The Hill
July 28, 2014
By Tinothy Cama
Federal land protections are hampering efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the border, Republicans say.
The Interior Department controls about 800 miles along the dividing line with Mexico, or about 40 percent of the total, with other land in the region owned by the Forest Service.
GOP lawmakers argue federal regulations intended to protect land and wildlife have become an obstacle for Customs and Borders Protection officers because they restrict their ability to drive near the border, build infrastructure or install surveillance technology.
“There is no doubt that the restrictions on accessing land along the border have made it more difficult for the Border Patrol to do their job,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who traveled to McAllen County, Texas, earlier this month to meet with officials about the surge of child migrants into the United States.
Smugglers know where agents cannot patrol or monitor, Cruz said, so they target those areas when moving people across the border.
“It seems a commonsense reform to say that the border patrol should be able to fully access and patrol the border,” he said.
A House Republican working group led by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) this week recommended prohibiting the Interior and Forest Service from in any way hampering border patrol.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who accompanied Cruz, wants border security to play a larger role in how federal officials manage land. At a hearing this week in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, she said officers sometimes cannot build roads or even trails on federal land.
“We’re not asking for a major highway around there, but … we need to think about national security issues and how we enforce our own laws, when you juxtapose that with other priorities within the federal agencies,” she said.
Murkowski is the top Republican on the energy panel, which oversees Interior.
Democrats aren’t buying the GOP’s argument.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said conservation issues are just one of the policies that are falling victim to the current crisis.
“These kids have become both the excuse and the reason that they can revisit some of these policies,” Grijalva said.
“You see everything from getting rid of [deferred action] because of the kids, we have to have troops on the border because of the kids, now we don’t need environmental regulations on public lands because of the kids.”
Grijalva said the Homeland Security Department has repeatedly told Congress that land protections don’t hamper border operations.
“If they’re talking about the most recent influx, it’s happening in areas that have nothing to do with protected federal lands,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. “So I think it’s a specious argument to continue their anti-conservation agenda.”
This is not the first time that land restrictions have been drawn into the debate over border patrol.
Many Republicans criticized President Obama in May for creating the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, abutting the border in New Mexico.
The designation, said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), will “place additional burdens on Border Patrol personnel and limit access to high crime areas along the border, making it easier for drug smugglers and human traffickers to move in and out of the country.”
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee’s subpanel with responsibility over national parks, has made border security a top issue, and introduced the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act in an attempt to ensure that the issue is prioritized over environmental conservation.
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats don’t see the problem.
Interior spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw said Interior, the Forest Service and Customs and Border Protection entered an agreement in 2006 to cooperate on the border.
“This [plan] has served to strengthen border security measures while at the same time protecting important natural and cultural resources located in national parks and national wildlife refuges and other public lands,” Kershaw said.
Kirk Emerson, an environmental law professor at the University of Arizona, said conservation and security issues often clashed in the last decade, when large expanses of border fence were being built rapidly.
“What I’m generally finding is that there are very few of those kinds of challenges on the ground now,” she said. “There’s more radio interoperability, some of the protocols that weren’t in place before are now in place for cooperation, and the cooperation works both ways.”
Emerson said federal land managers know how to accommodate border patrol officers, and noted that patrol officers are often the first ones to see environmental problems such as fires and report them.
Dinah Bear, an environmental attorney and consultant who works with border advocacy group Humane Borders, said officers don’t complain about land protections.
“We have a very close working relationship with the border patrol, and I have never heard the border patrol ever complain,” she said. “They are clearly puzzled as to why Congress keeps trying to give them more waivers of things that they don’t need.”
She said conservation has nothing to do with the current crisis, because the children and families aren’t trying to evade officers.
“In fact, the kids and the families are usually running toward the border patrol,” she said. “It’s not a question of border security.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/213405-gop-border-patrol-agents-handcuffed-by-wildlife-rules
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2014
Friday, May 10, 2013
Gang of Eight throws GOP a bone
Politico
May 9, 2013
By Carrie Budoff Brown and Seung Min Kim
The Senate Gang of Eight made a series of overt attempts Thursday to win over Republicans on immigration reform, using the first day of Judiciary Committee debate to tighten border security measures on the bill.
None of the amendments impose drastic changes on the legislation. The most significant concession involved requiring the government to achieve “effective control” of the entire Southwestern border, not just high-risk areas.
The lead reform proponents don’t expect any single amendment to sway Republicans and guarantee Senate passage, but by accepting eight GOP amendments, Gang of Eight members attempted to send the message that they are sensitive to demands for an open committee process and stricter border security.
But the four members of the Gang of Eight who sit on the committee also held together to turn back amendments that they view as poison pills, effectively controlling the proceedings.
The two Republican Gang members sided with Democrats in rejecting Republican Texas Sen Ted Cruz’s bid to multiply agents and other resources along the border. The same coalition defeated Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s proposal to prohibit undocumented immigrants from gaining provisional legal status until the entire Southern border is deemed secure.
The Judiciary Committee markup could take weeks to complete, and the Gang of Eight will meet the day before every session to hash out strategy on committee amendments, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
GOP senators not in the Gang weren’t persuaded by the overtures of accepting certain amendments and continued to focus on border security.
“The committee has voted down every serious border security amendment that’s been presented here today,” Cruz said shortly before the committee adjourned for the day. “The current draft represents merely a fig leaf on border security.”
Cruz’s comments set off the most heated exchange of the day as Republican and Democratic members of the Gang of Eight spoke up to defend the bill.
“Sen. Cruz is opposed to the path to citizenship,” Schumer said, adding that no amount of border enforcement would satisfy the Republican. “Let’s not keep bringing up this false issue that we do nothing on border security. Our bill is tough as nails.”
The panel approved by voice vote an amendment from Grassley that would set a higher bar on border security.
“If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or a future administration or those … in Congress to secure the border,” Grassley said of the underlying bill, calling enforcement mechanisms in the legislation “weak.”
The original version of the Senate bill focused resources on “high-risk” sectors of the border where the Border Patrol captures 30,000 or more people annually.
The Grassley language says that the government must maintain “effective control” of the entire Southwestern border in each of the first five years after the bill is enacted. That means the Border Patrol must catch at least 90 percent of border crossers and maintain “persistent surveillance.”
The so-called trigger issue is a core component of the Gang of Eight bill. Under its plan, not one of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States could transition into a legal status until the Department of Homeland Security has laid out a strategy for the Southern border.
And most of those immigrants will not be allowed to apply for green cards until several security benchmarks — such as a mandatory E-Verify and electronic exit systems at ports of entry — are met.
The trigger is one of a myriad of details that Senate negotiators finessed over months of private talks. Schumer has said President Barack Obama had opposed the idea of a trigger, but senators viewed it as a necessary safeguard against a new wave of illegal entries into the country.
Next up is a Tuesday session focused on the path to citizenship, another major flash point in the debate.
It could also take up an amendment that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for green cards. The Gang of Eight is split on this proposal, and Republicans have threatened to oppose the bill if it passes.
Schumer said negotiators still haven’t resolved what to do on the gay partners amendment, formally called the Uniting American Families Act.
“I would like very much to see it in the bill, but we have to have a bill that has support to get UAFA passed,” Schumer said. “That’s the conundrum. Because if there’s no bill, there’s no UAFA either.”
He added the measure is keeping him up at night. “Look, this one is something … I worry about all the time,” Schumer told reporters during a break in the markup. “I’m a good sleeper, but I wake up in the morning thinking of these things, sometimes early in the morning.”
Overall on Thursday, the committee considered 32 amendments and adopted 21, almost all with a bipartisan vote, said Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).
The committee also cleared a plan backed by Leahy and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) intended to give DHS more flexibility in how it uses funds set aside for border fencing.
After the committee adjourned, Cornyn said that senators didn’t accept any substantial changes to the bill — and those accepted won’t win his vote.
“I can’t support a bill that has big holes in the border security component,” Cornyn said.
Grassley said after the markup that the border security measures must go further to win over Republicans who care about the issue.
“I’ve got great hope that — maybe not by the time this gets through the Senate — but by the time it gets ready to go to the president, it will have strong border security,” Grassley said. “Or it isn’t going to go to the president.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gang-of-eight-throws-gop-a-bone-91169.html?hp=l1
May 9, 2013
By Carrie Budoff Brown and Seung Min Kim
The Senate Gang of Eight made a series of overt attempts Thursday to win over Republicans on immigration reform, using the first day of Judiciary Committee debate to tighten border security measures on the bill.
None of the amendments impose drastic changes on the legislation. The most significant concession involved requiring the government to achieve “effective control” of the entire Southwestern border, not just high-risk areas.
The lead reform proponents don’t expect any single amendment to sway Republicans and guarantee Senate passage, but by accepting eight GOP amendments, Gang of Eight members attempted to send the message that they are sensitive to demands for an open committee process and stricter border security.
But the four members of the Gang of Eight who sit on the committee also held together to turn back amendments that they view as poison pills, effectively controlling the proceedings.
The two Republican Gang members sided with Democrats in rejecting Republican Texas Sen Ted Cruz’s bid to multiply agents and other resources along the border. The same coalition defeated Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s proposal to prohibit undocumented immigrants from gaining provisional legal status until the entire Southern border is deemed secure.
The Judiciary Committee markup could take weeks to complete, and the Gang of Eight will meet the day before every session to hash out strategy on committee amendments, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
GOP senators not in the Gang weren’t persuaded by the overtures of accepting certain amendments and continued to focus on border security.
“The committee has voted down every serious border security amendment that’s been presented here today,” Cruz said shortly before the committee adjourned for the day. “The current draft represents merely a fig leaf on border security.”
Cruz’s comments set off the most heated exchange of the day as Republican and Democratic members of the Gang of Eight spoke up to defend the bill.
“Sen. Cruz is opposed to the path to citizenship,” Schumer said, adding that no amount of border enforcement would satisfy the Republican. “Let’s not keep bringing up this false issue that we do nothing on border security. Our bill is tough as nails.”
The panel approved by voice vote an amendment from Grassley that would set a higher bar on border security.
“If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or a future administration or those … in Congress to secure the border,” Grassley said of the underlying bill, calling enforcement mechanisms in the legislation “weak.”
The original version of the Senate bill focused resources on “high-risk” sectors of the border where the Border Patrol captures 30,000 or more people annually.
The Grassley language says that the government must maintain “effective control” of the entire Southwestern border in each of the first five years after the bill is enacted. That means the Border Patrol must catch at least 90 percent of border crossers and maintain “persistent surveillance.”
If the benchmark isn’t met, a Southern Border Security Commission would be established to make recommendations to the president on how to achieve the border security goals. And another $2 billion would be made available to implement the recommendations.
The so-called trigger issue is a core component of the Gang of Eight bill. Under its plan, not one of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States could transition into a legal status until the Department of Homeland Security has laid out a strategy for the Southern border.
And most of those immigrants will not be allowed to apply for green cards until several security benchmarks — such as a mandatory E-Verify and electronic exit systems at ports of entry — are met.
The trigger is one of a myriad of details that Senate negotiators finessed over months of private talks. Schumer has said President Barack Obama had opposed the idea of a trigger, but senators viewed it as a necessary safeguard against a new wave of illegal entries into the country.
Next up is a Tuesday session focused on the path to citizenship, another major flash point in the debate.
It could also take up an amendment that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for green cards. The Gang of Eight is split on this proposal, and Republicans have threatened to oppose the bill if it passes.
Schumer said negotiators still haven’t resolved what to do on the gay partners amendment, formally called the Uniting American Families Act.
“I would like very much to see it in the bill, but we have to have a bill that has support to get UAFA passed,” Schumer said. “That’s the conundrum. Because if there’s no bill, there’s no UAFA either.”
He added the measure is keeping him up at night. “Look, this one is something … I worry about all the time,” Schumer told reporters during a break in the markup. “I’m a good sleeper, but I wake up in the morning thinking of these things, sometimes early in the morning.”
Overall on Thursday, the committee considered 32 amendments and adopted 21, almost all with a bipartisan vote, said Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).
The committee also cleared a plan backed by Leahy and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) intended to give DHS more flexibility in how it uses funds set aside for border fencing.
After the committee adjourned, Cornyn said that senators didn’t accept any substantial changes to the bill — and those accepted won’t win his vote.
“I can’t support a bill that has big holes in the border security component,” Cornyn said.
Grassley said after the markup that the border security measures must go further to win over Republicans who care about the issue.
“I’ve got great hope that — maybe not by the time this gets through the Senate — but by the time it gets ready to go to the president, it will have strong border security,” Grassley said. “Or it isn’t going to go to the president.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gang-of-eight-throws-gop-a-bone-91169.html?hp=l1
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Cornyn, McCaul to Introduce Border Security Measure
The Texas Tribune
April 9, 2013
by Julian Aguilar
Doubling down on their vows to focus on border security before considering immigration reform, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, will file legislation on Tuesday that will further scrutinize how well the federal government protects the U.S.-Mexico border.
A Cornyn aide said the Border Security Results Act will “lay down a marker for what must be done on the border security front before we can reform our broken immigration system.”
The legislation will be introduced as a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight purportedly moves closer to introducing a bill to overhaul the country’s immigration system. Republicans and Democrats, including President Obama, have argued that the border needs to be secure before reform can be passed. But discussions on how that end is achieved — and how success is measured — have been contentious.
Cornyn and McCaul's border security bill will require the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection, to readopt the metrics by which they determine if a portion of the border is under “operational control.”
Under operational control, illegal crossers are either detected, deterred or apprehended at the border or within 100 miles of the border. A 2011 Government Accountability Office study found that about 875 miles of the 2,000-mile southern border were under operational control.
Cornyn’s office said DHS in 2010 stopped the metric “operational control” to gauge border security and has not replaced it, leaving nothing in place to evaluate the agency’s progress.
Cornyn and McCaul's bill will also require federal agents on the border to set a 90 percent apprehension rate goal for people who enter the country without inspection, and set a 50 percent reduction in wait times at the nation’s ports as the standard. The bill will also require DHS to attain “full situational awareness of our borders through technology, manpower and results-based metrics,” the aide said.
Proponents of immigration reform, including several Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups, cite recent apprehension data as proof that the border is more secure than it has been. Apprehensions have fallen to record lows, which DHS said indicates that fewer people are attempting to enter the country illegally. And a recent report by the Migration Policy Institute estimates that in fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement efforts, about 24 percent more than it spent in combined funding for the FBI, the Secret Service, the U.S. Marshal's Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Firearms and Explosives.
Cornyn is not convinced. Last week during DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s visit to Texas, Cornyn released a hard-line statement.
“Recent news reports noting wide gaps in security along the U.S.-Mexico border and scores of individuals crossing into the U.S. illegally continue to fly in the face of the Obama administration’s insistence that our border is secure,” he said in a statement.
“Texans — and all Americans — would appreciate a healthy dose of reality from Secretary Napolitano.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/09/cornyn-mccaul-introduce-border-security-measure/
April 9, 2013
by Julian Aguilar
Doubling down on their vows to focus on border security before considering immigration reform, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, will file legislation on Tuesday that will further scrutinize how well the federal government protects the U.S.-Mexico border.
A Cornyn aide said the Border Security Results Act will “lay down a marker for what must be done on the border security front before we can reform our broken immigration system.”
Cornyn currently serves as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee, and McCaul is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Cornyn and McCaul's border security bill will require the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection, to readopt the metrics by which they determine if a portion of the border is under “operational control.”
Under operational control, illegal crossers are either detected, deterred or apprehended at the border or within 100 miles of the border. A 2011 Government Accountability Office study found that about 875 miles of the 2,000-mile southern border were under operational control.
Cornyn’s office said DHS in 2010 stopped the metric “operational control” to gauge border security and has not replaced it, leaving nothing in place to evaluate the agency’s progress.
Cornyn and McCaul's bill will also require federal agents on the border to set a 90 percent apprehension rate goal for people who enter the country without inspection, and set a 50 percent reduction in wait times at the nation’s ports as the standard. The bill will also require DHS to attain “full situational awareness of our borders through technology, manpower and results-based metrics,” the aide said.
Proponents of immigration reform, including several Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups, cite recent apprehension data as proof that the border is more secure than it has been. Apprehensions have fallen to record lows, which DHS said indicates that fewer people are attempting to enter the country illegally. And a recent report by the Migration Policy Institute estimates that in fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement efforts, about 24 percent more than it spent in combined funding for the FBI, the Secret Service, the U.S. Marshal's Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Firearms and Explosives.
Cornyn is not convinced. Last week during DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s visit to Texas, Cornyn released a hard-line statement.
“Recent news reports noting wide gaps in security along the U.S.-Mexico border and scores of individuals crossing into the U.S. illegally continue to fly in the face of the Obama administration’s insistence that our border is secure,” he said in a statement.
“Texans — and all Americans — would appreciate a healthy dose of reality from Secretary Napolitano.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/09/cornyn-mccaul-introduce-border-security-measure/
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Border security quandary could kill immigration bill
USA Today
April 2, 2013
by Alan Gomez
Though many in Washington have been hailing the recent progress made on a sweeping immigration bill that would legalize the nation's estimated 11million illegal immigrants, major disagreements over how best to secure the nation's Southwest border with Mexico threaten to derail the process.
Lawmakers in the nation's capital are largely in agreement that the border must be secured, but the next battle will be how to secure it — and over what time period. A failure to find common ground on this critical issue could be enough to snuff out a compromise, and with it the first comprehensive immigration legislation in more than a quarter-century.
"I wouldn't vote for the president's fast-track, and I wouldn't vote for the Senate's slower track," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, a member of a bipartisan group of House members drafting a House immigration plan. "I think there's a better way to do it."
That "fast track" is President Obama's argument that illegal immigrants need a path to legal status now and should not wait until the border is secured. In the Senate, a bipartisan group of senators — the "Gang of Eight" — is trying to craft a provision in their bill that could quantify and establish a level of border security that must be reached before illegal immigrants can apply for legal residency and U.S. citizenship.
Though many congressional Republicans understand the political reality that the party needs to remake its image with Latinos after the 2012 election, the pall from the last major immigration law still hangs over today's negotiations. That landmark bill, signed in 1986 by President Reagan, was sold as a solution to illegal immigration and a way to secure the border. The citizenship part happened; the border part did not. Millions of people from Mexico and other parts of Latin America have continued to enter illegally through a porous Southwest border, and others who entered the country legally have continued overstaying their visas.
"The amnesty provisions become law, they become final ... and the promises of enforcement don't occur. I really believe that is a danger again," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in February on the Senate floor, echoing a fear among many of the party faithful.
Republicans backed the 1986 bill that granted amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants. The legislation was coupled with a vow to close illegal border crossings and crack down on the hiring of these immigrants, neither of which occurred. Now the GOP demands the border be secured for good before agreeing to citizenship for those who are here.
Some senators were excited to clear one roadblock to a deal this past weekend when the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest coalition of labor unions, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agreed to support giving up to 200,000 visas a year to foreigners for janitorial, hospitality and construction work. But that agreement would go nowhere if a deal on security cannot be reached.
GETTING BUY-IN
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising GOP star viewed as a possible 2016 presidential contender, was the Gang of Eight member chosen to sell the immigration plan to several conservative media outlets. During one appearance, radio host Rush Limbaugh told Rubio that many listeners were worried the Senate group wouldn't take border security seriously.
"If it doesn't, then I'll come back to you and say, 'Look, it didn't. We tried,'" Rubio responded during the January interview.
There is disagreement over how one shuts down a border stretching 1,969 miles across desert, mountain passes and the Rio Grande. Some sheriffs along the border say the answer is more "boots on the ground," or border guards blocking those who try to make the trek despite the odds.
In fact, the federal government boosted the number of Border Patrol agents from just over 4,000 in 1993 to more than 21,000 in 2012. That increase, as well as the economic recession that eliminated many of the jobs luring so many illegal immigrants, led to sharp drops in crossings. More than 1 million people a year crossed the border illegally from 2004-06. By 2012, that number was 364,000.
Sheriff Paul Babeu of Arizona's Pinal County says more boots is only part of the answer. Babeu previously commanded a unit of Army National Guard troops who patrolled the border and is now sheriff of an inland county that is a major channel for human and drug smuggling. His solution to seal the border: Add 6,000 border agents and National Guardsmen, build more fencing and rigorously enforce existing laws. "You can get close to that, yes," he said.
Others along the border say the strategy, not the number, of federal agents there needs to change.
Donald Reay, executive director of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition — which includes the chief law enforcement officer of all Texas counties within 25 miles of the border — said Border Patrol agents in his state often work miles inland, focusing on high-volume immigration corridors rather than patrolling the border itself. That leads many ranchers and farmers who live along the border to say they live in "almost America."
"They're not seeing Border Patrol on a regular basis," Reay said. "That's a decision that's made in Washington. It's hard for us to tell another agency, 'You're doing your job wrong.' But our sheriffs have to try to fill that gap. And quite frankly, we don't have the manpower to do that."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., both in the Gang of Eight, toured the Arizona border last Wednesday and watched as a woman scaled an 18-foot-high border fence in Nogales. Both said Border Patrol needs more technological assistance to fill in gaps.
Though agents already use cameras, sensors and drones to monitor people crossing the border, those technologies need to be augmented, Schumer said.
"We have adequate manpower, but not adequate technology," he said after the tour.
BIGGER THAN THE BORDER
Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff said Congress also needs to figure out how to identify "visa overstays" — about 40% of illegal immigrants entered the country legally with a visa but stayed after it expired. At least two of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. after overstaying tourist visas. Chertoff also said little has been done to monitor people who enter illegally by water.
He said focusing solely on the Southwest border "would be like if you have three doors to your house and you only lock one. This popular image of people running across the deserts or the mountains only accounts for a percentage of the total issue," he said.
Others say the problem of illegal crossings will fade away when the country reforms its legal immigration system.
El Paso County Judge Veronica Escobar says the U.S. government has approached the problem of illegal immigration in a "completely backward way." She said most people illegally enter the country to work, so reforming the nation's visa system to allow more foreign workers in temporarily would slow illegal crossings. That would then allow the government to concentrate law enforcement efforts on illegal immigrants who might pose a true threat to national security.
Though that might sound simple enough, just defining what security means has become a point of contention in negotiations.
For years, the Department of Homeland Security relied on a measurement called "operational control" of the border, which Congress defined in 2006 as "the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and contraband." In 2007, Border Patrol defined operational control as "the ability to detect, respond and interdict border penetrations in areas deemed as high priority for threat potential or other national security objectives."
In 2010, Border Patrol estimated it had established operational control of 873 miles of the border, or 44%. The next year, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said the agency was scrapping operational control as a metric and would develop a new measurement for border security: the "border condition index."
Now, DHS says that metric may not be a viable way to truly explain how secure the border is.
'A DIFFICULT LIFT'
During a March 20 House committee hearing, DHS said its agents were using a wide variety of metrics — including apprehensions of people along the border, economic measurements and hotel vacancy rates on the Mexican side of the border — to help them figure out where they need to concentrate efforts. But department officials cautioned it might not be possible to use such a metric as a final grade on overall border security.
That reaction upset House Republicans who had been waiting for years for the new measurement.
"We have a moment in time here," said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., chair of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. "If we do not as a nation have a high degree of confidence that we are securing our border, or are on the path to measuring border security in a way that we feel confident in, I think this whole comprehensive immigration reform is going to be a very difficult lift."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/02/border-security-illegal-immigration-gang-of-eight/2048037/
April 2, 2013
by Alan Gomez
Though many in Washington have been hailing the recent progress made on a sweeping immigration bill that would legalize the nation's estimated 11million illegal immigrants, major disagreements over how best to secure the nation's Southwest border with Mexico threaten to derail the process.
Lawmakers in the nation's capital are largely in agreement that the border must be secured, but the next battle will be how to secure it — and over what time period. A failure to find common ground on this critical issue could be enough to snuff out a compromise, and with it the first comprehensive immigration legislation in more than a quarter-century.
"I wouldn't vote for the president's fast-track, and I wouldn't vote for the Senate's slower track," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, a member of a bipartisan group of House members drafting a House immigration plan. "I think there's a better way to do it."
That "fast track" is President Obama's argument that illegal immigrants need a path to legal status now and should not wait until the border is secured. In the Senate, a bipartisan group of senators — the "Gang of Eight" — is trying to craft a provision in their bill that could quantify and establish a level of border security that must be reached before illegal immigrants can apply for legal residency and U.S. citizenship.
Though many congressional Republicans understand the political reality that the party needs to remake its image with Latinos after the 2012 election, the pall from the last major immigration law still hangs over today's negotiations. That landmark bill, signed in 1986 by President Reagan, was sold as a solution to illegal immigration and a way to secure the border. The citizenship part happened; the border part did not. Millions of people from Mexico and other parts of Latin America have continued to enter illegally through a porous Southwest border, and others who entered the country legally have continued overstaying their visas.
"The amnesty provisions become law, they become final ... and the promises of enforcement don't occur. I really believe that is a danger again," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in February on the Senate floor, echoing a fear among many of the party faithful.
Republicans backed the 1986 bill that granted amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants. The legislation was coupled with a vow to close illegal border crossings and crack down on the hiring of these immigrants, neither of which occurred. Now the GOP demands the border be secured for good before agreeing to citizenship for those who are here.
Some senators were excited to clear one roadblock to a deal this past weekend when the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest coalition of labor unions, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agreed to support giving up to 200,000 visas a year to foreigners for janitorial, hospitality and construction work. But that agreement would go nowhere if a deal on security cannot be reached.
GETTING BUY-IN
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising GOP star viewed as a possible 2016 presidential contender, was the Gang of Eight member chosen to sell the immigration plan to several conservative media outlets. During one appearance, radio host Rush Limbaugh told Rubio that many listeners were worried the Senate group wouldn't take border security seriously.
"If it doesn't, then I'll come back to you and say, 'Look, it didn't. We tried,'" Rubio responded during the January interview.
There is disagreement over how one shuts down a border stretching 1,969 miles across desert, mountain passes and the Rio Grande. Some sheriffs along the border say the answer is more "boots on the ground," or border guards blocking those who try to make the trek despite the odds.
In fact, the federal government boosted the number of Border Patrol agents from just over 4,000 in 1993 to more than 21,000 in 2012. That increase, as well as the economic recession that eliminated many of the jobs luring so many illegal immigrants, led to sharp drops in crossings. More than 1 million people a year crossed the border illegally from 2004-06. By 2012, that number was 364,000.
Sheriff Paul Babeu of Arizona's Pinal County says more boots is only part of the answer. Babeu previously commanded a unit of Army National Guard troops who patrolled the border and is now sheriff of an inland county that is a major channel for human and drug smuggling. His solution to seal the border: Add 6,000 border agents and National Guardsmen, build more fencing and rigorously enforce existing laws. "You can get close to that, yes," he said.
Others along the border say the strategy, not the number, of federal agents there needs to change.
Donald Reay, executive director of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition — which includes the chief law enforcement officer of all Texas counties within 25 miles of the border — said Border Patrol agents in his state often work miles inland, focusing on high-volume immigration corridors rather than patrolling the border itself. That leads many ranchers and farmers who live along the border to say they live in "almost America."
"They're not seeing Border Patrol on a regular basis," Reay said. "That's a decision that's made in Washington. It's hard for us to tell another agency, 'You're doing your job wrong.' But our sheriffs have to try to fill that gap. And quite frankly, we don't have the manpower to do that."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., both in the Gang of Eight, toured the Arizona border last Wednesday and watched as a woman scaled an 18-foot-high border fence in Nogales. Both said Border Patrol needs more technological assistance to fill in gaps.
Though agents already use cameras, sensors and drones to monitor people crossing the border, those technologies need to be augmented, Schumer said.
"We have adequate manpower, but not adequate technology," he said after the tour.
BIGGER THAN THE BORDER
Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff said Congress also needs to figure out how to identify "visa overstays" — about 40% of illegal immigrants entered the country legally with a visa but stayed after it expired. At least two of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. after overstaying tourist visas. Chertoff also said little has been done to monitor people who enter illegally by water.
He said focusing solely on the Southwest border "would be like if you have three doors to your house and you only lock one. This popular image of people running across the deserts or the mountains only accounts for a percentage of the total issue," he said.
Others say the problem of illegal crossings will fade away when the country reforms its legal immigration system.
El Paso County Judge Veronica Escobar says the U.S. government has approached the problem of illegal immigration in a "completely backward way." She said most people illegally enter the country to work, so reforming the nation's visa system to allow more foreign workers in temporarily would slow illegal crossings. That would then allow the government to concentrate law enforcement efforts on illegal immigrants who might pose a true threat to national security.
Though that might sound simple enough, just defining what security means has become a point of contention in negotiations.
For years, the Department of Homeland Security relied on a measurement called "operational control" of the border, which Congress defined in 2006 as "the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and contraband." In 2007, Border Patrol defined operational control as "the ability to detect, respond and interdict border penetrations in areas deemed as high priority for threat potential or other national security objectives."
In 2010, Border Patrol estimated it had established operational control of 873 miles of the border, or 44%. The next year, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said the agency was scrapping operational control as a metric and would develop a new measurement for border security: the "border condition index."
Now, DHS says that metric may not be a viable way to truly explain how secure the border is.
'A DIFFICULT LIFT'
During a March 20 House committee hearing, DHS said its agents were using a wide variety of metrics — including apprehensions of people along the border, economic measurements and hotel vacancy rates on the Mexican side of the border — to help them figure out where they need to concentrate efforts. But department officials cautioned it might not be possible to use such a metric as a final grade on overall border security.
That reaction upset House Republicans who had been waiting for years for the new measurement.
"We have a moment in time here," said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., chair of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. "If we do not as a nation have a high degree of confidence that we are securing our border, or are on the path to measuring border security in a way that we feel confident in, I think this whole comprehensive immigration reform is going to be a very difficult lift."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/02/border-security-illegal-immigration-gang-of-eight/2048037/
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
McCain, other senators to tour U.S.-Mexico border with immigration reform on their minds
Associated Press
March 27, 2013
A group of U.S. senators who will be influential in shaping and negotiating details of an immigration reform package is traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona to get a firsthand look at issues affecting the region.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona were expected to tour the border today with Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado. They are all members of the so-called Gang of Eight — a bipartisan group that has spent recent weeks trying to craft proposed immigration legislation.
The trip comes as Congress is in recess and as the lawmakers wrap up a bill designed to secure the border and put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to pass immigration reform this year, and border security is critical to McCain and other Republicans who contend that some areas along the border are far from secure.
"I wish every member of the United States Senate and Congress could see the border," McCain told reporters in Phoenix on Monday. "Only when you can see the expanse, the difficulties and the challenges of the border, can you really appreciate the need for our border security."
With top Republicans and Democrats focused on the issue, immigration reform faces its best odds in years. The proposed legislation will likely put illegal immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship and would install new criteria for border security, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. and hold businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally.
McCain sought to lower expectations for the bill Monday during a town hall in Phoenix. He told immigration activists they wouldn't be completely happy with the measure and warned that the group must overcome difficult disagreements.
"We've made progress in a number of areas that I am encouraged by, but there are still areas that we are not in agreement," he said.
McCain said the lawmakers had reached an agreement on protections for young illegal immigrants brought to the country as children and on visas for workers, but declined to provide specifics.
Reports indicate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, negotiating through the Gang of Eight senators, had reached significant agreement Friday on a new visa program to bring up to 200,000 lower-skilled workers a year to the country. The groups did not reach consensus on how much the workers would be paid.
The bill is expected to be lengthy and cover numerous issues, including limiting family-based immigration to put a greater emphasis on skills and employment ties instead.
The legislation was initially promised in March, but the lawmakers have since said they won't be done until at least April. Immigration proponents have said the group needs to introduce legislation soon, while some Republican lawmakers complain the process has moved too quickly.
If passed, the legislation could usher in the most sweeping changes in immigration law in nearly 30 years.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/mccain_other_senators_to_tour.html
March 27, 2013
A group of U.S. senators who will be influential in shaping and negotiating details of an immigration reform package is traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona to get a firsthand look at issues affecting the region.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona were expected to tour the border today with Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado. They are all members of the so-called Gang of Eight — a bipartisan group that has spent recent weeks trying to craft proposed immigration legislation.
The trip comes as Congress is in recess and as the lawmakers wrap up a bill designed to secure the border and put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to pass immigration reform this year, and border security is critical to McCain and other Republicans who contend that some areas along the border are far from secure.
"I wish every member of the United States Senate and Congress could see the border," McCain told reporters in Phoenix on Monday. "Only when you can see the expanse, the difficulties and the challenges of the border, can you really appreciate the need for our border security."
With top Republicans and Democrats focused on the issue, immigration reform faces its best odds in years. The proposed legislation will likely put illegal immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship and would install new criteria for border security, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. and hold businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally.
McCain sought to lower expectations for the bill Monday during a town hall in Phoenix. He told immigration activists they wouldn't be completely happy with the measure and warned that the group must overcome difficult disagreements.
"We've made progress in a number of areas that I am encouraged by, but there are still areas that we are not in agreement," he said.
McCain said the lawmakers had reached an agreement on protections for young illegal immigrants brought to the country as children and on visas for workers, but declined to provide specifics.
Reports indicate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, negotiating through the Gang of Eight senators, had reached significant agreement Friday on a new visa program to bring up to 200,000 lower-skilled workers a year to the country. The groups did not reach consensus on how much the workers would be paid.
The bill is expected to be lengthy and cover numerous issues, including limiting family-based immigration to put a greater emphasis on skills and employment ties instead.
The legislation was initially promised in March, but the lawmakers have since said they won't be done until at least April. Immigration proponents have said the group needs to introduce legislation soon, while some Republican lawmakers complain the process has moved too quickly.
If passed, the legislation could usher in the most sweeping changes in immigration law in nearly 30 years.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/mccain_other_senators_to_tour.html
Monday, March 25, 2013
Steve King: If China Can Build The Great Wall, We Can Build A Border Fence
Huffington Post
March 25, 2013
by Preston Maddock
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a relentless opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, on Saturday outlined a simple solution to the complex issue: build a better border fence.
"I supported the fence," King told Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly on her radio program, according to Right Wing Watch. Building a fence along the approximately 2,000 mile Mexican-American border would not "be too much of an engineering marvel," King argued.
"We can do the Panama Canal 100 years-plus ago and I’ve been over there to take a look at the Great Wall of China that was built more than 2,000 years ago, and that’s 5,500 miles long," King said. "So building a fence is not that hard; I’ll just show you how to do it if it’s too complicated for our public policy people to get their mind around."
(Click over to Right Wing Watch for audio of King's comments.)
Later in the program, King spoke with a caller named Meryl, who claimed undocumented immigrants had allegedly trespassed on her property. King warned her that if the United States continued to have "open borders" it might go the way of "Third World countries" like "Mexico" and "places in the Caribbean or in Africa where there’s no law or very little law."
"If lawlessness prevails then the more wealthy build a better, more effective barrier around their own compounds," King cautioned.
King's comments came in response to a set of recommendations published last week by the Republican National Committee, which called for a modernization of the GOP's platform on immigration in order to stay competitive within America's evolving electorate. To gain support among Hispanic voters, the report said, the GOP “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform."
King's resistance to his party's changing politics is not surprising considering his position as one of Congress's staunchest immigration hardliners. During his recent address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, King called immigration reform a "deconstruction" of the rule of law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/steve-king-great-wall-of-china_n_2951480.html
March 25, 2013
by Preston Maddock
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a relentless opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, on Saturday outlined a simple solution to the complex issue: build a better border fence.
"I supported the fence," King told Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly on her radio program, according to Right Wing Watch. Building a fence along the approximately 2,000 mile Mexican-American border would not "be too much of an engineering marvel," King argued.
"We can do the Panama Canal 100 years-plus ago and I’ve been over there to take a look at the Great Wall of China that was built more than 2,000 years ago, and that’s 5,500 miles long," King said. "So building a fence is not that hard; I’ll just show you how to do it if it’s too complicated for our public policy people to get their mind around."
(Click over to Right Wing Watch for audio of King's comments.)
Later in the program, King spoke with a caller named Meryl, who claimed undocumented immigrants had allegedly trespassed on her property. King warned her that if the United States continued to have "open borders" it might go the way of "Third World countries" like "Mexico" and "places in the Caribbean or in Africa where there’s no law or very little law."
"If lawlessness prevails then the more wealthy build a better, more effective barrier around their own compounds," King cautioned.
King's comments came in response to a set of recommendations published last week by the Republican National Committee, which called for a modernization of the GOP's platform on immigration in order to stay competitive within America's evolving electorate. To gain support among Hispanic voters, the report said, the GOP “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform."
King's resistance to his party's changing politics is not surprising considering his position as one of Congress's staunchest immigration hardliners. During his recent address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, King called immigration reform a "deconstruction" of the rule of law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/steve-king-great-wall-of-china_n_2951480.html
Republicans on immigration reform: Before and after
Washington Post blog
March 20, 2013
by Rachel Weiner
The Washington Post editorial board noted Wednesday that the “Immigration” section of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign website, which until recently touted his tough policies cracking down on illegal residents, has disappeared. If Cuccinelli is considering a softer stance on immigration, he’s far from the only one in his party.
In the mid-2000s there “was just a remarkable lurch to the right in search of votes in competitive primaries, and it distorted where the Republican party had traditionally been on immigration,” said Frank Sharry of the pro-reform group America’s Voice. “I think that Republicans are politically driven to come back to the table, and once they’re there, they realize that comprehensive immigration reform is really in line with Republican principles.”
Here’s a rundown of Republicans who have embraced new policies — or at least, a new and more accommodating – since the 2012 election:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Before: In early 2011, Paul teamed up with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) on an attempt to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. “Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” said Paul. Later that year, he also expressed concern that legal immigrants coming in on student visas or as refugees were not being properly screened.
After: Paul is endorsing immigration reform that would allow the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to obtain legalized status. He is against a special “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, but open to those immigrants applying for citizenship through the current process. He has said that if immigration reform is completed, he will rethink his position on birthright citizenship.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Before: In a 2010 Republican Senate primary debate, Rubio attacked then-Gov. Charlie Crist on immigration: “If you grant amnesty, as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it’s back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.” In a subsequent debate, he said that illegal immigrants should leave the country and reapply for citizenship from their homelands. While he expressed some reservations about Arizona’s controversial immigration legislation, he supported the law after tweaks were made. He opposed the DREAM Act, although he was for some accommodation for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
After: Rubio is now the most high-profile member of a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” working on immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. “After weighing both sides of it I just concluded – that every country that’s done this, that’s had millions of people living in it that are permanently barred from applying for citizenship, it hasn’t worked out really well for them,” he said.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Before: Cantor voted against the DREAM Act in 2010, which would grant permanent residency and a chance for citizenship to some young illegal immigrants. In speaking about immigration, he argued that laws should be “evenly applied.”
After: In a highly-publicized speech early last month, Cantor came out in support of “an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home” — the tenets of the DREAM Act.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.)
Before: In December 2010, Coffman called the DREAM Act “a nightmare for the American people.” He supported ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, and he proposed legislation to make Colorado ballots English-only.
After: Coffman now supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children and is undecided on how to deal with adults. His congressional district became significantly less Republican and more Hispanic in redistricting, and Coffman has said that meeting some of his new constituents provoked the change of heart.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Before: Goodlatte has long been known as an immigration hardliner, earning an A+ rating from the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA. He has supported bills that would limit birthright citizenship, limit family reunification preferences and end the diversity visa lottery. He was also a vocal opponent of bipartisan “amnesty” legislation in 2007.
After: As the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Goodlatte has surprised immigration reform advocates. He told reporters at a recent Christian Science Monitor breakfast that he is open to legalization and the possibility of citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
Before: In 2007, Jordan criticized comprehensive immigration reform. “I cannot think of a more misguided approach to one of the most pressing issues facing our country today,” he wrote in an op-ed. “[W]e must reject ‘amnesty’ for illegal aliens. Allowing these individuals to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship — whether through special visas or otherwise — is nothing less than rewarding their illegal behavior.”
After: At a Heritage Foundation panel Wednesday, Jordan said he was “willing to consider” a proposal that would allow illegal immigrants to eventually apply for citizenship.
The Republican National Commitee
Before: The Republican party platform in 2012 promised “humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily, while enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas.”
After: The RNC has urged Republicans to embrace comprehensive immigration reform. “One of the issues that I think really cut pretty badly within the Hispanic community is when Mitt Romney talked about self-deportation,” Chairman Reince Priebus said on CNN. “And you know, it really doesn’t — it’s not our party’s position. But it was something that I think hit every kitchen table across America.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/20/the-startling-speed-of-the-gops-shift-on-immigration/
March 20, 2013
by Rachel Weiner
The Washington Post editorial board noted Wednesday that the “Immigration” section of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign website, which until recently touted his tough policies cracking down on illegal residents, has disappeared. If Cuccinelli is considering a softer stance on immigration, he’s far from the only one in his party.
In the mid-2000s there “was just a remarkable lurch to the right in search of votes in competitive primaries, and it distorted where the Republican party had traditionally been on immigration,” said Frank Sharry of the pro-reform group America’s Voice. “I think that Republicans are politically driven to come back to the table, and once they’re there, they realize that comprehensive immigration reform is really in line with Republican principles.”
Here’s a rundown of Republicans who have embraced new policies — or at least, a new and more accommodating – since the 2012 election:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Before: In early 2011, Paul teamed up with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) on an attempt to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. “Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” said Paul. Later that year, he also expressed concern that legal immigrants coming in on student visas or as refugees were not being properly screened.
After: Paul is endorsing immigration reform that would allow the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to obtain legalized status. He is against a special “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, but open to those immigrants applying for citizenship through the current process. He has said that if immigration reform is completed, he will rethink his position on birthright citizenship.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Before: In a 2010 Republican Senate primary debate, Rubio attacked then-Gov. Charlie Crist on immigration: “If you grant amnesty, as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it’s back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.” In a subsequent debate, he said that illegal immigrants should leave the country and reapply for citizenship from their homelands. While he expressed some reservations about Arizona’s controversial immigration legislation, he supported the law after tweaks were made. He opposed the DREAM Act, although he was for some accommodation for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
After: Rubio is now the most high-profile member of a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” working on immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. “After weighing both sides of it I just concluded – that every country that’s done this, that’s had millions of people living in it that are permanently barred from applying for citizenship, it hasn’t worked out really well for them,” he said.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Before: Cantor voted against the DREAM Act in 2010, which would grant permanent residency and a chance for citizenship to some young illegal immigrants. In speaking about immigration, he argued that laws should be “evenly applied.”
After: In a highly-publicized speech early last month, Cantor came out in support of “an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home” — the tenets of the DREAM Act.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.)
Before: In December 2010, Coffman called the DREAM Act “a nightmare for the American people.” He supported ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, and he proposed legislation to make Colorado ballots English-only.
After: Coffman now supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children and is undecided on how to deal with adults. His congressional district became significantly less Republican and more Hispanic in redistricting, and Coffman has said that meeting some of his new constituents provoked the change of heart.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Before: Goodlatte has long been known as an immigration hardliner, earning an A+ rating from the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA. He has supported bills that would limit birthright citizenship, limit family reunification preferences and end the diversity visa lottery. He was also a vocal opponent of bipartisan “amnesty” legislation in 2007.
After: As the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Goodlatte has surprised immigration reform advocates. He told reporters at a recent Christian Science Monitor breakfast that he is open to legalization and the possibility of citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
Before: In 2007, Jordan criticized comprehensive immigration reform. “I cannot think of a more misguided approach to one of the most pressing issues facing our country today,” he wrote in an op-ed. “[W]e must reject ‘amnesty’ for illegal aliens. Allowing these individuals to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship — whether through special visas or otherwise — is nothing less than rewarding their illegal behavior.”
After: At a Heritage Foundation panel Wednesday, Jordan said he was “willing to consider” a proposal that would allow illegal immigrants to eventually apply for citizenship.
The Republican National Commitee
Before: The Republican party platform in 2012 promised “humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily, while enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas.”
After: The RNC has urged Republicans to embrace comprehensive immigration reform. “One of the issues that I think really cut pretty badly within the Hispanic community is when Mitt Romney talked about self-deportation,” Chairman Reince Priebus said on CNN. “And you know, it really doesn’t — it’s not our party’s position. But it was something that I think hit every kitchen table across America.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/20/the-startling-speed-of-the-gops-shift-on-immigration/
Monday, February 25, 2013
Senate immigration draft rejected by Arizona Republicans
Politico
February 19, 2013
by Ginger Gibson
February 19, 2013
by Ginger Gibson
Friday, January 25, 2013
John McCain in immigration spotlight
Politico
January 24, 2013
By Manu Rajo and Kate Nocera
To understand the GOP’s complicated history with immigration reform, look no further than Sen. John McCain.
The Arizona Republican has spent his last two elections distancing himself from an immigration deal he reached with liberal icon Ted Kennedy in 2007. He was pushed to the right in 2008 by Mitt Romney and then again in his 2010 Senate primary, positioning himself as a fierce border security hawk and outspoken advocate for the state’s sweeping anti-immigration law.
He even enlisted local immigration hard-liners like Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu to make the case. “Senator, you’re one of us,” Babeu said to McCain in a campaign ad about building a fence along the Mexican border.
But after Latino voters ditched Romney and the Republican Party at the polls in November, and with President Barack Obama and Democrats pushing immigration reform, McCain is one of a bipartisan group of eight senators talking behind closed doors on an immigration deal that could give the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants more leeway than many conservative hard-liners are ready to accept.
If the coalition holds, McCain could emerge as a chief ally to Obama, a stark reversal from the past four years, when McCain was a thorn in the administration’s side on a host of issues, including immigration and defense.
“I’ve been trying for a long time, and I think maybe now that the climate is such that we can be successful,” McCain told POLITICO.
After witnessing both Romney and McCain shed Latino support to Obama in the past two presidential elections, Republicans are growing increasingly fearful that they have mishandled the immigration issue. Resolve the issue now — and tone down the rhetoric — or forever suffer life in the minority, some in the party fear. And many border-state senators say the broken immigration system is causing serious problems back home, and the political climate suddenly is right for a bipartisan deal.
“I’ve always felt that comprehensive reform is the way to go, and I think I was right,” McCain said.
McCain has challenged the idea his 2007 deal with Kennedy was about amnesty for illegal immigrants — famously declaring in a 2008 presidential primary debate in New Hampshire: “Let me just say, I’ve never supported amnesty.”
And he says his work on a bipartisan bill now and the tough positions on border security in 2010 are not mutually exclusive. In that 2010 ad, McCain says, “Drug and human smuggling, home invasions, murder.” To, which Babeu responds, “We’re outmanned. Of all the illegals in America, more than half come through Arizona.”
The senator says he still stands by the sentiment.
“You go down to the border where people’s homes are being invaded, where drug smugglers are crossing property every night, they deserve the same security that you have where you work and they don’t,” McCain said in the interview. “And that’s why border security has to be a fundamental part of any agreement.”
That McCain can bounce back and forth on immigration is also reflective of local politics in the border state of Arizona, where illegal immigration remains a rampant problem. But after the state stoked an emotional national debate in 2010 when it passed a tough crackdown on illegal immigration, known as SB 1070, the author of that law lost a stunning recall election in 2011, a sign Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) says shows the changing attitudes back home.
“You have the author [state Sen. Russell Pearce], chief sponsor of SB 1070, lose in the most conservative district in the state,” said Flake, one of the eight members negotiating a compromise. “The tone of the debate has changed, and it’s easier, I think, to find a solution now.”
Senators in the group say they are making serious progress towards “principles” that would serve as the basis of their legislation — and they credit McCain for playing a central role in that effort.
“He’s being very, very constructive,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said of McCain. “Very positive. And I’m very optimistic, particularly because he’s come at this in some of the most positive ways I’ve seen in a long time.”
Even the possibility Obama could benefit hasn’t been an issue, said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is part of the group of eight. “I think there are long-term interests, but not long-term enemies in this business,” said Durbin, who praised McCain as well.
But if McCain sides with the group of eight on a comprehensive deal, it could put several of his GOP colleagues who also took a tougher line on immigration in a tricky spot — particularly those up for reelection next year.
“Generally speaking, I think we do better when we do step by step and I think piece by piece,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is up in 2014. “I think one of the reasons why we failed in 2007 is that we bit too much off. My first preference is to start on the things we agree on.”
Added Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a chief opponent of the 2007 deal: “I had said that after the ’86 deal, we shouldn’t award citizenship anymore to people who came here illegally. We set up a new system where we helped provide amnesty for millions over here, so in the future we just can’t continue to do that.”
“It is wrong: it is wrong on the law; it is wrong economically; and it is wrong in principle,” said former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who lost to McCain in the 2010 Senate primary. “And this kind of action being pursued for whatever reasons — if there are those who believe it will buy the Republican Party political favors, they are sorely mistaken.”
Flake acknowledged the political balancing act for the two men of getting an immigration bill done that appeals to conservatives in their home state.
“It’s difficult in Arizona, obviously being a border state, but he has consistently pushed for it and continues to and that’s good,” Flake said.
Wes Gullett, a former Arizona campaign aide for the senator, said immigration has always been an “evolving” issue in the state.
“So you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” Gullett said. “If you try and fix it, try to work on it, and you try to work on it in a bipartisan fashion, you’re going to be attacked from the right. If you don’t do anything, you’re going to be attacked from the right.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/john-mccain-back-in-the-spotlight-on-immigration-86701.html?hp=f3
January 24, 2013
By Manu Rajo and Kate Nocera
To understand the GOP’s complicated history with immigration reform, look no further than Sen. John McCain.
The Arizona Republican has spent his last two elections distancing himself from an immigration deal he reached with liberal icon Ted Kennedy in 2007. He was pushed to the right in 2008 by Mitt Romney and then again in his 2010 Senate primary, positioning himself as a fierce border security hawk and outspoken advocate for the state’s sweeping anti-immigration law.
He even enlisted local immigration hard-liners like Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu to make the case. “Senator, you’re one of us,” Babeu said to McCain in a campaign ad about building a fence along the Mexican border.
But after Latino voters ditched Romney and the Republican Party at the polls in November, and with President Barack Obama and Democrats pushing immigration reform, McCain is one of a bipartisan group of eight senators talking behind closed doors on an immigration deal that could give the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants more leeway than many conservative hard-liners are ready to accept.
If the coalition holds, McCain could emerge as a chief ally to Obama, a stark reversal from the past four years, when McCain was a thorn in the administration’s side on a host of issues, including immigration and defense.
“I’ve been trying for a long time, and I think maybe now that the climate is such that we can be successful,” McCain told POLITICO.
After witnessing both Romney and McCain shed Latino support to Obama in the past two presidential elections, Republicans are growing increasingly fearful that they have mishandled the immigration issue. Resolve the issue now — and tone down the rhetoric — or forever suffer life in the minority, some in the party fear. And many border-state senators say the broken immigration system is causing serious problems back home, and the political climate suddenly is right for a bipartisan deal.
“I’ve always felt that comprehensive reform is the way to go, and I think I was right,” McCain said.
McCain has challenged the idea his 2007 deal with Kennedy was about amnesty for illegal immigrants — famously declaring in a 2008 presidential primary debate in New Hampshire: “Let me just say, I’ve never supported amnesty.”
And he says his work on a bipartisan bill now and the tough positions on border security in 2010 are not mutually exclusive. In that 2010 ad, McCain says, “Drug and human smuggling, home invasions, murder.” To, which Babeu responds, “We’re outmanned. Of all the illegals in America, more than half come through Arizona.”
The senator says he still stands by the sentiment.
“You go down to the border where people’s homes are being invaded, where drug smugglers are crossing property every night, they deserve the same security that you have where you work and they don’t,” McCain said in the interview. “And that’s why border security has to be a fundamental part of any agreement.”
That McCain can bounce back and forth on immigration is also reflective of local politics in the border state of Arizona, where illegal immigration remains a rampant problem. But after the state stoked an emotional national debate in 2010 when it passed a tough crackdown on illegal immigration, known as SB 1070, the author of that law lost a stunning recall election in 2011, a sign Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) says shows the changing attitudes back home.
“You have the author [state Sen. Russell Pearce], chief sponsor of SB 1070, lose in the most conservative district in the state,” said Flake, one of the eight members negotiating a compromise. “The tone of the debate has changed, and it’s easier, I think, to find a solution now.”
That’s what the group of eight senators are hoping to accomplish. They are looking to put together a broad proposal that would beef up border enforcement, overhaul the future flow of legal immigrants, put in place new programs for seasonal workers and determine how to bring the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants into the legal immigration system. Whether to provide a direct pathway to citizenship for the nation’s illegal immigrants or instead allow them to stay in the country legally through other means remains a sticking point in the talks.
Senators in the group say they are making serious progress towards “principles” that would serve as the basis of their legislation — and they credit McCain for playing a central role in that effort.
“He’s being very, very constructive,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said of McCain. “Very positive. And I’m very optimistic, particularly because he’s come at this in some of the most positive ways I’ve seen in a long time.”
Even the possibility Obama could benefit hasn’t been an issue, said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is part of the group of eight. “I think there are long-term interests, but not long-term enemies in this business,” said Durbin, who praised McCain as well.
But if McCain sides with the group of eight on a comprehensive deal, it could put several of his GOP colleagues who also took a tougher line on immigration in a tricky spot — particularly those up for reelection next year.
“Generally speaking, I think we do better when we do step by step and I think piece by piece,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is up in 2014. “I think one of the reasons why we failed in 2007 is that we bit too much off. My first preference is to start on the things we agree on.”
Added Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a chief opponent of the 2007 deal: “I had said that after the ’86 deal, we shouldn’t award citizenship anymore to people who came here illegally. We set up a new system where we helped provide amnesty for millions over here, so in the future we just can’t continue to do that.”
And if McCain agrees to a deal allowing illegal immigrants to access the legal immigration system, he is bound to hear intense criticism from the right back home.
“It is wrong: it is wrong on the law; it is wrong economically; and it is wrong in principle,” said former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who lost to McCain in the 2010 Senate primary. “And this kind of action being pursued for whatever reasons — if there are those who believe it will buy the Republican Party political favors, they are sorely mistaken.”
Flake acknowledged the political balancing act for the two men of getting an immigration bill done that appeals to conservatives in their home state.
“It’s difficult in Arizona, obviously being a border state, but he has consistently pushed for it and continues to and that’s good,” Flake said.
Wes Gullett, a former Arizona campaign aide for the senator, said immigration has always been an “evolving” issue in the state.
“So you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” Gullett said. “If you try and fix it, try to work on it, and you try to work on it in a bipartisan fashion, you’re going to be attacked from the right. If you don’t do anything, you’re going to be attacked from the right.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/john-mccain-back-in-the-spotlight-on-immigration-86701.html?hp=f3
Sunday, November 18, 2012
McCain, Hatch, Rubio offer optimism on immigration on return for lame duck
The Hill
November 13, 2012
by Cameron Joseph
Three key Senate Republican players on immigration returned to a lame-duck session of Congress on Tuesday offering optimism that a deal on immigration could be made next year.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he believes it’s “very likely” the Senate will come up with a comprehensive immigration bill that could include enforcement and a way of dealing with illegal immigrants in the country.
A pathway to residency or citizenship for those illegal immigrants was the major stumbling block to immigration reform efforts in the last decade.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said “everything ought to be on the table” in the immigration talks, while McCain said there’s a “sense of urgency” in the GOP to deal with the issue.
Sen. Marco Rubio said he was “hopeful” lawmakers would be able to work on something, but added his position remains that Congress should take action on strengthening border security first.
“As I've said, in my opinion, the first steps in all of this is to win the confidence of the American people by modernizing the legal immigration issue and by improving enforcements of the existing law,” he said. “And then, obviously, we're going to have to deal with 11 million people who are here in undocumented status.
“I think it'll be a lot easier to figure that out if we do those other steps first. But like I said, there are going to be a lot of opinions on this.”
Republican soul searching on immigration has stepped up after President Obama’s victory in last week’s presidential election. Obama soundly defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney among Hispanic voters.
In the wake of the election, conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity and pundit Charles Krauthhammer have both urged Republicans to work on an immigration plan that would include a pathway to residence for those in the country illegally.
“There's a sense of urgency in the Republican Party for obvious reasons, and I'm sure that everybody's ready to deal. But the specifics? Too early,” McCain said Tuesday when asked about a comprehensive bill that included a pathway to citizenship.
“There are a lot of very important legal considerations that have to be made, but I've always been empathetic towards resolving this problem one way or the other,” said Hatch.
McCain had abandoned his support for a comprehensive bill during a 2010 primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.).
But on Tuesday, he sounded more like the McCain who championed a comprehensive immigration reform plan backed by President George W. Bush.
“Oh, I think it's very likely that we get it resolved, but there are going to be some tough negotiations," he said.
Rubio, a Hispanic who is trusted and beloved by the GOP base, could be the most important player to watch in the negotiations.
He seemed more hesitant to embrace the concept of a big package than McCain or Hatch but didn’t close the door on a single, comprehensive bill. In the past, that’s usually meant a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the U.S., stricter border enforcement, a temporary worker program for industries such as agriculture and a crackdown on those who hire undocumented immigrants.
“People are interested in it. It's going to take some time,” he said. “It's an important issue for the country economically, it behooves us to have a 21st century immigration policy.”
Rubio said he “didn’t have anything to announce today” on how involved he’ll be with the issue, but said he was “hopeful we’ll be able to work on something.”
The Florida senator had begun to work on a Republican version of the “DREAM Act” last year before President Obama ordered temporary visas be given to some undocumented immigrants brought here as children.
Hatch, an original sponsor of the DREAM Act, voted against it in 2010, largely because of concerns about a 2012 Tea Party primary challenge.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267763-rubio-mccain-hatch-ready-to-negotiate-on-pathway-to-citizenship
November 13, 2012
by Cameron Joseph
Three key Senate Republican players on immigration returned to a lame-duck session of Congress on Tuesday offering optimism that a deal on immigration could be made next year.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he believes it’s “very likely” the Senate will come up with a comprehensive immigration bill that could include enforcement and a way of dealing with illegal immigrants in the country.
A pathway to residency or citizenship for those illegal immigrants was the major stumbling block to immigration reform efforts in the last decade.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said “everything ought to be on the table” in the immigration talks, while McCain said there’s a “sense of urgency” in the GOP to deal with the issue.
Sen. Marco Rubio said he was “hopeful” lawmakers would be able to work on something, but added his position remains that Congress should take action on strengthening border security first.
“As I've said, in my opinion, the first steps in all of this is to win the confidence of the American people by modernizing the legal immigration issue and by improving enforcements of the existing law,” he said. “And then, obviously, we're going to have to deal with 11 million people who are here in undocumented status.
“I think it'll be a lot easier to figure that out if we do those other steps first. But like I said, there are going to be a lot of opinions on this.”
Republican soul searching on immigration has stepped up after President Obama’s victory in last week’s presidential election. Obama soundly defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney among Hispanic voters.
In the wake of the election, conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity and pundit Charles Krauthhammer have both urged Republicans to work on an immigration plan that would include a pathway to residence for those in the country illegally.
“There's a sense of urgency in the Republican Party for obvious reasons, and I'm sure that everybody's ready to deal. But the specifics? Too early,” McCain said Tuesday when asked about a comprehensive bill that included a pathway to citizenship.
“There are a lot of very important legal considerations that have to be made, but I've always been empathetic towards resolving this problem one way or the other,” said Hatch.
McCain had abandoned his support for a comprehensive bill during a 2010 primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.).
But on Tuesday, he sounded more like the McCain who championed a comprehensive immigration reform plan backed by President George W. Bush.
“Oh, I think it's very likely that we get it resolved, but there are going to be some tough negotiations," he said.
Rubio, a Hispanic who is trusted and beloved by the GOP base, could be the most important player to watch in the negotiations.
He seemed more hesitant to embrace the concept of a big package than McCain or Hatch but didn’t close the door on a single, comprehensive bill. In the past, that’s usually meant a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the U.S., stricter border enforcement, a temporary worker program for industries such as agriculture and a crackdown on those who hire undocumented immigrants.
“People are interested in it. It's going to take some time,” he said. “It's an important issue for the country economically, it behooves us to have a 21st century immigration policy.”
Rubio said he “didn’t have anything to announce today” on how involved he’ll be with the issue, but said he was “hopeful we’ll be able to work on something.”
The Florida senator had begun to work on a Republican version of the “DREAM Act” last year before President Obama ordered temporary visas be given to some undocumented immigrants brought here as children.
Hatch, an original sponsor of the DREAM Act, voted against it in 2010, largely because of concerns about a 2012 Tea Party primary challenge.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267763-rubio-mccain-hatch-ready-to-negotiate-on-pathway-to-citizenship
Friday, August 24, 2012
GOP platform gets tougher on immigration
Politico
August 21, 2012
by James Hohmann
TAMPA, Fla.— Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach persuaded the Republican platform committee Tuesday to toughen its language on immigration.
“We recognize that if you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today,” he told the 100-plus representatives to the committee. “That is the way to open up jobs very quickly for U.S. citizen workers and lawfully admitted alien workers.”
The platform committee overwhelmingly voted to add language proposed by Kobach calling for the completion of a border fence, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. It also voted to support national E-Verify, an Internet database run by the federal government that makes it harder for undocumented workers to get jobs.
Trying to make inroads with Latino votes, Romney has toned down the hardline rhetoric he used in the primaries. The GOP convention is also being held in the key state of Florida, which is home to a large population of Hispanic voters that Republicans realize are key to the party’s electoral chances and future.
Kobach, who wrote Arizona's and Alabama’s controversial immigration laws, reminded the group of Republicans in a ballroom at the Marriott hotel here of Romney’s stated positions on the hot-button issue
“These positions are consistent with the Romney campaign,” he said. “As you all will remember one of the primary reasons that Gov. Romney rose past Gov. [Rick] Perry when Mr. Perry was achieving first place in the polls was because of his opposition to in-state tuition for illegal aliens.”
Kobach quoted a passage from Romney’s website that says the soon-to-be GOP nominee will build a high-tech fence and eliminate the magnets for illegal immigration.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79958.html
August 21, 2012
by James Hohmann
TAMPA, Fla.— Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach persuaded the Republican platform committee Tuesday to toughen its language on immigration.
“We recognize that if you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today,” he told the 100-plus representatives to the committee. “That is the way to open up jobs very quickly for U.S. citizen workers and lawfully admitted alien workers.”
The committee agreed to restore 2008 platform planks that didn’t appear in a draft prepared by Republican National Committee staff, who worked in close consultation with Mitt Romney’s campaign.
The platform committee overwhelmingly voted to add language proposed by Kobach calling for the completion of a border fence, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. It also voted to support national E-Verify, an Internet database run by the federal government that makes it harder for undocumented workers to get jobs.
Trying to make inroads with Latino votes, Romney has toned down the hardline rhetoric he used in the primaries. The GOP convention is also being held in the key state of Florida, which is home to a large population of Hispanic voters that Republicans realize are key to the party’s electoral chances and future.
Kobach, who wrote Arizona's and Alabama’s controversial immigration laws, reminded the group of Republicans in a ballroom at the Marriott hotel here of Romney’s stated positions on the hot-button issue
“These positions are consistent with the Romney campaign,” he said. “As you all will remember one of the primary reasons that Gov. Romney rose past Gov. [Rick] Perry when Mr. Perry was achieving first place in the polls was because of his opposition to in-state tuition for illegal aliens.”
Kobach quoted a passage from Romney’s website that says the soon-to-be GOP nominee will build a high-tech fence and eliminate the magnets for illegal immigration.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79958.html
Friday, July 20, 2012
A Desert Mirage: 1 year later, no progress on state border fence
Arizona Capitol Times
July 19, 2012
by Jeremy Duda
A year after Arizona began a nationally publicized effort to build its own border fence through private contributions, not a single fencepost has gone up. And there are several barriers standing in the way of the project.
Fundraising for the project, spearheaded by Sen. Steve Smith, has almost completely dried up. The $273,000 raised by Build America’s Fence is probably not enough to erect even a mile of fencing.
And a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm Smith said the group hired to raise money has not started collecting funds. The federal nonprofit status the group needs for its nationwide fundraising campaign has been pending for a year.
Furthermore, the committee hasn’t yet obtained the materials it needs to build any fencing. It hasn’t yet identified the land where the fencing will be built. And an inmate labor agreement Smith hopes to reach with the Arizona Department of Corrections is still in its infancy, at best.
Smith, R-Maricopa, said he’d hoped to have something to announce by July 20, the anniversary of the launch of www.buildtheborderfence.com and the effective date of the legislation creating the state- sanctioned effort. But things have taken longer than he’d hoped.
“If it were up to me, it would’ve been done on July 21 of last year,” Smith said. “It is a massive undertaking.”
But while no one expects Smith or the Joint Border Security Advisory Task Force, which oversees the project, to cover every unfenced area of Arizona’s 376-mile border with Mexico, Smith said he hopes to get something up soon. After a year of hammering out the details, Smith said he’s “very close” to starting work on part of the fence, which he hopes will be a one-mile section.
There are still a lot of details to work out before anything can be done. Smith said he’s in talks with two fencing companies after the first firm he dealt with, Betafence, had pledged to contribute materials. A change in management in Betafence put those talks on hold, Smith said.
Smith also acknowledged that the $273,000 that has been contributed to the Border Security Trust Fund may not even be enough for the first mile of fencing he wants to construct.
“My goal is to get the first mile in. Obviously, all this stuff costs more than ($273,000). The money we have ordinarily wouldn’t cover it, but we’re going to make those dollars stretch,” the freshman lawmaker said of his hope to use donated materials and cheap labor to build it.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that a mile of double-steel fencing would cost about $1.5 million. A 2009 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated the cost at $2.8 million per mile.
House Minority Leader Chad Campbell said this is exactly what he predicted last year when the border fence effort began. Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat, called the project a “political pyramid scheme.”
“I predicted this when it went through appropriations in 2011, that this would be a bill that would achieve absolutely nothing, would drain money away from people’s personal finances, and would accomplish absolutely zero in terms of addressing anything related to border security,” Campbell said. “This whole thing is an absolute fiasco and it’s been a joke since Day One.”
When the border fence project began in the summer of 2011, it got a lot of national media attention and the checks poured in immediately.
In August, the fund raised $213,000.
But it didn’t take long for the monthly fundraising number to drop from the hundreds of thousands to the thousands to the hundreds. In June of this year, the fund raised just $579. The month before, it raised nothing.
The Joint Border Security Advisory Task Force has its skeptics. Rep. Russ Jones, a Yuma Republican who co-chairs the committee, has long said that building a full fence would be nearly impossible.
But that doesn’t mean nothing will ever be built.
“I don’t think with the money that’s raised that it’s going to be a large area,” Jones said. “It may be more symbolic than anything. But it will be something.”
Even if only a mile or less of fencing goes up, Jones said it still could help U.S. Customs and Border Patrol with interdiction efforts.
And if something is built, Jones said it could help encourage more contributions to the fund.
Committee member Bas Aja, the head of the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, said even a mile of fence would be welcome to border-area ranchers who live in fear.
“Those people down there are desperate. If they go down there and they can demonstrate that they can do something that will provide them additional security, I think people will accept it,” Aja said.
“They’re not going to get all of (the border) covered, but I think their intent is to try to demonstrate that there is a way to increase security, and they might be able to do that with some examples.”
Money may be hard to come by, but Aja said Smith won’t have any trouble finding ranchers and other landowners along the border who are willing to let the committee build on their land.
Smith said fundraising dries up when there’s no media attention. And media attention has been sparse. But that could change, he said, if he can get that first length of fencing up.
Build America’s Fence has hired a Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm, and Smith said the firm believes building the first mile is the key to raising more money. The firm hasn’t been paid yet, Smith said, and will receive a portion of the funds it raises for the fence. Smith said he could not recall the name of the public relations firm.
“They say as soon as you can get construction going and of course get the first mile … or whatever up, they will then take that and deliver that quite literally across the country. But they’re asking for a solid, mother-of-all press releases,” he said. “They seem to think that once we get something in the ground they can certainly try to raise a whole heck of a lot more.”
Aja has a more grim prediction for what will cause the next spike in fundraising.
“But we will have another American citizen killed on the border, and when that happens they’ll see their fundraising increase again,” Aja said, evoking memories of Rob Krentz, the rancher whose murder by suspected Mexican drug cartels provided much of the momentum in favor of SB1070 in 2010.
Build America’s Fence will need more than actual physical barriers to raise money though. It needs nonprofit certification from the IRS, which has been pending for about a year. Arizona public relations consultant Jason Rose, who has worked with Smith on the border fence issue, said Build America’s Fence can’t conduct a substantial, nationwide direct mail campaign until it gets federal certification.
Smith is trying to negotiate good prices for fencing materials, which he said may be “green technology,” though he wouldn’t elaborate on what he meant. He also would not disclose the names of fencing companies he said he is talking with.
If anything actually goes up, Campbell said he expects it to be nothing more than a mile of chain-link fence.
“They’re using some technical term, but it’s a chain fence. You and I could probably cut it down in five minutes,” he said.
One way Smith had long hoped to save money on the fence was by using inmate labor from the Arizona Department of Corrections. But the company that builds the fence, he said, will decide for itself whether it wants to use inmate labor.
Once Smith has an agreement with a fencing company and landowners, he said he’ll go back to the joint committee for approval. His next chance will likely be August, when Jones said the committee will meet for the first time in months.
There’s nothing unusual about the lengthy amount of time it’s taken to start building, Smith said.
“Things take time. Clearly I wish this could go faster. But again, when you have so many parties involved — you’ve got contractors, you’ve got building supply materials, you’ve got installers, you’ve got principals of companies who live in different states and sometimes different companies. You’ve got a lot of people, engineers and everything else. Things like this just don’t happen overnight,” he said.
Smith said he’ll build fencing as long as there’s money to do so. And he’s hoping the money will roll in once a section gets built.
But even if nothing more than a mile ever goes up, Smith said it will still have been worth it.
“To call that a wasted effort, it’s just silly,” he said.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/07/19/a-desert-mirage-1-year-later-no-progress-on-state-border-fence/
July 19, 2012
by Jeremy Duda
A year after Arizona began a nationally publicized effort to build its own border fence through private contributions, not a single fencepost has gone up. And there are several barriers standing in the way of the project.
Fundraising for the project, spearheaded by Sen. Steve Smith, has almost completely dried up. The $273,000 raised by Build America’s Fence is probably not enough to erect even a mile of fencing.
And a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm Smith said the group hired to raise money has not started collecting funds. The federal nonprofit status the group needs for its nationwide fundraising campaign has been pending for a year.
Furthermore, the committee hasn’t yet obtained the materials it needs to build any fencing. It hasn’t yet identified the land where the fencing will be built. And an inmate labor agreement Smith hopes to reach with the Arizona Department of Corrections is still in its infancy, at best.
Smith, R-Maricopa, said he’d hoped to have something to announce by July 20, the anniversary of the launch of www.buildtheborderfence.com and the effective date of the legislation creating the state- sanctioned effort. But things have taken longer than he’d hoped.
“If it were up to me, it would’ve been done on July 21 of last year,” Smith said. “It is a massive undertaking.”
But while no one expects Smith or the Joint Border Security Advisory Task Force, which oversees the project, to cover every unfenced area of Arizona’s 376-mile border with Mexico, Smith said he hopes to get something up soon. After a year of hammering out the details, Smith said he’s “very close” to starting work on part of the fence, which he hopes will be a one-mile section.
There are still a lot of details to work out before anything can be done. Smith said he’s in talks with two fencing companies after the first firm he dealt with, Betafence, had pledged to contribute materials. A change in management in Betafence put those talks on hold, Smith said.
Smith also acknowledged that the $273,000 that has been contributed to the Border Security Trust Fund may not even be enough for the first mile of fencing he wants to construct.
“My goal is to get the first mile in. Obviously, all this stuff costs more than ($273,000). The money we have ordinarily wouldn’t cover it, but we’re going to make those dollars stretch,” the freshman lawmaker said of his hope to use donated materials and cheap labor to build it.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that a mile of double-steel fencing would cost about $1.5 million. A 2009 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated the cost at $2.8 million per mile.
House Minority Leader Chad Campbell said this is exactly what he predicted last year when the border fence effort began. Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat, called the project a “political pyramid scheme.”
“I predicted this when it went through appropriations in 2011, that this would be a bill that would achieve absolutely nothing, would drain money away from people’s personal finances, and would accomplish absolutely zero in terms of addressing anything related to border security,” Campbell said. “This whole thing is an absolute fiasco and it’s been a joke since Day One.”
When the border fence project began in the summer of 2011, it got a lot of national media attention and the checks poured in immediately.
In August, the fund raised $213,000.
But it didn’t take long for the monthly fundraising number to drop from the hundreds of thousands to the thousands to the hundreds. In June of this year, the fund raised just $579. The month before, it raised nothing.
The Joint Border Security Advisory Task Force has its skeptics. Rep. Russ Jones, a Yuma Republican who co-chairs the committee, has long said that building a full fence would be nearly impossible.
But that doesn’t mean nothing will ever be built.
“I don’t think with the money that’s raised that it’s going to be a large area,” Jones said. “It may be more symbolic than anything. But it will be something.”
Even if only a mile or less of fencing goes up, Jones said it still could help U.S. Customs and Border Patrol with interdiction efforts.
And if something is built, Jones said it could help encourage more contributions to the fund.
Committee member Bas Aja, the head of the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, said even a mile of fence would be welcome to border-area ranchers who live in fear.
“Those people down there are desperate. If they go down there and they can demonstrate that they can do something that will provide them additional security, I think people will accept it,” Aja said.
“They’re not going to get all of (the border) covered, but I think their intent is to try to demonstrate that there is a way to increase security, and they might be able to do that with some examples.”
Money may be hard to come by, but Aja said Smith won’t have any trouble finding ranchers and other landowners along the border who are willing to let the committee build on their land.
Smith said fundraising dries up when there’s no media attention. And media attention has been sparse. But that could change, he said, if he can get that first length of fencing up.
Build America’s Fence has hired a Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm, and Smith said the firm believes building the first mile is the key to raising more money. The firm hasn’t been paid yet, Smith said, and will receive a portion of the funds it raises for the fence. Smith said he could not recall the name of the public relations firm.
“They say as soon as you can get construction going and of course get the first mile … or whatever up, they will then take that and deliver that quite literally across the country. But they’re asking for a solid, mother-of-all press releases,” he said. “They seem to think that once we get something in the ground they can certainly try to raise a whole heck of a lot more.”
Aja has a more grim prediction for what will cause the next spike in fundraising.
“But we will have another American citizen killed on the border, and when that happens they’ll see their fundraising increase again,” Aja said, evoking memories of Rob Krentz, the rancher whose murder by suspected Mexican drug cartels provided much of the momentum in favor of SB1070 in 2010.
Build America’s Fence will need more than actual physical barriers to raise money though. It needs nonprofit certification from the IRS, which has been pending for about a year. Arizona public relations consultant Jason Rose, who has worked with Smith on the border fence issue, said Build America’s Fence can’t conduct a substantial, nationwide direct mail campaign until it gets federal certification.
Smith is trying to negotiate good prices for fencing materials, which he said may be “green technology,” though he wouldn’t elaborate on what he meant. He also would not disclose the names of fencing companies he said he is talking with.
If anything actually goes up, Campbell said he expects it to be nothing more than a mile of chain-link fence.
“They’re using some technical term, but it’s a chain fence. You and I could probably cut it down in five minutes,” he said.
One way Smith had long hoped to save money on the fence was by using inmate labor from the Arizona Department of Corrections. But the company that builds the fence, he said, will decide for itself whether it wants to use inmate labor.
Once Smith has an agreement with a fencing company and landowners, he said he’ll go back to the joint committee for approval. His next chance will likely be August, when Jones said the committee will meet for the first time in months.
There’s nothing unusual about the lengthy amount of time it’s taken to start building, Smith said.
“Things take time. Clearly I wish this could go faster. But again, when you have so many parties involved — you’ve got contractors, you’ve got building supply materials, you’ve got installers, you’ve got principals of companies who live in different states and sometimes different companies. You’ve got a lot of people, engineers and everything else. Things like this just don’t happen overnight,” he said.
Smith said he’ll build fencing as long as there’s money to do so. And he’s hoping the money will roll in once a section gets built.
But even if nothing more than a mile ever goes up, Smith said it will still have been worth it.
“To call that a wasted effort, it’s just silly,” he said.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/07/19/a-desert-mirage-1-year-later-no-progress-on-state-border-fence/
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
In final debate, Cruz, Dewhurst trade jabs on conservative credentials, taxes, border
Dallas Morning News
July 17, 2012
By Robert T. Garrett
GOP Senate rivals Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst clashed on state taxes, a border wall and whether U.S. health care produces bang for the buck in their final televised debate Tuesday, a heated affair in which each questioned the other’s credibility and qualifications.
Cruz accused the lieutenant governor of pushing a jobs-threatening business tax that he said Gov. Rick Perry barely averted, even as Dewhurst fired back that he delivered a tax swap in 2006 that cut local school property taxes by one-third.
“I don’t know whether you ever took a course in economics but … we had a net -- net – cut for Texans, for homeowners and for business of some $4 billion to $5 billion” a year, Dewhurst told the Ivy League-trained Cruz.
Cruz retorted, “I graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston and they did teach arithmetic.”
He noted that overall state revenues have increased by 49 percent since Dewhurst became lieutenant governor in 2003.
“I’ll tell you what a fiscal conservative would do,” Cruz said. “In the state of California when Ronald Reagan was governor and they had tax revenues go up, he refunded the tax money. What the lieutenant governor did is he took that 49 percent in additional tax revenue and he grew state spending by $72 billion.”
The two, seated for an hourlong exchange at Dallas’ WFAA-TV, engaged in close-in combat in their second and final televised encounter since the May 29 primary narrowed the crowded field, forcing a July 31 runoff.
Among the primary losers was former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, who made a surprise appearance in the television studio after the debate to endorse Dewhurst.
Leppert said he was eager to put behind him Dewhurst’s last-minute TV spot that blasted the former mayor as a liberal, and the lieutenant governor told reporters he’d apologized privately for that ad.
“The issue is having someone who understands how to right the economy,” Leppert said, taking a veiled shot at Cruz. “We’ve got a lot of people in Washington that give great speeches.”
Cruz, standing in front of placard-waving supporters at Victory Plaza outside the TV studio, offered congratulations to Dewhurst for winning the former mayor’s backing.
But Cruz contrasted his grass-roots support with what he strongly implied was just another establishment endorsement for Dewhurst.
Their runoff contest has drawn national attention for clues it may offer to the Republican Party’s future course, pitting tea party insurgent Cruz against the establishment candidate Dewhurst.
Their contest has largely been driven by attacks on each other’s record and stylistic questions, and although those continued Tuesday night, they also differed more on specifics of issues than in previous faceoffs.
Cruz, a former state solicitor general, offered red meat to his party’s most fervent conservatives, the types whose enthusiasm he’s counting on to carry the day in an unusually late runoff, delayed by battles over Texas’ redistricting.
Cruz said he would be willing to see federal taxpayers absorb a $7 billion hit to pay for building an 1,100-mile-long border wall from Brownsville to El Paso.
“I don’t know the specific cost but I can guarantee you it’s far less than the cost of illegal immigration,” he said.
Dewhurst, though, was noncommittal.
“A fence is absolutely warranted in certain places but I question the benefit … the whole length,” he said.
Dewhurst stressed his support for tripling the size of the Border Patrol.
He denied Cruz’s contention that he would offer work visas to illegal immigrants. Dewhurst said he only would discuss a guest worker program after the border is secure.
On health care, Cruz again faulted the lieutenant governor for quoting “left-leaning organizations” such as the World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that show U.S. health care to be very expensive, especially given high rates of infant mortality and other problems with public health.
Dewhurst said the U.S. and Texas boast many fine hospitals and doctors, but “we can do better.” He cited reports showing that as many as 45 percent of U.S. doctors don’t follow “best practices.”
Each of the two rivals, when thrown on the defensive about his recent failings on government transparency, fudged.
Dewhurst said his office’s decision last summer to request removal of his speeches from his state website was routine and unrelated to his July announcement of his Senate candidacy. He insisted people could obtain his past speeches simply by emailing his office at the Texas Capitol.
“To imply that anything was improper was done, my friend, I’m not the one who was just fined by the Senate Ethics Committee,” he shot back at Cruz.
Dewhurst was referring to a $200 late fee Cruz recently paid for failing to file an updated personal financial disclosure by May 15, as required of Senate candidates.
Cruz noted that Dewhurst’s ads have made the lapse sound ominous. Cruz aides have attributed to the rush of the final weeks of the primary campaign.
However, Cruz erred by implying Dewhurst had done the same thing.
“What he didn’t mention is the form that I was late filing, he was late filing the very same form,” Cruz said.
Actually, Dewhurst, who has a net worth of more than $200 million, obtained extensions last summer and eventually filed his disclosure before it was due.
Dewhurst had the advantage heading into the runoff, having won 45 percent of the primary vote to Cruz’s 34 percent.
However, two recent polls showed Cruz in the lead and experts are confounded over who will actually show up to vote. Texas primary runoffs usually are held in the spring.
Because Texas remains a state loyal to the GOP, the winner of the runoff is expected to win in the November general election. The seat came open after Republican incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchison decided not to run again.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120717-cruz-dewhurst-clash-on-taxes-border-personal-issues-in-final-gop-senate-debate.ece
July 17, 2012
By Robert T. Garrett
GOP Senate rivals Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst clashed on state taxes, a border wall and whether U.S. health care produces bang for the buck in their final televised debate Tuesday, a heated affair in which each questioned the other’s credibility and qualifications.
Cruz accused the lieutenant governor of pushing a jobs-threatening business tax that he said Gov. Rick Perry barely averted, even as Dewhurst fired back that he delivered a tax swap in 2006 that cut local school property taxes by one-third.
“I don’t know whether you ever took a course in economics but … we had a net -- net – cut for Texans, for homeowners and for business of some $4 billion to $5 billion” a year, Dewhurst told the Ivy League-trained Cruz.
Cruz retorted, “I graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston and they did teach arithmetic.”
He noted that overall state revenues have increased by 49 percent since Dewhurst became lieutenant governor in 2003.
“I’ll tell you what a fiscal conservative would do,” Cruz said. “In the state of California when Ronald Reagan was governor and they had tax revenues go up, he refunded the tax money. What the lieutenant governor did is he took that 49 percent in additional tax revenue and he grew state spending by $72 billion.”
The two, seated for an hourlong exchange at Dallas’ WFAA-TV, engaged in close-in combat in their second and final televised encounter since the May 29 primary narrowed the crowded field, forcing a July 31 runoff.
Among the primary losers was former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, who made a surprise appearance in the television studio after the debate to endorse Dewhurst.
Leppert said he was eager to put behind him Dewhurst’s last-minute TV spot that blasted the former mayor as a liberal, and the lieutenant governor told reporters he’d apologized privately for that ad.
“The issue is having someone who understands how to right the economy,” Leppert said, taking a veiled shot at Cruz. “We’ve got a lot of people in Washington that give great speeches.”
Cruz, standing in front of placard-waving supporters at Victory Plaza outside the TV studio, offered congratulations to Dewhurst for winning the former mayor’s backing.
But Cruz contrasted his grass-roots support with what he strongly implied was just another establishment endorsement for Dewhurst.
Their runoff contest has drawn national attention for clues it may offer to the Republican Party’s future course, pitting tea party insurgent Cruz against the establishment candidate Dewhurst.
Their contest has largely been driven by attacks on each other’s record and stylistic questions, and although those continued Tuesday night, they also differed more on specifics of issues than in previous faceoffs.
Cruz, a former state solicitor general, offered red meat to his party’s most fervent conservatives, the types whose enthusiasm he’s counting on to carry the day in an unusually late runoff, delayed by battles over Texas’ redistricting.
Cruz said he would be willing to see federal taxpayers absorb a $7 billion hit to pay for building an 1,100-mile-long border wall from Brownsville to El Paso.
“I don’t know the specific cost but I can guarantee you it’s far less than the cost of illegal immigration,” he said.
Dewhurst, though, was noncommittal.
“A fence is absolutely warranted in certain places but I question the benefit … the whole length,” he said.
Dewhurst stressed his support for tripling the size of the Border Patrol.
He denied Cruz’s contention that he would offer work visas to illegal immigrants. Dewhurst said he only would discuss a guest worker program after the border is secure.
On health care, Cruz again faulted the lieutenant governor for quoting “left-leaning organizations” such as the World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that show U.S. health care to be very expensive, especially given high rates of infant mortality and other problems with public health.
Dewhurst said the U.S. and Texas boast many fine hospitals and doctors, but “we can do better.” He cited reports showing that as many as 45 percent of U.S. doctors don’t follow “best practices.”
Each of the two rivals, when thrown on the defensive about his recent failings on government transparency, fudged.
Dewhurst said his office’s decision last summer to request removal of his speeches from his state website was routine and unrelated to his July announcement of his Senate candidacy. He insisted people could obtain his past speeches simply by emailing his office at the Texas Capitol.
“To imply that anything was improper was done, my friend, I’m not the one who was just fined by the Senate Ethics Committee,” he shot back at Cruz.
Dewhurst was referring to a $200 late fee Cruz recently paid for failing to file an updated personal financial disclosure by May 15, as required of Senate candidates.
Cruz noted that Dewhurst’s ads have made the lapse sound ominous. Cruz aides have attributed to the rush of the final weeks of the primary campaign.
However, Cruz erred by implying Dewhurst had done the same thing.
“What he didn’t mention is the form that I was late filing, he was late filing the very same form,” Cruz said.
Actually, Dewhurst, who has a net worth of more than $200 million, obtained extensions last summer and eventually filed his disclosure before it was due.
Dewhurst had the advantage heading into the runoff, having won 45 percent of the primary vote to Cruz’s 34 percent.
However, two recent polls showed Cruz in the lead and experts are confounded over who will actually show up to vote. Texas primary runoffs usually are held in the spring.
Because Texas remains a state loyal to the GOP, the winner of the runoff is expected to win in the November general election. The seat came open after Republican incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchison decided not to run again.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120717-cruz-dewhurst-clash-on-taxes-border-personal-issues-in-final-gop-senate-debate.ece
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Dems attack Bishop border security bill as ruse to gut protections
Salt Lake Tribune
June 19, 2012
by Thomas Burr
June 19, 2012
by Thomas Burr
Washington • Border patrol agents would be able to legally bypass major environmental laws within 100 miles of America’s borders under Rep. Rob Bishop’s legislation passed by the House on Tuesday that brought a swift rebuke from Democrats and wilderness advocates.
On a nearly party-line vote, Bishop’s border security bill passed the House with a series of related measures, though it now heads to the Senate where prospects for passage aren’t as good.
Bishop pitched his bill as a way to shore up the porous borders abutting public lands where he says federal agents are being hamstrung in combatting illegal immigration by environmental laws protecting large tracts of land.
"The Border Patrol’s inability to routinely access the entire border region leaves us not only vulnerable to the trafficking of drugs but also potential terrorists and others who wish to harm our country," Bishop said in a statement after the vote. "With the passage of this legislation the Border Patrol will finally have the access necessary to help us achieve a truly secure border — a sovereign nation should have nothing less."
The bill, if it becomes law, would allow border patrol agents to bypass 16 federal laws in securing the border and apprehending illegal crossers, including the ability to use motorized vehicles in wilderness areas, build fences or install equipment.
Democrats and environmentalists termed Bishop’s bill a "ruse," arguing that Republicans’ goal was to undermine federal protections of clean air and water and treasured landscapes.
"Either they are using public concerns about immigration and drugs as a ruse to gut our nation’s environmental laws," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., "or they really do believe that we need to create a militarized, surveillance zone in which a paramilitary border patrol can be free of the laws that govern the rest of the nation."
Markey says a six-year-old agreement between the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture and Interior is working well and those agencies have not requested any changes. That document allows agents to pursue border crossers into sensitive wilderness areas if the agents believe there is a danger to life or to national security.
Bishop, who heads a House subcommittee over public lands, has pushed this issue for years, claiming that federal agents are unable to chase down illegal immigrants or suspected drug runners because of locked fences on lands controlled by the Interior Department or U.S. Forest Service.
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, called Bishop and fellow Republicans "cynical" for trying to exploit concern about security as a reason to undermine environmental laws that have stood for decades.
"This is not about immigration, this is not about border security, this is [about scrapping laws and rules] that the extremists in the Republican Party have wanted to rid themselves of for years," Grijalva said. "This is not about securing anything; this is about a gift to polluters."
The Wilderness Society and other groups called the bill’s passage an "overreach" that will hinder hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreational activities.
But the measure also had its supporters, including from the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, which said it shows a "resounding message that the people of the United States are serious about establishing complete border security."
Bishop’s bill was one of 14 included in an omnibus measure that also included language to remove an expectation that a power company building hydropower plants in Spanish Fork Canyon would have to give the federal government the first $161 million in profits.
Even if the package of bills gets through the Senate, it could face a veto.
The White House signaled its opposition to the measures late Monday, saying specifically that Bishop’s bill would "thwart successful efforts by agencies to collaborate on border security while protecting our natural and cultural resources."
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
House OKs waiver of enviro laws at borders
Arizona Daily Star / Associated Press
June 20, 2012
by Matthew Daly
WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House approved a bill Tuesday that would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent more than a dozen environmental laws on all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the borders with Mexico and Canada.
Supporters - including newly sworn-in Rep. Ron Barber, a Tucson Democrat - said the measure is needed to give border agents unfettered access to rugged lands now controlled by the Interior Department and Forest Service.
Laws such as the Wilderness Act and Endangered Species Act often prevent agents from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land, leaving it to wildlife, illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed, they said.
The bill was approved 232-188.
The measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said restrictions on federal lands have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals, who not only bring in drugs but also abuse and rape women and leave behind thousands of tons of trash.
"Drug traffickers couldn't care less about environmental sensitivities," he said. "The removal of these criminals from our public lands is a value to the environment as well as the mission of the land managers."
But opponents, including hunters, conservationists and Hispanic advocacy groups, call the bill a heavy-handed fix that guts important environmental protections. They also question whether the measure is needed along the vast Canadian border, where there is scant evidence that illegal immigrants are hiking through national parks or wilderness areas in an attempt to slip into the U.S.
The Obama administration opposes the border-control bill, part of a package of 14 land-use bills approved Tuesday by the House.
The measure faces dim prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the House bill would sacrifice crucial environmental protections to advance an anti-immigrant and anti-regulatory agenda.
Citizens of border communities who have been subjected to what he called an ever-increasing federal law enforcement presence "know what it is like to live in a police state where undertrained security forces with unfettered authority and a lack of oversight are ever-present," Grijalva said.
However, Barber - Grijalva's Democratic colleague from Southern Arizona - crossed party lines to support the House bill on his first day in office, after being elected last week.
"Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation's southern border," Barber said Tuesday in a news release. "There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process."
In a statement, the White House said the bill in its current form would "thwart successful efforts by agencies to collaborate on border security" and presents "a false choice between natural-resources protection and the economy or national security."
Besides the border measure, the bill also would transfer control of more than 65,000 acres of centuries-old trees in Alaska's Tongass National Forest to a private corporation. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, allows the Sealaska Corp. to log large, old-growth trees in the Tongass, the nation's largest national forest. Sealaska is one of 13 Native regional corporations set up under a 1971 act that compensated Alaska Natives for the loss of lands they historically used or occupied.
Critics call the proposal a land grab worth billions of dollars in timber sales.
S. Arizona votes
On passage of H.R. 2578, which, among other things, would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent environmental laws on federal land within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico:
• Ron Barber, D - yes
• Raúl Grijalva, D - no
"Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation's southern border. There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process."
Rep. Ron Barber, newly elected Congressman from Tucson
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/house-oks-waiver-of-enviro-laws-at-borders/article_c12f164a-4d87-5f4d-babc-833a6c0808d8.html
June 20, 2012
by Matthew Daly
WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House approved a bill Tuesday that would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent more than a dozen environmental laws on all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the borders with Mexico and Canada.
Supporters - including newly sworn-in Rep. Ron Barber, a Tucson Democrat - said the measure is needed to give border agents unfettered access to rugged lands now controlled by the Interior Department and Forest Service.
Laws such as the Wilderness Act and Endangered Species Act often prevent agents from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land, leaving it to wildlife, illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed, they said.
The bill was approved 232-188.
The measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said restrictions on federal lands have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals, who not only bring in drugs but also abuse and rape women and leave behind thousands of tons of trash.
"Drug traffickers couldn't care less about environmental sensitivities," he said. "The removal of these criminals from our public lands is a value to the environment as well as the mission of the land managers."
But opponents, including hunters, conservationists and Hispanic advocacy groups, call the bill a heavy-handed fix that guts important environmental protections. They also question whether the measure is needed along the vast Canadian border, where there is scant evidence that illegal immigrants are hiking through national parks or wilderness areas in an attempt to slip into the U.S.
The Obama administration opposes the border-control bill, part of a package of 14 land-use bills approved Tuesday by the House.
The measure faces dim prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the House bill would sacrifice crucial environmental protections to advance an anti-immigrant and anti-regulatory agenda.
Citizens of border communities who have been subjected to what he called an ever-increasing federal law enforcement presence "know what it is like to live in a police state where undertrained security forces with unfettered authority and a lack of oversight are ever-present," Grijalva said.
However, Barber - Grijalva's Democratic colleague from Southern Arizona - crossed party lines to support the House bill on his first day in office, after being elected last week.
"Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation's southern border," Barber said Tuesday in a news release. "There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process."
In a statement, the White House said the bill in its current form would "thwart successful efforts by agencies to collaborate on border security" and presents "a false choice between natural-resources protection and the economy or national security."
Besides the border measure, the bill also would transfer control of more than 65,000 acres of centuries-old trees in Alaska's Tongass National Forest to a private corporation. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, allows the Sealaska Corp. to log large, old-growth trees in the Tongass, the nation's largest national forest. Sealaska is one of 13 Native regional corporations set up under a 1971 act that compensated Alaska Natives for the loss of lands they historically used or occupied.
Critics call the proposal a land grab worth billions of dollars in timber sales.
S. Arizona votes
On passage of H.R. 2578, which, among other things, would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent environmental laws on federal land within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico:
• Ron Barber, D - yes
• Raúl Grijalva, D - no
"Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation's southern border. There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process."
Rep. Ron Barber, newly elected Congressman from Tucson
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/house-oks-waiver-of-enviro-laws-at-borders/article_c12f164a-4d87-5f4d-babc-833a6c0808d8.html
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
House votes to ease environmental rules for border agents
The Hill
June 19, 2012
by Pete Kasperowicz
The House voted Tuesday to ease more than a dozen environmental rules for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, to make it easier for them to patrol federally owned border land.
The provision was one of several in a land use bill that was made up of 14 different bills, some from Republicans, some from Democrats. The border agent provision was easily the most controversial, but despite Democratic opposition, the House approved the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578, in a 232-188 vote.
The measure was ultimately supported by 16 Democrats in the final vote; 19 Republicans voted against it.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was the chief defender of the border provisions, and argued, as he has in the past, that current environmental rules prohibit CBP agents from accessing huge areas of land that enjoys federal protections. He said this prevents any serious enforcement of the southern border, as illegal immigrants have no problem crossing through environmentally protected land.
"One of the ironies is our border patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need to do to protect our border on private property, and no one objects to it," Bishop said. "It is only on federal property that the federal border patrol is prohibited from doing its federal job."
Democrats sought to play up this language as an attempt to ignore environmental rules, and even expand unmanned drone use in the areas around border land.
"The GOP's 'drone zone' bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our national resources to the Department of Homeland Security," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.
"Passing this bill does not increase the number of border patrol agents. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal gravesides."
Bishop rejected this interpretation of the amendment. "It's cute, but it's also inaccurate," he said of Markey's presentation. But Bishop did offer an amendment to the bill that reduced the number of environmental laws that can be waived by CBP agents to 16, down from 36. That amendment was approved by voice vote.
At another moment in the debate, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was arguing that a different section of the bill would allow for more logging along the Tongass River in Alaska, when she was interrupted by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who said millions of acres of forest land are already protected. That interruption led DeLauro, who never permitted Young to speak, to tell Young, "Just back off, OK?"
A full listing of the bills incorporated into H.R. 2578 can be seen here.
Immediately after the bill passed, members approved H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, which would prevent a tribe in Arizona from developing a casino on their land. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and cleared that hurdle easily in a 343-78 vote.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233619-house-votes-to-ease-environmental-rules-for-border-agents
June 19, 2012
by Pete Kasperowicz
The House voted Tuesday to ease more than a dozen environmental rules for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, to make it easier for them to patrol federally owned border land.
The provision was one of several in a land use bill that was made up of 14 different bills, some from Republicans, some from Democrats. The border agent provision was easily the most controversial, but despite Democratic opposition, the House approved the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578, in a 232-188 vote.
The measure was ultimately supported by 16 Democrats in the final vote; 19 Republicans voted against it.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was the chief defender of the border provisions, and argued, as he has in the past, that current environmental rules prohibit CBP agents from accessing huge areas of land that enjoys federal protections. He said this prevents any serious enforcement of the southern border, as illegal immigrants have no problem crossing through environmentally protected land.
"One of the ironies is our border patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need to do to protect our border on private property, and no one objects to it," Bishop said. "It is only on federal property that the federal border patrol is prohibited from doing its federal job."
Democrats sought to play up this language as an attempt to ignore environmental rules, and even expand unmanned drone use in the areas around border land.
"The GOP's 'drone zone' bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our national resources to the Department of Homeland Security," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.
"Passing this bill does not increase the number of border patrol agents. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal gravesides."
Bishop rejected this interpretation of the amendment. "It's cute, but it's also inaccurate," he said of Markey's presentation. But Bishop did offer an amendment to the bill that reduced the number of environmental laws that can be waived by CBP agents to 16, down from 36. That amendment was approved by voice vote.
At another moment in the debate, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was arguing that a different section of the bill would allow for more logging along the Tongass River in Alaska, when she was interrupted by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who said millions of acres of forest land are already protected. That interruption led DeLauro, who never permitted Young to speak, to tell Young, "Just back off, OK?"
A full listing of the bills incorporated into H.R. 2578 can be seen here.
Immediately after the bill passed, members approved H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, which would prevent a tribe in Arizona from developing a casino on their land. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and cleared that hurdle easily in a 343-78 vote.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233619-house-votes-to-ease-environmental-rules-for-border-agents
HR 1505: The Latest Tribal Border War
Indian Country Today
June 19, 2012
by Heather Steinberger
Today, a broad parks and recreation bill called H.R. 2578 — “To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes,” also known as the Conservation and Economic Growth Act — is scheduled for a floor vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. And it will affect Indian country, as included in the bill is H.R. 1505, or the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.
Authored by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and featuring 59 cosponsors from across the country, H.R. 1505 would give the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the authority to take control of “all land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the international land borders of the United States.”
“Securing our nation’s borders must be among our highest priorities,” said Rep. Bishop, who also serves as House National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee chairman. “Right now, public lands inaccessible to the United States Border Patrol offer nearly unfettered safe harbor for criminal drug and human smugglers entering our country illegally. The Border Patrol must have improved access in order to deter and apprehend those using our federal lands as trafficking routes.”
The bill was amended in committee last fall to remove language that included maritime borders, add language to protect existing legal uses for recreational and economic activities, add a five-year sunset date to evaluate if the legislation should be renewed, and strictly limit the activities (six) for which the bill could be used. In fact, the committee changed all references to “The Secretary of Homeland Security” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” to emphasize that authority would be limited to border security operations and personnel. It would not be a broad new authority across the federal government.
However, according to Oliver “OJ” Semans, executive director of Four Directions, a nonpartisan get-out-the-native-vote organization based on South Dakota’s Rosebud Indian Reservation, the problem for Indian country is that the tribes whose lands lie within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders were never part of the legislative process — and would have no say in how their lands could be used within the scope of those six authorized activities.
“The (author and) sponsors of H.R. 1505 want to give the U.S. Department of Homeland Security unprecedented power to build roads, fences, buildings or even watchtowers on public land administered by the departments of Interior and Agriculture,” Semans said. “This bill directly affects tribes, and they were never even consulted and/or asked to attend hearings on the bills.”
The text of the amended legislation reads, “The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit or restrict activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control over the international land borders of the United States.” The authorized activities include construction and maintenance of roads and fences; vehicle patrols; installation, maintenance and operation of surveillance equipment and sensors; use of aircraft; and deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.
While the legislation states that it will not restrict legal land uses such as grazing, hunting or mining, it does list more than 30 acts that H.R. 1505 would waive. These include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Act of June 8, 1906 (also known as “the Antiquities Act of 1906”), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act protect sites considered sacred to Native people.
Affected tribes include the Bay Mills Indian Community (Michigan), Blackfeet Tribe (Montana), Grand Portage Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Red Lake Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe (Michigan), St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (New York), Aroostook Band of Micmac (Maine), Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Boise Forte Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington), Fort Belknap Indian Community (Montana), Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Montana), Houlton Band of Maliseet (Maine), Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (Washington), Kalispel Tribe (Washington), Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan), Kootenai Tribe (Idaho), Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Washington), Lummi Nation (Washington), Makah Tribe (Washington), Nooksack Tribe (Washington), Passamaquoddy Tribe (Maine), Penobscot Nation (Maine), Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Seneca Nation (New York), Swinomish Tribe (Washington), Tonawanda Seneca Tribe (New York), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa (North Dakota), Tuscarora Nation (New York) and the Upper Skagit Tribe (Washington).
One of H.R. 1505’s most vocal opponents is Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). His state is home to several affected tribes, and he has expressed deep concern for the lack of consultation with tribes — and lack of public input altogether.
“H.R. 1505 contains specific language that allows one federal department ‘immediate’ and total control over public lands in Montana,” said Aaron Murphy, communications director of Montanans for Tester. “Jon is concerned by this irresponsible proposal because it undermines… tribal sovereignty with a one-size-fits-all big government strategy, allowing a handful of federal agents to do whatever they want with no public input and no public accountability. Those who support this bill failed to consult with tribes — or any Montanans for that matter. Any decisions that deal with public land should be made with public input.
“Jon also is concerned that the legislation waives at least 36 laws,” he added.
Murphy noted that, as written, the Department of Homeland Security — again, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection — would not have to seek permission to do whatever is necessary to achieve “operational control” on any land administered by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior.
“There is no language that exempts lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” he observed. “The House (committee) even rejected an amendment to specifically exempt tribal land from H.R. 1505.”
Sen. Tester, he said, “believes we can protect our nation without trampling tribal rights.”
Sen. Tester isn’t the only one to express concern. According to testimony from the House hearing on H.R. 1505, the lead lawyer for the Department of the Interior under President Clinton also expressed serious concerns about the bill’s effects on tribal sovereignty.
A fellow Montana legislator, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), is a co-sponsor of the bill and co-chair of the Congressional Northern Border Caucus. He proposed many of the changes that were incorporated into the current, amended version of H.R. 1505, and he said the bill is a good one for Montana and the United States.
“Border security is national security, and in Montana that means safety for our families and communities,” Rep. Rehberg commented. “It’s time to put an end to the dangerous turf war where federal land managers hide behind environmental laws in order to prevent border patrol agents from doing their jobs on federal land.”
He also noted that the legislation is much more targeted than what he called “the sweeping measure” that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate in 2009.
“We built in protections for grazing rights and more narrowly focused the intent of the law on efforts to secure the border,” he explained. “We also added a sunset provision so the law can be reviewed by Congress to make sure it’s working as intended. This was a good bill, and now it’s even better.”
Is there a dangerous “turf war” between federal agencies? The Department of Homeland Security already has a memorandum of understanding with the departments of Interior and Agriculture that allows the departments to work together in a situation that might require DHS to pursue suspects or investigations on public land. And, according to a prominent Washington D.C. lobbyist who represents tribes across the country, there has been “no hue and cry” from the Border Patrol to take additional measures to guarantee access.
Tom Rodgers is president of Alexandria-based Carlyle Consulting, and he is perhaps best known as the whistle-blower in the Jack Abramoff scandal. He also is a member of Montana’s Blackfeet Nation, and he said he questions the need for H.R. 1505 in the first place.
“I’ve seen the GAO report, and I’ve yet to see substantive arguments,” he commented. “I’m not convinced. There’s been silence from the Border Patrol, and I’ve never heard of any tribe denying access to its land. I call this a weapon of mass distraction.”
Rodgers said he also finds it ironic that so many advocates of smaller government are behind this particular bill.
“There are so few resources, and there are so many other needs,” he said. “Without a demonstrable need, why give the Department of Homeland Security more authority? Why are we spending time and resources on this? It doesn’t make sense.”
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is leading opposition to H.R. 1505 on the House Floor today. Members of affected tribes are encouraged to contact their representatives to share their views.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/19/hr-1505-the-latest-tribal-border-war-119255
June 19, 2012
by Heather Steinberger
Today, a broad parks and recreation bill called H.R. 2578 — “To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes,” also known as the Conservation and Economic Growth Act — is scheduled for a floor vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. And it will affect Indian country, as included in the bill is H.R. 1505, or the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.
Authored by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and featuring 59 cosponsors from across the country, H.R. 1505 would give the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the authority to take control of “all land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the international land borders of the United States.”
“Securing our nation’s borders must be among our highest priorities,” said Rep. Bishop, who also serves as House National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee chairman. “Right now, public lands inaccessible to the United States Border Patrol offer nearly unfettered safe harbor for criminal drug and human smugglers entering our country illegally. The Border Patrol must have improved access in order to deter and apprehend those using our federal lands as trafficking routes.”
The bill was amended in committee last fall to remove language that included maritime borders, add language to protect existing legal uses for recreational and economic activities, add a five-year sunset date to evaluate if the legislation should be renewed, and strictly limit the activities (six) for which the bill could be used. In fact, the committee changed all references to “The Secretary of Homeland Security” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” to emphasize that authority would be limited to border security operations and personnel. It would not be a broad new authority across the federal government.
However, according to Oliver “OJ” Semans, executive director of Four Directions, a nonpartisan get-out-the-native-vote organization based on South Dakota’s Rosebud Indian Reservation, the problem for Indian country is that the tribes whose lands lie within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders were never part of the legislative process — and would have no say in how their lands could be used within the scope of those six authorized activities.
“The (author and) sponsors of H.R. 1505 want to give the U.S. Department of Homeland Security unprecedented power to build roads, fences, buildings or even watchtowers on public land administered by the departments of Interior and Agriculture,” Semans said. “This bill directly affects tribes, and they were never even consulted and/or asked to attend hearings on the bills.”
The text of the amended legislation reads, “The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit or restrict activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control over the international land borders of the United States.” The authorized activities include construction and maintenance of roads and fences; vehicle patrols; installation, maintenance and operation of surveillance equipment and sensors; use of aircraft; and deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.
While the legislation states that it will not restrict legal land uses such as grazing, hunting or mining, it does list more than 30 acts that H.R. 1505 would waive. These include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Act of June 8, 1906 (also known as “the Antiquities Act of 1906”), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act protect sites considered sacred to Native people.
Affected tribes include the Bay Mills Indian Community (Michigan), Blackfeet Tribe (Montana), Grand Portage Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Red Lake Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe (Michigan), St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (New York), Aroostook Band of Micmac (Maine), Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Boise Forte Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington), Fort Belknap Indian Community (Montana), Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Montana), Houlton Band of Maliseet (Maine), Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (Washington), Kalispel Tribe (Washington), Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan), Kootenai Tribe (Idaho), Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Washington), Lummi Nation (Washington), Makah Tribe (Washington), Nooksack Tribe (Washington), Passamaquoddy Tribe (Maine), Penobscot Nation (Maine), Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Seneca Nation (New York), Swinomish Tribe (Washington), Tonawanda Seneca Tribe (New York), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa (North Dakota), Tuscarora Nation (New York) and the Upper Skagit Tribe (Washington).
One of H.R. 1505’s most vocal opponents is Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). His state is home to several affected tribes, and he has expressed deep concern for the lack of consultation with tribes — and lack of public input altogether.
“H.R. 1505 contains specific language that allows one federal department ‘immediate’ and total control over public lands in Montana,” said Aaron Murphy, communications director of Montanans for Tester. “Jon is concerned by this irresponsible proposal because it undermines… tribal sovereignty with a one-size-fits-all big government strategy, allowing a handful of federal agents to do whatever they want with no public input and no public accountability. Those who support this bill failed to consult with tribes — or any Montanans for that matter. Any decisions that deal with public land should be made with public input.
“Jon also is concerned that the legislation waives at least 36 laws,” he added.
Murphy noted that, as written, the Department of Homeland Security — again, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection — would not have to seek permission to do whatever is necessary to achieve “operational control” on any land administered by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior.
“There is no language that exempts lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” he observed. “The House (committee) even rejected an amendment to specifically exempt tribal land from H.R. 1505.”
Sen. Tester, he said, “believes we can protect our nation without trampling tribal rights.”
Sen. Tester isn’t the only one to express concern. According to testimony from the House hearing on H.R. 1505, the lead lawyer for the Department of the Interior under President Clinton also expressed serious concerns about the bill’s effects on tribal sovereignty.
A fellow Montana legislator, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), is a co-sponsor of the bill and co-chair of the Congressional Northern Border Caucus. He proposed many of the changes that were incorporated into the current, amended version of H.R. 1505, and he said the bill is a good one for Montana and the United States.
“Border security is national security, and in Montana that means safety for our families and communities,” Rep. Rehberg commented. “It’s time to put an end to the dangerous turf war where federal land managers hide behind environmental laws in order to prevent border patrol agents from doing their jobs on federal land.”
He also noted that the legislation is much more targeted than what he called “the sweeping measure” that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate in 2009.
“We built in protections for grazing rights and more narrowly focused the intent of the law on efforts to secure the border,” he explained. “We also added a sunset provision so the law can be reviewed by Congress to make sure it’s working as intended. This was a good bill, and now it’s even better.”
Is there a dangerous “turf war” between federal agencies? The Department of Homeland Security already has a memorandum of understanding with the departments of Interior and Agriculture that allows the departments to work together in a situation that might require DHS to pursue suspects or investigations on public land. And, according to a prominent Washington D.C. lobbyist who represents tribes across the country, there has been “no hue and cry” from the Border Patrol to take additional measures to guarantee access.
Tom Rodgers is president of Alexandria-based Carlyle Consulting, and he is perhaps best known as the whistle-blower in the Jack Abramoff scandal. He also is a member of Montana’s Blackfeet Nation, and he said he questions the need for H.R. 1505 in the first place.
“I’ve seen the GAO report, and I’ve yet to see substantive arguments,” he commented. “I’m not convinced. There’s been silence from the Border Patrol, and I’ve never heard of any tribe denying access to its land. I call this a weapon of mass distraction.”
Rodgers said he also finds it ironic that so many advocates of smaller government are behind this particular bill.
“There are so few resources, and there are so many other needs,” he said. “Without a demonstrable need, why give the Department of Homeland Security more authority? Why are we spending time and resources on this? It doesn’t make sense.”
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is leading opposition to H.R. 1505 on the House Floor today. Members of affected tribes are encouraged to contact their representatives to share their views.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/19/hr-1505-the-latest-tribal-border-war-119255
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)