.
Johns was surprised last Thursday when two
O’Rourke’s staffers, district representative Mario Porras and intern
Dana Ramos, showed up at the site to see if construction had begun. “Hot
damn, it’s amazing and kind of hard to believe that someone in
Washington is actually doing what they say they’re going to do,” Johns
said of O’Rourke. “He’s picked up the ball and run with it. How far
he’ll get, who knows?”
http://www.elpasoinc.com/news/local_news/article_0768de4c-5611-11e3-9c5f-0019bb30f31a.html
Showing posts with label Department of the Interior. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of the Interior. Show all posts
Monday, November 25, 2013
Monday, October 24, 2011
Republican bill would allow Border Patrol to ignore environmental laws
McClatchy Newspapers / Kansas City Star
October 23, 2011
By ROB HOTAKAINEN
WASHINGTON -House Republicans want to give the U.S. Border Patrol unprecedented authority to ignore 36 environmental laws on federal land in a 100-mile zone along the Canadian and Mexican borders.
If the legislation is approved, the Border Patrol would not have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 32 other federal laws in such popular places as Olympic National Park, Glacier Park, the Great Lakes and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.
Under the GOP plan, the Border Patrol would have free rein to do such things as build roads and offices, put up fences, set up surveillance equipment and sensors, and use aircraft and vehicles to patrol in all national parks, forests and federal land in the zone.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the Border Patrol "has become encumbered with layers of environmental regulations," making it difficult to deal with drug smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals who are targeting public lands along the U.S. borders.
The committee passed the plan on a 26-17 party-line vote this month.
A vote by the full House is expected soon, though no date has been set, and similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
In Washington state, where the zone would include nearly half the state, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is questioning why such a law is needed. She noted that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Border Patrol, has not asked for the change.
"The current approach, partnering with sister agencies - Interior and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) - seems a reasonable approach," Gregoire said.
Environmental groups say they're alarmed by the proposal.
Jane Danowitz, the Pew Environment Group's director of public lands, called the plan a sweeping waiver of environmental laws that would allow a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands and hurt water quality.
"We're talking about waiving laws that protect habitat and clean air and clean water in national parks and other beloved places that Americans really cherish - and that belong to all of us," she said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee's subcommittee on forests and public lands Subcommittee and the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation is needed because the Border Patrol does not have sufficient access to millions of acres of federally controlled land.
"The policies of the United States unfortunately and unwittingly make it easier for illegals to come across public lands," he said.
While the Border Patrol has access to federal lands, it must follow procedures set up by other agencies. The bill would change that by giving the Border Patrol immediate access to any federal land. And it would specifically bar the U.S. Department of Interior and the USDA from "impeding, prohibiting or restricting" any work done by the Border Patrol in the 100-mile zone. The law would expire in five years.
At a hearing of Bishop's subcommittee in July, the Obama administration said it the legislation is unnecessary.
Kim Thorsen, a deputy assistant secretary with the Department of Interior, said a better way to protect the border would be to use "the current approach of collaborating among departments and using the best expertise in each to solve problems."
"We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive," she said. "We are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can - and should - do both."
John Leshy, a professor at the U.C. Hastings College of the Law, told the subcommittee that he questions whether such a law would be constitutional, calling the bill "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind I have ever seen."
"I firmly believe this legislation goes way, way beyond what is necessary and proper, in our constitutional system, to enforce the immigration laws," Leshy said.
Rep Edward Markey, D-Mass., the ranking minority member the Natural Resources Committee, called the bill shortsighted and "just nonsense."
"Expert after expert has explained to House Republicans that waiving all environmental protections affecting the air, water and entire ecosystems within 100 miles of our borders is not the answer to border security challenges, but they turned a deaf ear with this misguided legislation," Markey said.
Supporters of the legislation have enlisted support from a wide variety of groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, United Four-Wheel Drive Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Motorcycle Industry Council. The motorcycle group said an unsecured border "that allows terrorists or other lawbreakers to roam our public lands represents a real threat to riders who wish to responsibly recreate near these lands."
At first, backers wanted to create a 100-mile zone that would extend around the entire nation. But as a compromise, they scaled back the proposal, dropping off federal land that borders the West and East coasts.
As a result, the zone would stretch from Washington to Maine in the north, and from California to Texas in the south.
The bill, which the GOP calls the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, is part of the 2010 "Pledge to America," in which Republicans vowed to give the Border Patrol more "tools and authorities to establish operational control" along the U.S. borders.
Hastings called it an attempt "to prioritize national security over bureaucratic red tape."
Danowitz said House Republicans are trying to use national security as a reason to weaken clean air and water laws, knowing that such proposals would never pass on their own. And she called the bill part of a GOP trend, representing one of many pieces of anti-environmental legislation moving in Hastings' committee and the GOP-led House.
"The number of proposals to roll back key environmental protections is so large that almost anything can happen," Danowitz said. "And this is largely going on without real public awareness. That combination is not a good one."
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3224702/republican-bill-would-allow-border.html#ixzz1bhneiMNH
October 23, 2011
By ROB HOTAKAINEN
WASHINGTON -House Republicans want to give the U.S. Border Patrol unprecedented authority to ignore 36 environmental laws on federal land in a 100-mile zone along the Canadian and Mexican borders.
If the legislation is approved, the Border Patrol would not have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 32 other federal laws in such popular places as Olympic National Park, Glacier Park, the Great Lakes and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.
Under the GOP plan, the Border Patrol would have free rein to do such things as build roads and offices, put up fences, set up surveillance equipment and sensors, and use aircraft and vehicles to patrol in all national parks, forests and federal land in the zone.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the Border Patrol "has become encumbered with layers of environmental regulations," making it difficult to deal with drug smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals who are targeting public lands along the U.S. borders.
The committee passed the plan on a 26-17 party-line vote this month.
A vote by the full House is expected soon, though no date has been set, and similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
In Washington state, where the zone would include nearly half the state, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is questioning why such a law is needed. She noted that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Border Patrol, has not asked for the change.
"The current approach, partnering with sister agencies - Interior and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) - seems a reasonable approach," Gregoire said.
Environmental groups say they're alarmed by the proposal.
Jane Danowitz, the Pew Environment Group's director of public lands, called the plan a sweeping waiver of environmental laws that would allow a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands and hurt water quality.
"We're talking about waiving laws that protect habitat and clean air and clean water in national parks and other beloved places that Americans really cherish - and that belong to all of us," she said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee's subcommittee on forests and public lands Subcommittee and the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation is needed because the Border Patrol does not have sufficient access to millions of acres of federally controlled land.
"The policies of the United States unfortunately and unwittingly make it easier for illegals to come across public lands," he said.
While the Border Patrol has access to federal lands, it must follow procedures set up by other agencies. The bill would change that by giving the Border Patrol immediate access to any federal land. And it would specifically bar the U.S. Department of Interior and the USDA from "impeding, prohibiting or restricting" any work done by the Border Patrol in the 100-mile zone. The law would expire in five years.
At a hearing of Bishop's subcommittee in July, the Obama administration said it the legislation is unnecessary.
Kim Thorsen, a deputy assistant secretary with the Department of Interior, said a better way to protect the border would be to use "the current approach of collaborating among departments and using the best expertise in each to solve problems."
"We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive," she said. "We are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can - and should - do both."
John Leshy, a professor at the U.C. Hastings College of the Law, told the subcommittee that he questions whether such a law would be constitutional, calling the bill "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind I have ever seen."
"I firmly believe this legislation goes way, way beyond what is necessary and proper, in our constitutional system, to enforce the immigration laws," Leshy said.
Rep Edward Markey, D-Mass., the ranking minority member the Natural Resources Committee, called the bill shortsighted and "just nonsense."
"Expert after expert has explained to House Republicans that waiving all environmental protections affecting the air, water and entire ecosystems within 100 miles of our borders is not the answer to border security challenges, but they turned a deaf ear with this misguided legislation," Markey said.
Supporters of the legislation have enlisted support from a wide variety of groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, United Four-Wheel Drive Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Motorcycle Industry Council. The motorcycle group said an unsecured border "that allows terrorists or other lawbreakers to roam our public lands represents a real threat to riders who wish to responsibly recreate near these lands."
At first, backers wanted to create a 100-mile zone that would extend around the entire nation. But as a compromise, they scaled back the proposal, dropping off federal land that borders the West and East coasts.
As a result, the zone would stretch from Washington to Maine in the north, and from California to Texas in the south.
The bill, which the GOP calls the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, is part of the 2010 "Pledge to America," in which Republicans vowed to give the Border Patrol more "tools and authorities to establish operational control" along the U.S. borders.
Hastings called it an attempt "to prioritize national security over bureaucratic red tape."
Danowitz said House Republicans are trying to use national security as a reason to weaken clean air and water laws, knowing that such proposals would never pass on their own. And she called the bill part of a GOP trend, representing one of many pieces of anti-environmental legislation moving in Hastings' committee and the GOP-led House.
"The number of proposals to roll back key environmental protections is so large that almost anything can happen," Danowitz said. "And this is largely going on without real public awareness. That combination is not a good one."
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3224702/republican-bill-would-allow-border.html#ixzz1bhneiMNH
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Congress' border security bill could have big impact in Maine
Sun Journal
July 14
by Steve Mistler
Environmentalists and the state's congressional delegation are closely monitoring a controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive dozens of federal environmental laws along the nation's borders and coastline.
If enacted as written, the legislation could have a significant impact in Maine. The proposed broadening of Homeland Security power would allow the agency to conduct activities across the entire state while avoiding any one of 36 federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The legislation is born of congressional lawmakers' concerns over illegal immigration and increased calls to tighten border and coastal security.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in April argued that a "turf war" between land managers and Homeland Security prevented border patrol agents from effectively enforcing the southern border with Mexico.
But the proposal also includes a 100-mile waiver belt that wraps around the nation's northern and southern borders and its coastline. The zone engulfs several entire states, including Maine.
Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environmental Group, based in Washington, D.C., said the bill would allow DHS to unilaterally waive 36 core environmental laws without consulting state or federal agencies.
"People in Maine, certainly people in the country, think that our borders should be safe and secure," Danowitz said. "But this, a sweeping waiver of environmental laws, doesn’t seem to be the way to accomplish this goal."
Jane West of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill could have a wide range of consequences, including the impairment of hunting and fishing habitat.
"Imagine if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completely waived for the North Woods," West said. "Nesting eagles now could potentially have their habitat completely destroyed because Homeland Security deems that a fence may be appropriate for that particular area."
Opponents also note that DHS already has authority to bypass federal environmental laws through a 2006 memorandum of understanding drafted under President George W. Bush.
According to Danowitz, the memo includes checks and balances not present in the federal bill, H.R. 1505.
Rep. Bishop said during the bill's April 15 hearing that bureaucracy among agencies prevented the U.S. Border Patrol from moving quickly to plug holes in the border or to install surveillance and security equipment.
Bishop cited one case in which it took four months for Border Patrol to obtain a waiver from the required land manager to install a mobile surveillance camera. The result, he said, was a porous border where violence and drug and human trafficking were rampant — arguments he attempted to reinforce with a video set to foreboding music.
"People are being assaulted, raped and murdered on American land," Bishop said.
While the bill's opponents concede there are problems on the southern border, they are concerned about the breadth of DHS empowerment in H.R. 1505.
Former Clinton administration Department of Interior Solicitor General John Leshy told lawmakers in April that the bill was the "most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
Leshy said the bill effectively would allow Homeland Security, armed with 200,000 employees and a $55 billion budget, to "do what they want, without any advance notice, check, or process." He said such activity might include building fences, barracks or support equipment that would restrict the public's recreational and commercial activities.
Environmentalists hope the ranging impacts will be scaled back as the bill makes its way through Congress. However, West, with the Conservation Law Foundation, worried about the Washington political climate.
"Right now, it’s popular to cut the head off anything that looks green, especially when you throw in that immigration dynamic," West said.
Most of the state's congressional delegation have responded cautiously to H.R. 1505.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called for tighter border security along the northern border. Collins cited a Government Accountability Office report that called for additional oversight and coordination between U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activity.
In a written statement, Collins said gaps in border security made the country vulnerable to criminal activity and terrorism, but added that "securing our borders and protecting our environment need not be conflicting goals."
Collins also cited testimony from President Barack Obama's administration that securing the border would result in less harm to the environment.
That argument was also made by Bishop, who said in April, "It's not national security that threatens our environment. It's a lack of national security that threatens our environment."
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in a written statement that securing the country's "porous borders" while protecting the environment were not mutually exclusive goals.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, was more critical of the legislation, saying that he wasn't sure it solved the problem of border security. He encouraged better cooperation among the agencies.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, opposed the bill outright.
"I just don’t see how protecting endangered species and clean water stands in the way of national security," Pingree wrote in a statement.
She added, “We should certainly do everything to tighten our borders and make sure agencies are working together. But that doesn’t mean we should give Homeland Security the power to damage our environment and our way of life while they do it.”
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1058998
July 14
by Steve Mistler
Environmentalists and the state's congressional delegation are closely monitoring a controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive dozens of federal environmental laws along the nation's borders and coastline.
If enacted as written, the legislation could have a significant impact in Maine. The proposed broadening of Homeland Security power would allow the agency to conduct activities across the entire state while avoiding any one of 36 federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The legislation is born of congressional lawmakers' concerns over illegal immigration and increased calls to tighten border and coastal security.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in April argued that a "turf war" between land managers and Homeland Security prevented border patrol agents from effectively enforcing the southern border with Mexico.
But the proposal also includes a 100-mile waiver belt that wraps around the nation's northern and southern borders and its coastline. The zone engulfs several entire states, including Maine.
Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environmental Group, based in Washington, D.C., said the bill would allow DHS to unilaterally waive 36 core environmental laws without consulting state or federal agencies.
"People in Maine, certainly people in the country, think that our borders should be safe and secure," Danowitz said. "But this, a sweeping waiver of environmental laws, doesn’t seem to be the way to accomplish this goal."
Jane West of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill could have a wide range of consequences, including the impairment of hunting and fishing habitat.
"Imagine if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completely waived for the North Woods," West said. "Nesting eagles now could potentially have their habitat completely destroyed because Homeland Security deems that a fence may be appropriate for that particular area."
Opponents also note that DHS already has authority to bypass federal environmental laws through a 2006 memorandum of understanding drafted under President George W. Bush.
According to Danowitz, the memo includes checks and balances not present in the federal bill, H.R. 1505.
Rep. Bishop said during the bill's April 15 hearing that bureaucracy among agencies prevented the U.S. Border Patrol from moving quickly to plug holes in the border or to install surveillance and security equipment.
Bishop cited one case in which it took four months for Border Patrol to obtain a waiver from the required land manager to install a mobile surveillance camera. The result, he said, was a porous border where violence and drug and human trafficking were rampant — arguments he attempted to reinforce with a video set to foreboding music.
"People are being assaulted, raped and murdered on American land," Bishop said.
While the bill's opponents concede there are problems on the southern border, they are concerned about the breadth of DHS empowerment in H.R. 1505.
Former Clinton administration Department of Interior Solicitor General John Leshy told lawmakers in April that the bill was the "most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
Leshy said the bill effectively would allow Homeland Security, armed with 200,000 employees and a $55 billion budget, to "do what they want, without any advance notice, check, or process." He said such activity might include building fences, barracks or support equipment that would restrict the public's recreational and commercial activities.
Environmentalists hope the ranging impacts will be scaled back as the bill makes its way through Congress. However, West, with the Conservation Law Foundation, worried about the Washington political climate.
"Right now, it’s popular to cut the head off anything that looks green, especially when you throw in that immigration dynamic," West said.
Most of the state's congressional delegation have responded cautiously to H.R. 1505.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called for tighter border security along the northern border. Collins cited a Government Accountability Office report that called for additional oversight and coordination between U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activity.
In a written statement, Collins said gaps in border security made the country vulnerable to criminal activity and terrorism, but added that "securing our borders and protecting our environment need not be conflicting goals."
Collins also cited testimony from President Barack Obama's administration that securing the border would result in less harm to the environment.
That argument was also made by Bishop, who said in April, "It's not national security that threatens our environment. It's a lack of national security that threatens our environment."
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in a written statement that securing the country's "porous borders" while protecting the environment were not mutually exclusive goals.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, was more critical of the legislation, saying that he wasn't sure it solved the problem of border security. He encouraged better cooperation among the agencies.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, opposed the bill outright.
"I just don’t see how protecting endangered species and clean water stands in the way of national security," Pingree wrote in a statement.
She added, “We should certainly do everything to tighten our borders and make sure agencies are working together. But that doesn’t mean we should give Homeland Security the power to damage our environment and our way of life while they do it.”
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1058998
Sunday, October 31, 2010
$7M set for border habitat work
Arizona Daily Star
October 31, 2010
by Tony Davis
Federal money for jaguars and bats - or people?
That's the question ranching advocates raised after the federal government announced details for spending nearly $7 million to restore borderlands damaged by construction of the border fence.
From environmentalists and a public preserve manager came this answer: The feds have spent billions on border fences real and virtual, and it's about time to spend tens of millions protecting animals and plants.
In the next few years, authorities will spend the money to develop jaguar management plans, scan remote camera photos for the cats, close dirt roads and restore wetlands along the border. They'll reseed worn soils, monitor fish populations, build a fish barrier, count bat roosts and study bat movements, and plant agaves.
These actions are in the first leg of a $52 million federal program designed to compensate for damage to endangered species habitat on public lands by the border fence and other security measures.
Land managers and environmentalists called the money a good start, but some borderlands ranchers and their spokesmen in the Arizona Cattlemen's Association were less receptive. The association issued a news release titled "Jaguar Receives Green Card," saying the money should protect people first.
Six months after the still-unsolved slaying of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz, "ranchers and residents south of Interstates 10 and 8 continue to live in a lawless region controlled by drug cartels," the release said. "These drug cartels continue to disrupt everyday life for rural residents along Southern Arizona's border. Yet ranchers are not receiving funds to restore our habitat, nor is the Administration working to restore our border. . . . We have a serious situation on our southern border, and ranchers continue to see the degradation of their environment and traffic from drug cartels."
Federal money for the wildlands will address impacts of a border fence built with no environmental reviews, countered Organ Pipe National Monument Superintendent Lee Baiza. As for competition with border security, Baiza said the $50 million is a small amount compared to $600 million Congress agreed in August to spend on Border Patrol agents, customs inspectors and other law enforcement officials, as well as communications equipment and unmanned aerial "drones" to monitor border activities.
The $6.8 million will pay for eight Southwestern projects, six in Arizona. A list of 29 projects identified as feasible for the entire $52 million includes 17 Arizona projects estimated to cost $14.3 million.
The projects are "an absolute joke" because they don't address non-endangered species such as mountain lion, deer and javelina that live in his area but can't get over the border wall, complained rancher John Ladd, who lives near the border wall near the San Pedro River. There's no jaguar or ocelots in that area - but they do exist in areas east of Douglas and west of Sasabe where there is no wall, he said.
"My family has been here since 1896, but we were willing to accept the consequences of the wall if the government had stopped illegal immigration. They haven't done it," Ladd said. "They won't patrol the border, and they can't get Congress to reform the immigration law."
Ladd has a point in that these projects won't help mountain lions get across the wall, said Matt Clark of Defenders of Wildlife in Tucson. But much of the new money will be spent where the Fish and Wildlife Service thinks it can get the most endangered-species conservation for the money, he said.
"The service is not looking at where we can make the border wall better. They are looking at where we can make an investment that furthers the conservation of these species," Clark said. "If you were to calculate the acreages lost to the border wall and roads on private and public lands, then you would be looking at well over $50 million to mitigate it. This is a down payment."
Reese Woodling, a retired rancher near Douglas who still sits on the governing board of the Malpais Borderlands ranching group, said he sees the jaguar monitoring as pointless because with no female jaguars seen in Southern Arizona for decades, he doubts the animal can survive as a viable population here anymore.
"They are just throwing money at these programs," said Wendy Glenn, a rancher in the Malpais Borderlands area east of Douglas. "It's a tough call for me to criticize them, but I don't know how they can spend so much on this when so many other things are needed."
Interior Department Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh, however, called the programs a first step toward meeting the government's responsibility to compensate for the impact on wildlife from the continuing effort to secure the border.
This debate could continue if more types of restoration projects come on line, as is hinted at by the agreement between Interior and DHS. It lays out five other classes of natural resources that could get restoration work beyond the $52 million: for non-endangered wildlife, wetlands and riverfront area, soils and cultural resources, including Native American human remains.
But a cautionary note about the restoration plans also came from another federal document on the Organ Pipe project. It said that unsafe conditions on the borderlands may prevent people from working in the area where most of the restoration work is needed.
On StarNet: Find extensive coverage of immigration issues at azstarnet.com/border
Areas where the wildlands-Restoration funding will be spent
Six initial projects are in Arizona:
• $2.1 million to survey and monitor jaguars for four years, develop a jaguar management plan, fence and restore jaguar habitat and work with ranchers, government and local communities to develop a system to report on jaguars.
• $1.9 million to protect, inventory and monitor endangered lesser long-nosed bat and Mexican long-nosed bat roosts. This involves finding roosts along fence segments from the Patagonia to the Huachuca Mountains and from the Perilla to Peloncillo mountains. It also involves radio-tracking bats in these areas to help find the roosts and to determine how much roads, fences, lights and other facilities act as barriers for bats.
• $980,000 to restore 84 acres damaged by construction of 5.2 miles of fence near Lukeville. This involves closing roads and allowing vegetation to regrow, replanting 200 large transplanted saguaro and organ pipe cacti, seed collecting and propagation, road decompaction, erosion control, planting and invasive species control.
• $657,000 to restore 49.7 acres at the San Bernardino National Wildlife refuge, east of Douglas. It will compensate for the loss of 16 miles of habitat and about 116 acres of roadbed for border fencing and other security measures.
• $441,250 to study four federally protected Rio Yaqui fish species and four sensitive fish species living in that refuge. The work includes an inventory of the fish and an accounting of impacts from unpaved roads, disturbed soils and soil erosion. A shallow well will be drilled to ensure permanent water for a wetland for the fish and the imperiled San Bernardino Springsnail. A fish barrier will be installed to keep exotic fish out of the refuge.
• $274,873 to plant 6,344 agaves at Coronado National Memorial to compensate for removal of 3,172 agaves for fence construction.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_e2f4eb0f-6ade-5974-9c94-b39f9954fd3a.html
October 31, 2010
by Tony Davis
Federal money for jaguars and bats - or people?
That's the question ranching advocates raised after the federal government announced details for spending nearly $7 million to restore borderlands damaged by construction of the border fence.
From environmentalists and a public preserve manager came this answer: The feds have spent billions on border fences real and virtual, and it's about time to spend tens of millions protecting animals and plants.
In the next few years, authorities will spend the money to develop jaguar management plans, scan remote camera photos for the cats, close dirt roads and restore wetlands along the border. They'll reseed worn soils, monitor fish populations, build a fish barrier, count bat roosts and study bat movements, and plant agaves.
These actions are in the first leg of a $52 million federal program designed to compensate for damage to endangered species habitat on public lands by the border fence and other security measures.
Land managers and environmentalists called the money a good start, but some borderlands ranchers and their spokesmen in the Arizona Cattlemen's Association were less receptive. The association issued a news release titled "Jaguar Receives Green Card," saying the money should protect people first.
Six months after the still-unsolved slaying of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz, "ranchers and residents south of Interstates 10 and 8 continue to live in a lawless region controlled by drug cartels," the release said. "These drug cartels continue to disrupt everyday life for rural residents along Southern Arizona's border. Yet ranchers are not receiving funds to restore our habitat, nor is the Administration working to restore our border. . . . We have a serious situation on our southern border, and ranchers continue to see the degradation of their environment and traffic from drug cartels."
Federal money for the wildlands will address impacts of a border fence built with no environmental reviews, countered Organ Pipe National Monument Superintendent Lee Baiza. As for competition with border security, Baiza said the $50 million is a small amount compared to $600 million Congress agreed in August to spend on Border Patrol agents, customs inspectors and other law enforcement officials, as well as communications equipment and unmanned aerial "drones" to monitor border activities.
The $6.8 million will pay for eight Southwestern projects, six in Arizona. A list of 29 projects identified as feasible for the entire $52 million includes 17 Arizona projects estimated to cost $14.3 million.
The projects are "an absolute joke" because they don't address non-endangered species such as mountain lion, deer and javelina that live in his area but can't get over the border wall, complained rancher John Ladd, who lives near the border wall near the San Pedro River. There's no jaguar or ocelots in that area - but they do exist in areas east of Douglas and west of Sasabe where there is no wall, he said.
"My family has been here since 1896, but we were willing to accept the consequences of the wall if the government had stopped illegal immigration. They haven't done it," Ladd said. "They won't patrol the border, and they can't get Congress to reform the immigration law."
Ladd has a point in that these projects won't help mountain lions get across the wall, said Matt Clark of Defenders of Wildlife in Tucson. But much of the new money will be spent where the Fish and Wildlife Service thinks it can get the most endangered-species conservation for the money, he said.
"The service is not looking at where we can make the border wall better. They are looking at where we can make an investment that furthers the conservation of these species," Clark said. "If you were to calculate the acreages lost to the border wall and roads on private and public lands, then you would be looking at well over $50 million to mitigate it. This is a down payment."
Reese Woodling, a retired rancher near Douglas who still sits on the governing board of the Malpais Borderlands ranching group, said he sees the jaguar monitoring as pointless because with no female jaguars seen in Southern Arizona for decades, he doubts the animal can survive as a viable population here anymore.
"They are just throwing money at these programs," said Wendy Glenn, a rancher in the Malpais Borderlands area east of Douglas. "It's a tough call for me to criticize them, but I don't know how they can spend so much on this when so many other things are needed."
Interior Department Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh, however, called the programs a first step toward meeting the government's responsibility to compensate for the impact on wildlife from the continuing effort to secure the border.
This debate could continue if more types of restoration projects come on line, as is hinted at by the agreement between Interior and DHS. It lays out five other classes of natural resources that could get restoration work beyond the $52 million: for non-endangered wildlife, wetlands and riverfront area, soils and cultural resources, including Native American human remains.
But a cautionary note about the restoration plans also came from another federal document on the Organ Pipe project. It said that unsafe conditions on the borderlands may prevent people from working in the area where most of the restoration work is needed.
On StarNet: Find extensive coverage of immigration issues at azstarnet.com/border
Areas where the wildlands-Restoration funding will be spent
Six initial projects are in Arizona:
• $2.1 million to survey and monitor jaguars for four years, develop a jaguar management plan, fence and restore jaguar habitat and work with ranchers, government and local communities to develop a system to report on jaguars.
• $1.9 million to protect, inventory and monitor endangered lesser long-nosed bat and Mexican long-nosed bat roosts. This involves finding roosts along fence segments from the Patagonia to the Huachuca Mountains and from the Perilla to Peloncillo mountains. It also involves radio-tracking bats in these areas to help find the roosts and to determine how much roads, fences, lights and other facilities act as barriers for bats.
• $980,000 to restore 84 acres damaged by construction of 5.2 miles of fence near Lukeville. This involves closing roads and allowing vegetation to regrow, replanting 200 large transplanted saguaro and organ pipe cacti, seed collecting and propagation, road decompaction, erosion control, planting and invasive species control.
• $657,000 to restore 49.7 acres at the San Bernardino National Wildlife refuge, east of Douglas. It will compensate for the loss of 16 miles of habitat and about 116 acres of roadbed for border fencing and other security measures.
• $441,250 to study four federally protected Rio Yaqui fish species and four sensitive fish species living in that refuge. The work includes an inventory of the fish and an accounting of impacts from unpaved roads, disturbed soils and soil erosion. A shallow well will be drilled to ensure permanent water for a wetland for the fish and the imperiled San Bernardino Springsnail. A fish barrier will be installed to keep exotic fish out of the refuge.
• $274,873 to plant 6,344 agaves at Coronado National Memorial to compensate for removal of 3,172 agaves for fence construction.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_e2f4eb0f-6ade-5974-9c94-b39f9954fd3a.html
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Border 101
Arizona Daily Star
October 24, 2010
by Brady McCombs
From congressional races to the gubernatorial showdown, border issues have taken center stage in many campaigns this election season.
If you are dizzy from all the talk and rhetoric, you're not alone. So today, we sort out some of the most popular election-season facts, myths and half-truths:
Is the border more dangerous than ever?
Answer: For people illegally crossing it, yes. For people living near it in Mexico, probably. For people living on the U.S. side of the border, probably not.
Some will vehemently disagree with that last statement, pointing to the March killing of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz and an increase in burglaries in the Portal area as evidence that the level of danger on the U.S. side of the border has increased. But while Cochise County investigators say they tracked footprints back to Mexico, the Krentz crime is unsolved.
The FBI's uniform crime reports show violent crime is no more prevalent in border cities than in nonborder cities.
Since 2001, the average violent-crime rate in eight border cities declined, and it has remained below the national violent-crime rate since 2005, said an August 2010 report by the Congressional Research Center, which reviewed FBI crime reports from 1998 to 2008.
In Tucson and Phoenix - the two largest cities on the smuggling route through Arizona - murder and violent crime decreased from 2005 to 2009, FBI data show.
The ratio of assaults on Border Patrol agents dipped 36 percent across the Southwest border from 2007 to 2010. But that ratio increased by 70 percent in the Tucson Sector over the same period. Most of the reported assaults are when rocks are thrown at agents.
The danger of crossing the border illegally has increased, though. Illegal immigrants are dying at greater rates than ever in Arizona, likely because the border buildup has prompted smugglers to lead crossers into more remote and dangerous areas.
The 252 illegal border crossers found dead along Arizona's stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border excluding Yuma in fiscal 2010 broke the previous record of 234, set in 2007.
Is Arizona the epicenter for illegal immigration?
Answer: Yes and no.
Arizona's stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border is the busiest for illegal immigration, drug smuggling and border deaths, accounting for more than half of all arrests and marijuana seizures. But the state is more of a transit point than a destination.
The estimate of 375,000 illegal immigrants living in Arizona puts the state eighth in the U.S. behind California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Georgia, a September report from the Pew Hispanic Center found.
And the number of illegal immigrants living in Arizona dropped from an estimated 475,000 in 2008, the Pew report found.
But Arizona has thrust itself into the national spotlight on this issue due to the numerous immigration-enforcement laws passed by the state, including SB 1070.
Has the federal government really done nothing to secure the border?
Answer: You can question the effectiveness of the billions spent, but there's no denying the massive buildup of border enforcement over the last five to 10 years:
• The budget for Customs and Border Protection - the Department of Homeland Security agency responsible for border security - soared to $11.4 billion in fiscal 2010, up 90 percent from $6 billion in fiscal year 2004. That's nearly twice the growth of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) budget, which increased 54 percent to $5.7 billion in fiscal 2010, up from $3.7 billion in 2004. ICE is responsible for immigration enforcement at worksites and across the interior of the country.
• The number of Border Patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border has increased to 17,500, up from 9,700 in 2004. The Tucson Sector, which stretches from New Mexico to Yuma County, now has 3,300 agents, up from 2,100 in 2004 and 1,500 in 2000.
• The miles of fencing along the border have grown exponentially. There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fence and 299 miles of vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, for a total of 649 miles of barriers. That's up from 143 miles of barriers in 2006.
The Tucson Sector has 71 miles of pedestrian fences and 139 miles of vehicle barriers. In 2000, it had 11 miles of pedestrian fences and two miles of vehicle barriers.
Pedestrian fences are 12- to 18-foot-high barriers designed to stop, or at least slow down, people. Vehicle barriers are waist- to chest-high and are designed to stop cars.
• The agency has spent more than $1 billion since 2006 developing the SBInet "virtual fence," which tracks movement using a network of towers mounted with cameras, sensors and radar. But the program has been plagued by delays and glitches.
• In the past five years, the feds have twice sent the National Guard to the border to assist the Border Patrol. In Operation Jump Start, from 2006 to 2008, the government spent $1.2 billion to send 6,000 National Guard troops. In the current Operation Copper Cactus, the government is spending $135 million to send 1,200 troops.
• Homeland Security has devoted $225 million to border law enforcement agencies through Operation Stonegarden, including about $51 million to Arizona agencies. The program gives agencies money to pay officers who work overtime shifts aimed at securing the border. The money also buys four-wheel-drive trucks, radios and night-vision goggles.
Has the buildup of agents, fences and technology made the border more secure?
Answer: Probably, but to what degree is uncertain.
Fewer illegal immigrants are crossing the Southwest border, but it's difficult to determine how much of that is attributed to the buildup, because the decrease has coincided with the worst U.S. recession since the Depression.
The number of apprehensions by Border Patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted to 447,500 in fiscal year 2010, down from 1.1 million in fiscal year 2004.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledges that the weak economy helps explain why fewer people are getting caught crossing the border illegally, and she also credited crackdowns on employers who hire illegal workers. But she said a big reason is enforcement.
"The manpower, the technology, the infrastructure all has enabled us to be able to really slow that flow of illegal-immigrant traffic," she said at a news conference last week near San Diego.
Citing the seizures of more drugs, weapons and illicit cash along the Mexican border, Napolitano said: "We now have a border more secure than ever before."
But using the same rationale the feds apply to apprehensions - the lower the better - the buildup has not slowed the smuggling of drugs. Marijuana seizures along the U.S.-Mexico border by Border Patrol agents have increased to 2.5 million pounds in fiscal year 2009, up from 1.3 million in 2004.
So many people say, 'Build more fence.' Does it work?
Answer: Nobody knows for sure.
A 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office found that "despite a $2.4 billion investment to build 264 miles of fencing and 226 miles of vehicle barriers in the last five years, the impact of these barriers on border security is unknown because it has not been measured."
Proponents of border fencing point to double-layer fencing in San Diego and Yuma as proof that barriers work. Apprehensions dipped there after the fences went up, but the smugglers simply moved their routes.
The Border Patrol's 262-mile-long Tucson Sector has 71 miles of fencing, but it remains the busiest people- and drug-smuggling route on the border, accounting for nearly half of all arrests and marijuana seizures.
The problem with fences is that motivated smugglers and border crossers find ways over, through and around them. Critics call them nothing more than a speed bump. And the international border's diverse terrain, which includes mountains, canyons and rivers, makes a 2,000-mile fence impossible.
Border Patrol officials acknowledge that the barriers are not a panacea. But they say they deter, slow and funnel traffic, helping agents gain the upper hand in the ongoing cat-and-mouse game with smugglers.
The government has spent $2.4 billion on new fences, and the GAO estimates the life-cycle cost of all the barriers to be $6.5 billion.
The buildup of fences and roads along the border could have environmental consequences, too. Fencing has caused flooding and erosion, and it could be fragmenting wildlife habitat.
Virtual fences are better for the environment, but despite more than $1 billion spent over five years, the SBInet program has been plagued by glitches and major delays, and has yet to produce a working system. The GAO has questioned whether the time and money spent are a prudent use of limited resources.
Has violence from Mexico's raging drug wars spilled over the border?
Answer: It's not entirely clear, but most indicators say no.
The public shootouts, beheadings and killings that are part of life in northern Mexico due to the ongoing turf battles between drug cartels do not occur in Arizona. But some violence in Arizona may be associated with the illegal smuggling of people and drugs.
And there's no way to say spillover violence won't happen.
"Currently, U.S. federal officials deny that the recent increase in drug-trafficking-related violence in Mexico has resulted in a spillover into the United States," said an August 2010 report from the Congressional Research Center. "But they acknowledge that the prospect is a serious concern."
Is it possible to seal the border?
Answer: Probably not.
There are some who believe it's possible, such as the Border Patrol agents' union. But even the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the focus should be on controlling the border, not sealing it.
"This is not about sealing the border," Commissioner Alan Bersin said in September while in Tucson. "Until we have a legitimate labor market between Mexico and the United States, people will attempt to come here to work."
History shows that as long as better-paying jobs await in the U.S., people from Mexico and Latin America will continue to find a way around, through, under and over the gantlet of enforcement.
Not even the worst U.S. recession since the Depression has stopped the stream of illegal immigrants.
On StarNet: Find extensive coverage of immigration issues at azstarnet.com/border
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_dc909571-05b9-5f70-be39-bfa148091380.html
October 24, 2010
by Brady McCombs
From congressional races to the gubernatorial showdown, border issues have taken center stage in many campaigns this election season.
If you are dizzy from all the talk and rhetoric, you're not alone. So today, we sort out some of the most popular election-season facts, myths and half-truths:
Is the border more dangerous than ever?
Answer: For people illegally crossing it, yes. For people living near it in Mexico, probably. For people living on the U.S. side of the border, probably not.
Some will vehemently disagree with that last statement, pointing to the March killing of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz and an increase in burglaries in the Portal area as evidence that the level of danger on the U.S. side of the border has increased. But while Cochise County investigators say they tracked footprints back to Mexico, the Krentz crime is unsolved.
The FBI's uniform crime reports show violent crime is no more prevalent in border cities than in nonborder cities.
Since 2001, the average violent-crime rate in eight border cities declined, and it has remained below the national violent-crime rate since 2005, said an August 2010 report by the Congressional Research Center, which reviewed FBI crime reports from 1998 to 2008.
In Tucson and Phoenix - the two largest cities on the smuggling route through Arizona - murder and violent crime decreased from 2005 to 2009, FBI data show.
The ratio of assaults on Border Patrol agents dipped 36 percent across the Southwest border from 2007 to 2010. But that ratio increased by 70 percent in the Tucson Sector over the same period. Most of the reported assaults are when rocks are thrown at agents.
The danger of crossing the border illegally has increased, though. Illegal immigrants are dying at greater rates than ever in Arizona, likely because the border buildup has prompted smugglers to lead crossers into more remote and dangerous areas.
The 252 illegal border crossers found dead along Arizona's stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border excluding Yuma in fiscal 2010 broke the previous record of 234, set in 2007.
Is Arizona the epicenter for illegal immigration?
Answer: Yes and no.
Arizona's stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border is the busiest for illegal immigration, drug smuggling and border deaths, accounting for more than half of all arrests and marijuana seizures. But the state is more of a transit point than a destination.
The estimate of 375,000 illegal immigrants living in Arizona puts the state eighth in the U.S. behind California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Georgia, a September report from the Pew Hispanic Center found.
And the number of illegal immigrants living in Arizona dropped from an estimated 475,000 in 2008, the Pew report found.
But Arizona has thrust itself into the national spotlight on this issue due to the numerous immigration-enforcement laws passed by the state, including SB 1070.
Has the federal government really done nothing to secure the border?
Answer: You can question the effectiveness of the billions spent, but there's no denying the massive buildup of border enforcement over the last five to 10 years:
• The budget for Customs and Border Protection - the Department of Homeland Security agency responsible for border security - soared to $11.4 billion in fiscal 2010, up 90 percent from $6 billion in fiscal year 2004. That's nearly twice the growth of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) budget, which increased 54 percent to $5.7 billion in fiscal 2010, up from $3.7 billion in 2004. ICE is responsible for immigration enforcement at worksites and across the interior of the country.
• The number of Border Patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border has increased to 17,500, up from 9,700 in 2004. The Tucson Sector, which stretches from New Mexico to Yuma County, now has 3,300 agents, up from 2,100 in 2004 and 1,500 in 2000.
• The miles of fencing along the border have grown exponentially. There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fence and 299 miles of vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, for a total of 649 miles of barriers. That's up from 143 miles of barriers in 2006.
The Tucson Sector has 71 miles of pedestrian fences and 139 miles of vehicle barriers. In 2000, it had 11 miles of pedestrian fences and two miles of vehicle barriers.
Pedestrian fences are 12- to 18-foot-high barriers designed to stop, or at least slow down, people. Vehicle barriers are waist- to chest-high and are designed to stop cars.
• The agency has spent more than $1 billion since 2006 developing the SBInet "virtual fence," which tracks movement using a network of towers mounted with cameras, sensors and radar. But the program has been plagued by delays and glitches.
• In the past five years, the feds have twice sent the National Guard to the border to assist the Border Patrol. In Operation Jump Start, from 2006 to 2008, the government spent $1.2 billion to send 6,000 National Guard troops. In the current Operation Copper Cactus, the government is spending $135 million to send 1,200 troops.
• Homeland Security has devoted $225 million to border law enforcement agencies through Operation Stonegarden, including about $51 million to Arizona agencies. The program gives agencies money to pay officers who work overtime shifts aimed at securing the border. The money also buys four-wheel-drive trucks, radios and night-vision goggles.
Has the buildup of agents, fences and technology made the border more secure?
Answer: Probably, but to what degree is uncertain.
Fewer illegal immigrants are crossing the Southwest border, but it's difficult to determine how much of that is attributed to the buildup, because the decrease has coincided with the worst U.S. recession since the Depression.
The number of apprehensions by Border Patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted to 447,500 in fiscal year 2010, down from 1.1 million in fiscal year 2004.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledges that the weak economy helps explain why fewer people are getting caught crossing the border illegally, and she also credited crackdowns on employers who hire illegal workers. But she said a big reason is enforcement.
"The manpower, the technology, the infrastructure all has enabled us to be able to really slow that flow of illegal-immigrant traffic," she said at a news conference last week near San Diego.
Citing the seizures of more drugs, weapons and illicit cash along the Mexican border, Napolitano said: "We now have a border more secure than ever before."
But using the same rationale the feds apply to apprehensions - the lower the better - the buildup has not slowed the smuggling of drugs. Marijuana seizures along the U.S.-Mexico border by Border Patrol agents have increased to 2.5 million pounds in fiscal year 2009, up from 1.3 million in 2004.
So many people say, 'Build more fence.' Does it work?
Answer: Nobody knows for sure.
A 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office found that "despite a $2.4 billion investment to build 264 miles of fencing and 226 miles of vehicle barriers in the last five years, the impact of these barriers on border security is unknown because it has not been measured."
Proponents of border fencing point to double-layer fencing in San Diego and Yuma as proof that barriers work. Apprehensions dipped there after the fences went up, but the smugglers simply moved their routes.
The Border Patrol's 262-mile-long Tucson Sector has 71 miles of fencing, but it remains the busiest people- and drug-smuggling route on the border, accounting for nearly half of all arrests and marijuana seizures.
The problem with fences is that motivated smugglers and border crossers find ways over, through and around them. Critics call them nothing more than a speed bump. And the international border's diverse terrain, which includes mountains, canyons and rivers, makes a 2,000-mile fence impossible.
Border Patrol officials acknowledge that the barriers are not a panacea. But they say they deter, slow and funnel traffic, helping agents gain the upper hand in the ongoing cat-and-mouse game with smugglers.
The government has spent $2.4 billion on new fences, and the GAO estimates the life-cycle cost of all the barriers to be $6.5 billion.
The buildup of fences and roads along the border could have environmental consequences, too. Fencing has caused flooding and erosion, and it could be fragmenting wildlife habitat.
Virtual fences are better for the environment, but despite more than $1 billion spent over five years, the SBInet program has been plagued by glitches and major delays, and has yet to produce a working system. The GAO has questioned whether the time and money spent are a prudent use of limited resources.
Has violence from Mexico's raging drug wars spilled over the border?
Answer: It's not entirely clear, but most indicators say no.
The public shootouts, beheadings and killings that are part of life in northern Mexico due to the ongoing turf battles between drug cartels do not occur in Arizona. But some violence in Arizona may be associated with the illegal smuggling of people and drugs.
And there's no way to say spillover violence won't happen.
"Currently, U.S. federal officials deny that the recent increase in drug-trafficking-related violence in Mexico has resulted in a spillover into the United States," said an August 2010 report from the Congressional Research Center. "But they acknowledge that the prospect is a serious concern."
Is it possible to seal the border?
Answer: Probably not.
There are some who believe it's possible, such as the Border Patrol agents' union. But even the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the focus should be on controlling the border, not sealing it.
"This is not about sealing the border," Commissioner Alan Bersin said in September while in Tucson. "Until we have a legitimate labor market between Mexico and the United States, people will attempt to come here to work."
History shows that as long as better-paying jobs await in the U.S., people from Mexico and Latin America will continue to find a way around, through, under and over the gantlet of enforcement.
Not even the worst U.S. recession since the Depression has stopped the stream of illegal immigrants.
On StarNet: Find extensive coverage of immigration issues at azstarnet.com/border
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_dc909571-05b9-5f70-be39-bfa148091380.html
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
GAO report: US land laws don't hinder border agents
Arizona Daily Star
October 20, 2010
by Brady McCombs
Federal rules governing public lands along the border cause some delays but do not prevent the Border Patrol from handling its assignment to secure the border, a federal report released Tuesday says.
As part of its 11-month evaluation, the Government Accountability Office interviewed agents-in-charge at 26 Border Patrol stations with primary responsibility for patrolling federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Although 17 agents reported delays and restrictions to patrolling on federal land, 22 of them said "overall security status of their jurisdiction is not affected by land-management laws," the report says. "Instead, factors such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain have the greatest effect on their ability to achieve operational control."
Of the four Border Patrol agents-in-charge who said the laws affect their ability to secure the border, two have not formally asked for better access to federal lands, and two others had their requests denied by Border Patrol senior officials who said there were more important needs, the report found.
"Yes, there have been delays. Yes, there have been restrictions placed on them," said Anu Mittal, director of the GAO's Natural Resources and Environment Team. "But it really hasn't affected their operation control."
The report was requested by 12 Republican lawmakers led by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah and Rep. Peter King of Iowa. Bishop is the ranking member on the House subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands. King is the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee.
Five of the 12 legislators who requested the report are from Texas and one is from California, but none represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border. None is from Arizona, which has the busiest stretch of border.
In April, Bishop introduced a bill that would give Border Patrol agents total access to public lands where they currently must adhere to some restrictions. Bishop justified the legislation based on authorities' belief that the person who killed Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz on March 27 fled into Mexico through the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, 17 miles east of Douglas.
The Border Patrol agents must get permission from supervisors to open locked gates and patrol the San Bernardino refuge, according to the report. The rules are in place to protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species.
The GAO report shows the need to give the Border Patrol better access to federal lands, said Bishop spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin.
"They can't wait for that delay," Subbotin said. "When they are radioing in for access to these lands with locked gates, they are missing critical opportunities to catch these criminals."
Subbotin said the opinions of 22 agents-in-charge should not overshadow the serious problems that exist along a porous border that leaves the country vulnerable to terrorists.
"When you speak with Border Patrol agents who are retired and in a position to be 100 percent candid, you get a completely different story," Subbotin said.
Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol agents' union in Arizona, agreed that the opinions of agents-in-charge can't always be trusted because they risk future promotions by going against the administration.
Judd, however, disagrees with Bishop's office that the agency needs total access to federal lands.
"They are protected lands for a reason," Judd said. "We don't need to give the Border Patrol carte blanche, but I definitely think we need to look at what might be hindering national security."
On Oct. 8, Bishop's office sent a news release with a draft version of the GAO report highlighting the "shocking details of how federal policies are preventing the U.S. Border Patrol's access to some of the most crime-ridden areas of the U.S.-Mexico border located on federal lands."
The news release didn't mention the finding that 22 of the 26 agents-in-charge said the laws didn't affect their ability to secure the border. Subbotin said the office released the report in the name of transparency, to allow people to read the draft and then the final version.
But leaking a GAO report before it is finished is unusual and says something about Bishop's integrity, said Matt Clark, Southwest representative of Defenders of Wildlife.
"The GAO report was commissioned as an attempt to gain any sort of clout to support Bishop's ill-conceived bill," Clark said. "It's not grounded in any real crisis. It's fear tactics designed to build public support for a highly controversial piece of legislation."
The GAO report confirms what people working along the border have known all along, Clark said.
"Land management restrictions that do exist are not impeding the ability to secure the border," Clark said. "And they are important to maintain to protect the integrity of the land and public resources."
On StarNet: Read more about border-related issues in Brady McCombs' blog, Border Boletín, at go.azstarnet.com/borderboletin
Did you know
More than 40 percent of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border is managed by the the Department of the Interior's land management agencies and the Forest Service. And these federally managed lands account for more than 97 percent of all apprehensions made by the Border Patrol.
Federally managed lands in Arizona include the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, southwest of Tucson; the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, east of Douglas; and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Southwestern Arizona.
Source: Government Accountability Office
GAO report on web
To read the entire GAO report, go online to www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-11-38
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_ac2d445d-fcb5-538e-886e-1b5722b10048.html
October 20, 2010
by Brady McCombs
Federal rules governing public lands along the border cause some delays but do not prevent the Border Patrol from handling its assignment to secure the border, a federal report released Tuesday says.
As part of its 11-month evaluation, the Government Accountability Office interviewed agents-in-charge at 26 Border Patrol stations with primary responsibility for patrolling federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Although 17 agents reported delays and restrictions to patrolling on federal land, 22 of them said "overall security status of their jurisdiction is not affected by land-management laws," the report says. "Instead, factors such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain have the greatest effect on their ability to achieve operational control."
Of the four Border Patrol agents-in-charge who said the laws affect their ability to secure the border, two have not formally asked for better access to federal lands, and two others had their requests denied by Border Patrol senior officials who said there were more important needs, the report found.
"Yes, there have been delays. Yes, there have been restrictions placed on them," said Anu Mittal, director of the GAO's Natural Resources and Environment Team. "But it really hasn't affected their operation control."
The report was requested by 12 Republican lawmakers led by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah and Rep. Peter King of Iowa. Bishop is the ranking member on the House subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands. King is the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee.
Five of the 12 legislators who requested the report are from Texas and one is from California, but none represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border. None is from Arizona, which has the busiest stretch of border.
In April, Bishop introduced a bill that would give Border Patrol agents total access to public lands where they currently must adhere to some restrictions. Bishop justified the legislation based on authorities' belief that the person who killed Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz on March 27 fled into Mexico through the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, 17 miles east of Douglas.
The Border Patrol agents must get permission from supervisors to open locked gates and patrol the San Bernardino refuge, according to the report. The rules are in place to protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species.
The GAO report shows the need to give the Border Patrol better access to federal lands, said Bishop spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin.
"They can't wait for that delay," Subbotin said. "When they are radioing in for access to these lands with locked gates, they are missing critical opportunities to catch these criminals."
Subbotin said the opinions of 22 agents-in-charge should not overshadow the serious problems that exist along a porous border that leaves the country vulnerable to terrorists.
"When you speak with Border Patrol agents who are retired and in a position to be 100 percent candid, you get a completely different story," Subbotin said.
Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol agents' union in Arizona, agreed that the opinions of agents-in-charge can't always be trusted because they risk future promotions by going against the administration.
Judd, however, disagrees with Bishop's office that the agency needs total access to federal lands.
"They are protected lands for a reason," Judd said. "We don't need to give the Border Patrol carte blanche, but I definitely think we need to look at what might be hindering national security."
On Oct. 8, Bishop's office sent a news release with a draft version of the GAO report highlighting the "shocking details of how federal policies are preventing the U.S. Border Patrol's access to some of the most crime-ridden areas of the U.S.-Mexico border located on federal lands."
The news release didn't mention the finding that 22 of the 26 agents-in-charge said the laws didn't affect their ability to secure the border. Subbotin said the office released the report in the name of transparency, to allow people to read the draft and then the final version.
But leaking a GAO report before it is finished is unusual and says something about Bishop's integrity, said Matt Clark, Southwest representative of Defenders of Wildlife.
"The GAO report was commissioned as an attempt to gain any sort of clout to support Bishop's ill-conceived bill," Clark said. "It's not grounded in any real crisis. It's fear tactics designed to build public support for a highly controversial piece of legislation."
The GAO report confirms what people working along the border have known all along, Clark said.
"Land management restrictions that do exist are not impeding the ability to secure the border," Clark said. "And they are important to maintain to protect the integrity of the land and public resources."
On StarNet: Read more about border-related issues in Brady McCombs' blog, Border Boletín, at go.azstarnet.com/borderboletin
Did you know
More than 40 percent of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border is managed by the the Department of the Interior's land management agencies and the Forest Service. And these federally managed lands account for more than 97 percent of all apprehensions made by the Border Patrol.
Federally managed lands in Arizona include the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, southwest of Tucson; the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, east of Douglas; and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Southwestern Arizona.
Source: Government Accountability Office
GAO report on web
To read the entire GAO report, go online to www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-11-38
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_ac2d445d-fcb5-538e-886e-1b5722b10048.html
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Departments of the Interior, Homeland Security Announce $6.8 Million in Conservation Projects
Department of the Interior Press Release
October 13, 2010
Washington, DC – The U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have completed the first InterAgency Agreement under the 2009 Memorandum of Agreement to fund environmental mitigation projects that will benefit several species of fish and wildlife affected by border security projects in the Southwest. Signed September 28, the agreement will fund $6.8 million in projects and represents the first of a series of efforts designed to mitigate impacts from the construction of fencing and other security measures along the U.S. Border with Mexico.
“CBP is committed to protecting our country’s natural resources and wildlife while performing our security mission,” said CBP Deputy Commissioner, David Aguilar. “CBP is responsible for sound environmental stewardship and energy conservation as an integral part of their mission activities.”
“The projects we are announcing today are, in effect, part of a down payment on mitigating the impact on wildlife and its habitat from the on-going effort to secure our southern border,” Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh said. “In the future, we will continue to work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to fund new projects that ensure threatened and endangered species and other wildlife along the border are conserved and the fragile ecosystems they depend upon are protected.”
The initial mitigation projects include funding to restore habitat for lesser long-nosed bats in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona; re-establish the Aplomado falcon in New Mexico; install a fish barrier at San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona to preclude competition with invasive species; study movement of bighorn sheep in California; survey and monitor jaguars and their habitat in Arizona.
Customs and Border Protection is funding these projects under a 2009 Memorandum of Agreement between CBP and the Department of the Interior for mitigation of unavoidable impacts to natural and cultural resources due to construction of border security infrastructure. Under this agreement, CBP will fund DOI up to $50 million over the next few years for mitigation needs.
Over the past three years, CBP has constructed about 670 miles of fence along the southwest border as an integral part of the nation’s strategy to improve border security. CBP has committed to responsible environmental stewardship throughout the life-cycle of the tactical infrastructure, from construction through operations and maintenance.
The First Mitigation Projects:
a. Sasabe Biological Opinion Arizona
$2,119,000
b. Organ Pipe Cactus NM Biological Opinion Arizona
$980,000
c. San Bernardino Valley Mitigation Arizona
$657,480
d. Rio Yaqui Fish Studies Arizona
$441,250
e. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Study California
$230,000
f. Coronado NM Agave Restoration Arizona
$274,873
g. Northern Aplomado Falcon Reintroduction and Habitat Restoration New Mexico $499,700
h. Border-wide Bat Conservation Arizona
$925,000
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Departments-of-the-Interior-and-Homeland-Security-Announce-6-point-8-Million-in-Conservation-Projects.cfm
October 13, 2010
Washington, DC – The U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have completed the first InterAgency Agreement under the 2009 Memorandum of Agreement to fund environmental mitigation projects that will benefit several species of fish and wildlife affected by border security projects in the Southwest. Signed September 28, the agreement will fund $6.8 million in projects and represents the first of a series of efforts designed to mitigate impacts from the construction of fencing and other security measures along the U.S. Border with Mexico.
“CBP is committed to protecting our country’s natural resources and wildlife while performing our security mission,” said CBP Deputy Commissioner, David Aguilar. “CBP is responsible for sound environmental stewardship and energy conservation as an integral part of their mission activities.”
“The projects we are announcing today are, in effect, part of a down payment on mitigating the impact on wildlife and its habitat from the on-going effort to secure our southern border,” Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh said. “In the future, we will continue to work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to fund new projects that ensure threatened and endangered species and other wildlife along the border are conserved and the fragile ecosystems they depend upon are protected.”
The initial mitigation projects include funding to restore habitat for lesser long-nosed bats in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona; re-establish the Aplomado falcon in New Mexico; install a fish barrier at San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona to preclude competition with invasive species; study movement of bighorn sheep in California; survey and monitor jaguars and their habitat in Arizona.
Customs and Border Protection is funding these projects under a 2009 Memorandum of Agreement between CBP and the Department of the Interior for mitigation of unavoidable impacts to natural and cultural resources due to construction of border security infrastructure. Under this agreement, CBP will fund DOI up to $50 million over the next few years for mitigation needs.
Over the past three years, CBP has constructed about 670 miles of fence along the southwest border as an integral part of the nation’s strategy to improve border security. CBP has committed to responsible environmental stewardship throughout the life-cycle of the tactical infrastructure, from construction through operations and maintenance.
The First Mitigation Projects:
a. Sasabe Biological Opinion Arizona
$2,119,000
b. Organ Pipe Cactus NM Biological Opinion Arizona
$980,000
c. San Bernardino Valley Mitigation Arizona
$657,480
d. Rio Yaqui Fish Studies Arizona
$441,250
e. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Study California
$230,000
f. Coronado NM Agave Restoration Arizona
$274,873
g. Northern Aplomado Falcon Reintroduction and Habitat Restoration New Mexico $499,700
h. Border-wide Bat Conservation Arizona
$925,000
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Departments-of-the-Interior-and-Homeland-Security-Announce-6-point-8-Million-in-Conservation-Projects.cfm
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Fox's Most Blatant Falsehood Ever?
Media Matters for America
Press Release
June 17, 2010
Washington, DC - Today, after Fox News and the Fox Nation falsely suggested that President Obama was giving a "major strip" of land in Arizona "back to Mexico," Media Matters for America issued an open letter to Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente asking that, as promised in the "quality control" memo Fox News management issued to staff, "immediate disciplinary action" be taken.
"Michael Clemente cannot simply ignore this on-air error like he has so many others," said Ari Rabin-Havt, Vice President for Research and Communications at Media Matters. "This was one of the most deliberately misleading reports I've ever seen on Fox News."
Added Rabin-Havt: "This is not a quality control problem. This is a journalistic ethics problem. And if Fox News doesn't correct this, it will prove that it has none."
BACKGROUND
Rabin-Havt has sent five previous letters about such "mistakes" but has yet to receive a response. He sent today's letter after Bonnie Swarbrick, the public information officer for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, exclusively told Media Matters that Fox's claims were "totally false" and the notion that America had given the land back to Mexico is "ludicrous."
The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Clemente:
I am writing to you to demand that you correct a glaring error made both on Fox News and on Fox's website The Fox Nation.
The Fox Nation used the preposterous headline "Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico" to trumpet a report about a closure of land in a national wildlife refuge in Arizona. During that America Live report, guest host Shannon Bream stated: "A massive stretch of Arizona now off limits to Americans. Critics say the administration is, in effect, giving a major strip of the Southwest back to Mexico."
But according to Bonnie Swarbrick, who is the public information officer for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, the "massive stretch" of land is about five miles square, it's been closed since 2006, and it obviously hasn't been given back to Mexico.
Swarbrick told Media Matters that the area in the refuge bordering Mexico was "closed in 2006 during the construction of a vehicle barrier." Work on the vehicle barrier progressed into the construction of a 12-foot fence along the part of the refuge that borders Mexico, which is about seven miles long. The area has been kept closed "to allow the Border Patrol to do their work," she said. Swarbrick added that the small strip of land that is closed makes up "less than 0.03 percent" of the refuge and said that the rest of the reserve is still open to the public.
However, the on-screen map that Fox News used during the report suggested a far different scenario:
The map suggests that the red outline indicates the closed area, but only the area of the refuge along the U.S.-Mexico border is actually closed
As for the Fox Nation headline, Swarbrick called it "totally false" and said the notion that America had given the land back to Mexico is "ludicrous."
I'll remind you once again of the quality control memo your network issued in November. The memo assured that "mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the 'mistake chain.' " I would assume that the memo would also apply to Fox Nation, a website that Fox News has promoted with advertisements telling viewers that "[i]t's time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech."
I have written you on five previous occasions about errors on your network, and I have yet to see any "immediate disciplinary action" take place. In this particular case, on-air and online corrections, at the very least, are necessary.
Sincerely,
Ari Rabin-Havt
Vice President for Communications and Research
Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/201006170032
Press Release
June 17, 2010
Washington, DC - Today, after Fox News and the Fox Nation falsely suggested that President Obama was giving a "major strip" of land in Arizona "back to Mexico," Media Matters for America issued an open letter to Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente asking that, as promised in the "quality control" memo Fox News management issued to staff, "immediate disciplinary action" be taken.
"Michael Clemente cannot simply ignore this on-air error like he has so many others," said Ari Rabin-Havt, Vice President for Research and Communications at Media Matters. "This was one of the most deliberately misleading reports I've ever seen on Fox News."
Added Rabin-Havt: "This is not a quality control problem. This is a journalistic ethics problem. And if Fox News doesn't correct this, it will prove that it has none."
BACKGROUND
Rabin-Havt has sent five previous letters about such "mistakes" but has yet to receive a response. He sent today's letter after Bonnie Swarbrick, the public information officer for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, exclusively told Media Matters that Fox's claims were "totally false" and the notion that America had given the land back to Mexico is "ludicrous."
The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Clemente:
I am writing to you to demand that you correct a glaring error made both on Fox News and on Fox's website The Fox Nation.
The Fox Nation used the preposterous headline "Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico" to trumpet a report about a closure of land in a national wildlife refuge in Arizona. During that America Live report, guest host Shannon Bream stated: "A massive stretch of Arizona now off limits to Americans. Critics say the administration is, in effect, giving a major strip of the Southwest back to Mexico."
But according to Bonnie Swarbrick, who is the public information officer for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, the "massive stretch" of land is about five miles square, it's been closed since 2006, and it obviously hasn't been given back to Mexico.
Swarbrick told Media Matters that the area in the refuge bordering Mexico was "closed in 2006 during the construction of a vehicle barrier." Work on the vehicle barrier progressed into the construction of a 12-foot fence along the part of the refuge that borders Mexico, which is about seven miles long. The area has been kept closed "to allow the Border Patrol to do their work," she said. Swarbrick added that the small strip of land that is closed makes up "less than 0.03 percent" of the refuge and said that the rest of the reserve is still open to the public.
However, the on-screen map that Fox News used during the report suggested a far different scenario:
The map suggests that the red outline indicates the closed area, but only the area of the refuge along the U.S.-Mexico border is actually closed
As for the Fox Nation headline, Swarbrick called it "totally false" and said the notion that America had given the land back to Mexico is "ludicrous."
I'll remind you once again of the quality control memo your network issued in November. The memo assured that "mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the 'mistake chain.' " I would assume that the memo would also apply to Fox Nation, a website that Fox News has promoted with advertisements telling viewers that "[i]t's time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech."
I have written you on five previous occasions about errors on your network, and I have yet to see any "immediate disciplinary action" take place. In this particular case, on-air and online corrections, at the very least, are necessary.
Sincerely,
Ari Rabin-Havt
Vice President for Communications and Research
Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/201006170032
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Bill opens sensitive lands to BP agents
Arizona Daily Star
April 15, 2010
by Brady McCombs
Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House want to give Border Patrol agents total access to public lands where they currently must adhere to some restrictions.
The move is the latest fallout from the March 27 killing of longtime rancher Robert Krentz on his land northeast of Douglas.
The legislation would prohibit the Department of Interior from restricting Border Patrol activities on public lands. Currently, land managers can create rules regarding access to certain areas to protect land, wildlife or historical sites.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, justified the legislation based on the fact that the person who killed Krentz likely fled into Mexico through the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge.
The refuge is 17 miles east of Douglas on the Arizona-Mexico border.
At the 2,309-acre wildlife refuge, the Border Patrol is allowed to patrol on foot or on horseback, but its vehicle access is limited to emergencies and to administrative roads, according to a May 2009 letter from Benjamin Tuggle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife regional director, to Robert Gilbert, then the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector Chief.
San Bernardino refuge manager Bill Radke could not be reached for comment Wednesday. But rancher Wendy Glenn confirmed that those rules still exist. Her 15,000-acre ranch surrounds the refuge.
At a news conference in Washington, D.C., Bishop and other lawmakers accused federal land managers of “hiding behind the law” to place wilderness or endangered species ahead of border safety. “It’s unforgivable,” he said.
“The Border Patrol is not being allowed do their job,” Bishop said. “That has to change.”
But a spokesman for the Border Patrol agents union in Arizona said agents understand the reasons for the rules and work around them without a problem.
“I would definitely look and see if there are some restrictions that are too restrictive,” said Brandon Judd, vice president of Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council. “But to get rid of all restrictions, you would destroy the land.”
The Border Patrol used to have total access to the San Bernardino refuge but lost that privilege because agents were driving off-road and damaging the land, Glenn said.
The legislation would be “bad for the country,” and wouldn’t improve border security, Glenn said. San Bernardino refuge officials cooperate with the Border Patrol, she said.
“They aren’t impeding border security,” Glenn said. “They are working with them.”
The change in rules wouldn’t have made any difference the night Krentz was killed or during the search for his killer, Glenn said. The shooter was likely in Mexico by the time they found Krentz’s body.
“Having access to drive through the refuge wouldn’t have stopped it one way or another,” Glenn said.
The restrictions imposed on public lands are based on decades of bipartisan legislation and are crucial to protecting the land and wildlife, said Matt Clark, Southwest representative of Defenders of Wildlife.
The legislation perpetuates the myth that border security and natural resource protection are conflicting forces when the reality is that land managers are usually very helpful in border security efforts, he said.
This is not the first time legislators have attempted to give Border Patrol complete access to public lands, Clark said.
“It is a shame that they are using this unfortunate event as a springboard for introducing counterproductive legislation,” Clark said.
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said federal land managers are committed to controlling the border by working with the Border Patrol.
During a two-day visit to Texas and Arizona last month, Salazar toured the border by helicopter and foot and was briefed by Border Patrol agents and land managers.
“Secretary Salazar believes that we can meet the twin goals of protecting our national security and our natural resources,” Barkoff said in an e-mail.
While the San Bernardino refuge is small, there are several other large public lands on Arizona’s border that would be impacted by the legislation. They include the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge southwest of Tucson and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Southwestern Arizona.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_fa5c1624-485e-11df-9d8e-001cc4c03286.html
April 15, 2010
by Brady McCombs
Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House want to give Border Patrol agents total access to public lands where they currently must adhere to some restrictions.
The move is the latest fallout from the March 27 killing of longtime rancher Robert Krentz on his land northeast of Douglas.
The legislation would prohibit the Department of Interior from restricting Border Patrol activities on public lands. Currently, land managers can create rules regarding access to certain areas to protect land, wildlife or historical sites.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, justified the legislation based on the fact that the person who killed Krentz likely fled into Mexico through the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge.
The refuge is 17 miles east of Douglas on the Arizona-Mexico border.
At the 2,309-acre wildlife refuge, the Border Patrol is allowed to patrol on foot or on horseback, but its vehicle access is limited to emergencies and to administrative roads, according to a May 2009 letter from Benjamin Tuggle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife regional director, to Robert Gilbert, then the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector Chief.
San Bernardino refuge manager Bill Radke could not be reached for comment Wednesday. But rancher Wendy Glenn confirmed that those rules still exist. Her 15,000-acre ranch surrounds the refuge.
At a news conference in Washington, D.C., Bishop and other lawmakers accused federal land managers of “hiding behind the law” to place wilderness or endangered species ahead of border safety. “It’s unforgivable,” he said.
“The Border Patrol is not being allowed do their job,” Bishop said. “That has to change.”
But a spokesman for the Border Patrol agents union in Arizona said agents understand the reasons for the rules and work around them without a problem.
“I would definitely look and see if there are some restrictions that are too restrictive,” said Brandon Judd, vice president of Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council. “But to get rid of all restrictions, you would destroy the land.”
The Border Patrol used to have total access to the San Bernardino refuge but lost that privilege because agents were driving off-road and damaging the land, Glenn said.
The legislation would be “bad for the country,” and wouldn’t improve border security, Glenn said. San Bernardino refuge officials cooperate with the Border Patrol, she said.
“They aren’t impeding border security,” Glenn said. “They are working with them.”
The change in rules wouldn’t have made any difference the night Krentz was killed or during the search for his killer, Glenn said. The shooter was likely in Mexico by the time they found Krentz’s body.
“Having access to drive through the refuge wouldn’t have stopped it one way or another,” Glenn said.
The restrictions imposed on public lands are based on decades of bipartisan legislation and are crucial to protecting the land and wildlife, said Matt Clark, Southwest representative of Defenders of Wildlife.
The legislation perpetuates the myth that border security and natural resource protection are conflicting forces when the reality is that land managers are usually very helpful in border security efforts, he said.
This is not the first time legislators have attempted to give Border Patrol complete access to public lands, Clark said.
“It is a shame that they are using this unfortunate event as a springboard for introducing counterproductive legislation,” Clark said.
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said federal land managers are committed to controlling the border by working with the Border Patrol.
During a two-day visit to Texas and Arizona last month, Salazar toured the border by helicopter and foot and was briefed by Border Patrol agents and land managers.
“Secretary Salazar believes that we can meet the twin goals of protecting our national security and our natural resources,” Barkoff said in an e-mail.
While the San Bernardino refuge is small, there are several other large public lands on Arizona’s border that would be impacted by the legislation. They include the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge southwest of Tucson and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Southwestern Arizona.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_fa5c1624-485e-11df-9d8e-001cc4c03286.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)