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

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/

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

Mellower Sadler still has bite in U.S. Senate bid

Austin-American Statesman
Sept. 30, 2012
by Chuck Lindell

It’s been 10 years since Paul Sadler was an intense, industrious and sometimes intimidating presence in the Texas House, and some of his rough edges have worn smooth in the time outside politics.

But a calmer, more contemplative 57-year-old Sadler still has a bite, and the Democrat isn’t shy about lobbing verbal grenades at his better funded, better known opponent in the race for U.S. Senate, Republican Ted Cruz, a candidate he dismisses as a neophyte with a radical agenda.

“I think (Cruz) is an ambitious young man who decided to start at the top instead of work his way up. I think he needs experience, not only life experience but governmental experience,” Sadler said. “He had the tea party angry mob in the Republican primary, but that’s not Texas; that’s not who we are. I hope not. God, I hope not.”

Hampered by anemic fundraising, Sadler’s best opportunity to pummel Cruz — and reintroduce himself to Texas voters — will be Tuesday night’s televised debate, the first of two between the major-party candidates vying to replace U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican who is retiring after 19 years in the upper house.

Sadler said he will strive to portray Cruz, 41, a former top appellate lawyer in the attorney general’s office, as too extreme to appeal to moderate Republicans and independent voters.

“If the public will tune in, they will see for the first time a debate on the issues, because in all the (primary-season debates) with the Republicans, they all stood up and did a ‘me too.’ Whether it was immigration, women’s health, education — they all just said the same thing,” he said.

Sadler has zeroed in on Cruz’s support for a fence along the Mexican border, his opposition to the Affordable Care Act and his call to abolish several federal agencies, including the Education Department, which Sadler said would endanger student loans.

“The border fence is the silliest thing. People on the border will tell you that it’s not a good idea,” Sadler said, adding that any discussion should begin by acknowledging that immigration plays a role in making the border region one of the “great economic engines” of Texas.

“Border cities are some of the safest in our state. I do recognize and understand there is drug cartel activity across the border, that there are issues of undocumented workers coming back and forth, but that is not the central issue of that region,” Sadler said. “Let’s stop this stupid rhetoric. Texans hear the horror stories, and they don’t hear the truth. It’s hurting our state, and if our political leaders don’t recognize it, then the public won’t recognize it.”

Cruz declined to respond to Sadler’s criticisms. But he has said in the past that illegal immigration is a law enforcement and security crisis that requires a comprehensive response, including securing the border and tripling the Border Patrol. He has also said closing the Education Department would return more money to Texas without threatening student loans.

Sadler, who lives in Henderson in East Texas with his wife, Sherri, graduated from Baylor University Law School in 1979. Though he still has several asbestos lawsuits pending on behalf of workers, his legal practice has focused more on regulatory matters over the past five years while he served as executive director of the Wind Coalition, a nonprofit industry group that pushes for wind power in Texas and seven nearby states.

Sadler left the wind power job to run for office, but his Senate bid got off to a rocky start last spring when he was forced into a runoff by Grady Yarbrough, a retired teacher who didn’t campaign much.
The unexpected difficulty forced Sadler to burn through most of the almost $140,000 he had raised by mid-July, leaving him far behind Cruz, who still had almost $1.5 million on hand after spending $7.6 million to defeat Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the GOP runoff.

The funding disparity — worsened because many of Texas’ top Democratic donors have given to more competitive out-of-state races — has left Sadler with campaign credibility issues, particularly in a state with a solid Republican voting majority.

The first question from the media and from voters, Sadler said, is: “Can you win? The first one is disbelief, and I hate that because it’s been the narrative from the beginning, and it’s a self-fulfilling narrative.”

Behind the skepticism, however, Sadler hears a second message. Many voters want to believe in him, he said.

“That conversation generally starts this way: ‘I cannot vote for Cruz because he’s too extreme. But tell me you can win.’ I say I can win if you guys vote for me,” Sadler said.

Sadler served 12 years in the Texas House beginning in 1991. Four years later, he was named chairman of the Public Education Committee, thrusting him into the center of many of the era’s most divisive controversies.

In his first session as chairman, Sadler teamed with Republican Sen. Bill Ratliff to rewrite the education code, deregulating school districts to better emphasize local authority. He later pushed through a plan to raise teacher salaries while cutting property taxes and helped create state-funded teacher health insurance.

Then-House Speaker Pete Laney, a Democrat, came to rely on Sadler to pass “the most important, most demanding, most difficult issue on the Legislature’s agenda,” as Texas Monthly put it while naming Sadler to its list of 10 Best Legislators for a fourth consecutive time in 2001. Sadler usually won or came closer to success than expected, the magazine concluded.

Laney, who called Sadler “a very intense, very focused individual,” said he leaned on him because “he was effective in what he did. He didn’t socialize a lot like some of the members did. Everything he did was business.”

Sadler built a reputation for running over opponents, particularly lobbyists or witnesses testifying against one of his bills, and for brinkmanship — waiting until late in the session to move essential bills as a way of limiting amendments or other changes. But it was a fight outside the Capitol that persuaded Sadler to end his House career.

A 2001 car accident left his 10-year-old son, Sam, with a critical head injury and doubts that the youngest of his five children would live. Sam is now in college, but helping his child through years of physical therapy to learn to walk and talk again made two lasting changes in Sadler.

First, he said, the experience dispelled much of the arrogance he admits to accumulating while he held power and influence. But it also brought an intense focus on what’s important in life.

“When you are stripped bare to the choice of whether your child will live or die, will talk or not, nothing in your life is the same,” he said. “I passed legislation for kids with disabilities, for their inclusion in the classroom, but when it’s your child who cannot lift his chin off his chest, then you realize that maybe you didn’t understand.

“It’s why I’m frustrated with people who are so flippant with our safety-net programs. To hold them in such disdain, as people on the right tend to do, shows a real lack of compassion,” Sadler said. “It’s pretty hard to understand.”

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/mellower-sadler-still-has-bite-in-us-senate-bid/nSP8H/

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

Mesa debate: The GOP candidates' border-security stances

Arizona Daily Star
February 22, 2012
by Norma Coile

Here’s some of what the Republican presidential candidates said about securing Arizona’s border with Mexico when they were asked about the issue at their CNN debate in Mesa:

Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul: “The weak economy ... and the welfare state” are encouraging people to come illegally because they can get health care benefits and U.S. educations. “We reward illegal immigration.” Asked directly by CNN moderator John King, Paul said it’s “probably not” worth it to spend $3 million per mile for secure fencing. He said illegal immigrants should be arrested for trespassing the minute they step on private land in the U.S.

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: “The further we’ve gone with the fence ... the fewer people have broken into California.” He supports a double fence and said he has a plan to waive all federal regulations and studies to meet a Jan. 1, 2014 deadline he’s set for that plan. He said he would be willing to move up to half of 23,000 Department of Homeland Security employees working in Washington, D.C. to the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Gingrich said he supported President Reagan’s immigration reform law in 1986, which included employer sanctions and a guest-worker program. “We got short-changed on every item we were supposed to get,” he said, adding that he doesn’t believe a comprehensive bill can pass now and so we should go “one step at a time.”

Earlier in the debate, Gingrich volunteered that “It’s utterly stupid to say the U.S. can’t control its border. It’s a failure of will, a failure of enforcement. What if the president, instead of suing Arizona, helps Arizona?” he asked, giving his own answer:“It’s a lot less expensive in the future, to hospitals, school systems, to prisons, if you control the border.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: “You see a model here in Arizona,” where there is a state law requiring employers to use E-Verify to be sure their employees are in the country legally. Since that law went into effect, he said, the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona “has dropped 14 percent versus the national average of a 7 percent drop.” Romney said the federal government“should drop these lawsuits against states ... like Arizona that are tring to do ... what Barack Obama won’t do.”

He called for finishing the fence, making sure there are enough Border Patrol agents, requiring E-Verify nationwide and imposing employer sanctions for hiring of illegal immigrants. “You can stop illegal immigration ... It’s time we finally do it,” Romney said.

Earlier in the debate, in talking about his record in Massachussetts, Romney said he “enabled our state police” to enforce immigration laws. (Media including USA Today have reported that Gov. Romney signed a federal memorandum allowing state troopers to arrest suspected illegal immigrants.)

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: He was asked by CNN’s King whether regular citizens who hire illegal labor in their homes as nannies, for instance, should be penalized. “I’m not going to require homeowners to do E-Verify,” he answered. “I think that’s taking it one step too far.”

Santorum called for more detainment and deporting. He wasn't given as much time to answer the question as Gingrich and Romney were.

http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/mesa-debate-the-gop-candidates-border-security-stances/article_5e1cdd10-5dcf-11e1-a234-0019bb2963f4.html

Romney would veto potential Dream Act

The Boston Globe
January 1, 2012
by Matt Viser

LE MARS, Iowa – Mitt Romney, coming to a family diner in this self-proclaimed “Ice Cream Capital of the World,” said this afternoon that if he were elected president he would veto legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for certain illegal residents.

“The answer is yes,” Romney said to a voter who asked whether he would veto the Dream Act if it gets passed by Congress under his watch.

Although the former Massachusetts governor has been critical of the proposed legislation in the past, he hadn’t said so explicitly that he would veto it. The issue is likely to be a theme of the general election, particularly in states with high Hispanic populations such as Nevada, Colorado, and Florida.

The Dream Act, which some Democrats have pushed unsuccessfully in Congress, would create a path to legal residency for youths who arrived before they turned 16; have lived in the United States for five consecutive years; and have no criminal record. In order to become citizens, they would have to graduate from high school or obtain a GED, complete two years in college or the military, and be under 35 years old.

Romney today distinguished between components of the proposal, however, saying that he supports allowing immigrants who serve in the military to become permanent residents.

“I’m delighted with the idea that people who come to this country and wish to serve in the military can be given a path to become permanent residents of this country,” he said. “Those who serve in our military and fulfill those requirements, I respect and acknowledge that path.”

An aide said Romney opposes other portions of the Dream Act that provide a pathway to residency through education.

He also opposes granting in-state tuition, or other benefits, to illegal immigrants.

“If I’m the president of the United States, I want to end illegal immigration so that we can protect legal immigration,” Romney said. “I like legal immigration. And so I will secure the border with a fence, make sure we have enough border patrol agents to secure that fence, and I will also crack on employers that hire people who are here illegally.”

Romney flew back to Iowa today after a brief trip to New Hampshire, preparing for the final sprint before Tuesday’s caucus vote in Iowa. He was joined by his youngest son, Craig, who introduced his father by telling a story of how competitive Romney is in the family’s annual tradition of holding a triathlon.

“My wife had just had a baby,” Craig Romney said. “She just had her second child about a month or two previously and she decided to go for it and compete in the race. All the boys had finished at that point and it was down to my wife and my dad over here.”

“I tripped her, I tripped her,” Mitt Romney joked from the side.

“He gave it a good kick and he beat her in the end,” his son added. “And he did almost die trying, by the way, he passed out in the lawn chair and we didn’t see him the rest of the day.”

Craig Romney sought to make a connection between the dedication of completing the triathlon and the work he would do in the White House.

“I changed the nature of the triathlon after that,” Mitt Romney said. “I didn’t like this idea that these were only swimming, biking and running. We had to add some sports. So now we have log sawing, nail hammering. We added some things I excel at so I don’t come in last every year.”

On the way to the event, Romney said, they pulled the bus over so he could get rocky road ice cream at Blue Bunny ice cream.

When asked what he would be doing for New Year’s Eve, he said he would be spending it with his wife, Ann.

“I looked at the website to see what’s going on in Des Moines over New Year’s Eve and there’s a celebration of the music of the Doors at a place called the, is it the Brickyard?” Romney said. “So we’ll see if we go there or just hang out in the lobby of the hotel. Not sure yet.”

When asked if he was a fan of the Doors, he said, “I enjoy their music.”

As for his New Year’s resolution? “To be more thankful and appreciative of people who I owe appreciation to,” Romney said.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-01/politics/30575923_1_mitt-romney-craig-romney-romney-today

Newt Gingrich signs border fence pledge during Iowa swing

Los Angeles Times
December 1, 2011
by Paul West

Reporting from Des Moines— Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich, whose plan to give permanent residency to illegal immigrants has angered some conservatives, signed a pledge Thursday to build a double fence along the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2013.

The former House speaker is on a two-campaign visit to Iowa, which will open the voting in the 2012 GOP contest next month and where anti-immigrant sentiment is intense.

"We haven't been able to build a fence on the border because we have not been a serious country," said Gingrich, as he prepared to sign the pledge following a morning speech to employees at Nationwide Insurance in Des Moines.

Gingrich, who has jumped to the top of the polls here and nationally, said his decision to sign the pledge was in line with his determination to offer "serious leadership doing serious things" as president.

He becomes the second GOP presidential candidate, after Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, to sign the pledge, which is being promoted by a North Carolina group, Americans for Securing the Border.

"For too long, too many politicians have given only lip service to the war on our border," said Van D. Hipp Jr., a former South Carolina Republican Party chairman and Washington defense consultant, who heads the group. He said he did not have a cost estimate for the fence.

The pledge contains a significant loophole: It leaves it up to the U.S. Border Patrol or Department of Homeland Security to determine locations for the fence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-fence-20111201,0,253023.story

Texas border fence stars in presidential campaign

Fort Worth Star Telegram
October 17, 2011
by Dave Montgomery

PEÑITAS -- For more than a half-century, Leonardo and Anita Ramirez could look out the back of their small frame home at the sloping landscape leading down to the Rio Grande.

That changed about two years ago, when the federal government stretched a massive $6.2 million-a-mile barrier through the rural land where they have made their home since 1950.

Their backyard view now consists of aesthetically challenged square metal poles that reach at least 18 feet high and impair their once-easy access to the river.

The towering barrier that divides the Ramirezes' land near the small community of Peñitas, in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, is part of nearly 650 miles of fencing that Congress authorized in 2006 in response to a public outcry over illegal immigration and potential violence from Mexico.

Of that total, 112 miles are in Texas, stretching from Brownsville through the populous metropolitan region that includes Edinburg, McAllen and Mission.

Construction of the fencing followed contentious public debate that included lawsuits, environmental challenges and homeowner protests. Now, presidential politics is kindling a new showdown over the worthiness of border barriers.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has pledged to push for construction of a fence along the entire length of the border. By contrast, Gov. Rick Perry has described a full-length fence as "idiocy," though he embraces limited fencing in strategic locations.

The issue is part of a larger dispute over illegal immigration that could resurface in tonight's Republican debate in Las Vegas. Perry has been put on the defensive by opponents who charge that he is soft on illegal immigration because of his support of a 2007 Texas law that permitted in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.

He has responded to the criticism by pointing to the state's five-year, $400 million-plus law enforcement effort on the border, portraying himself as the toughest candidate in the race when it comes to border security.

GOP rivals

Bachmann is the first candidate to sign a pledge circulated by a newly formed group calling for completion of a double fence along the full length of the border before the end of 2013. The group, Americans for Securing the Border, is led by Van D. Hipp Jr., a former Republican Party chairman in South Carolina who served as deputy assistant Army secretary under President George H.W. Bush.

Hipp said his group has been up and running for only about three weeks but is generating strong support from voters demanding tough measures to support the border.

"It's one of the most important national security issues of our time," Hipp said. His organization is calling on all candidates for president as well as the House and Senate to sign the pledge.

Ryan Williams, press secretary for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said Monday that the campaign has not seen the pledge but "would certainly be open to reviewing it." He said Romney, who is the front-runner for the Republican nomination, "supports a border fence" to crack down on illegal immigration.

Allison Castle, communications director in the Texas governor's office, said Perry "supports fencing in strategic areas such as those with high population density, but for the hundreds of miles of remote land in between, the most effective border security strategy is to increase the patrol presence on the ground, in the air, and in the water with personnel and advanced technology."

Perry has repeatedly opposed the concept of a full-length barrier. During a trade visit to Mexico City in 2007, according to The Associated Press, he said a border-length wall is "idiocy" and "absolutely would not work."

Leaky fencing

The 649 miles of fencing in four U.S. border states was authorized by the Secure Fence Act, which then-President George W. Bush signed into law in October 2006. The barriers, according to the Border Patrol, include 350 miles of fencing to stop pedestrians, constructed at a cost of $6.5 million per mile, and 299 miles of fencing to repel vehicles, which cost $1.8 million per mile.

The designs include wire mesh, chain link, metal posts and upright metal landing mats. The Hidalgo County segment that bisects Leonardo and Anita Ramirez's property includes metal poles atop concrete as part of a Rio Grande levee.

"We tried to stop it from being built," said Feliberto Ramirez of Houston, the Ramirez's 54-year-old son. "It's not doing the job."

Critics say the barriers constitute an elongated eyesore, particularly in populous areas, and come nowhere close to plugging the border.

Access roads that allow passage for U.S. residents are easily exploited by illegal intruders, many residents say. And then there's the now-timeworn joke that the wall has caused a boom in the Mexican ladder industry.

Cuban "Rusty" Monsees, who lives near Brownsville, says illegal crossers can "shinny up" the 18-foot poles on his property and often come up to his house at night. "They ask for food, they ask for use of the cellphone, they ask for a ride into town," he said.

Deterrent factor

But Border Patrol officials say the fence serves as a deterrent and has contributed substantially to a downturn in illegal crossings. As a result of a combination of measures, including fencing and an expanded Border Patrol presence, apprehensions in 2010 numbered 447,000, compared to 540,000 in 2009 and 1.6 million in 2000, said Border Patrol spokesman Bill Brooks.

He said the fence provides an impediment to illegal entries, giving Border Patrol officers more time to catch crossers. Agents also aggressively patrol along the fence looking for crossers.

"The fence does exactly what it was intended to do," Brooks said.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/17/3451733/border-fence-returns-to-political.html

Cain Proposes Electrified Border Fence

New York Times
October 15, 2011
by Edward Wyatt

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Saturday that part of his immigration policy would be to build an electrified fence on the country’s border with Mexico that could kill people trying to enter the country illegally.

The remarks, which came at two campaign rallies in Tennessee as part of a barnstorming bus tour across the state, drew loud cheers from crowds of several hundred people at each rally. At the second stop, in Harriman, Tenn., Mr. Cain added that he also would consider using military troops “with real guns and real bullets” on the border to stop illegal immigration.

The remarks were among the most pointed yet by Mr. Cain about illegal immigration, and they come as he is enjoying a surge in national political polls on the back of his victory in a recent Florida straw poll. They also follow on remarks made by Representative Michele Bachmann on Saturday during a speech on illegal immigration in Iowa, in which she also advocated a border fence.

It is not the first time that Mr. Cain has floated the idea of an electrified fence. He has told the story many times of a caller to his former radio show who chastised him for talking about building a border fence, saying that such an idea was impractical. Mr. Cain often says he told the caller that he had recently returned from China, and if the Chinese could build the Great Wall then America could build a border fence.

Last summer, after President Obama remarked that some Republicans seemed to want a moat filled with alligators in addition to a fence, Mr. Cain responded by saying that he would indeed add an alligator-filled moat to his proposed fence, which would be topped with electrified barbed wire.

In his remarks on Saturday, Mr. Cain appeared to go a step further. Speaking to a rally sponsored by the Roane County Tea Party, Mr. Cain said that part of his plan would be to “secure the border for real” with a fence.

“It’s going to be 20 feet high. It’s going to have barbed wire on the top. It’s going to be electrified. And there’s going to be a sign on the other side saying, ‘It will kill you — Warning.’” At an earlier rally, on the campus of Tennessee Tech University in Cookeville, Tenn., he added that the sign would be written “in English and in Spanish.”

“This nation has always been a nation with wide open doors,” Mr. Cain said at the second rally. “We want to make it easy for people to come through the front door. And we’re going to shut off the back door so you don’t have to sneak into America.”

Saying that some critics have told him that his remarks about building a fence are insensitive, Mr. Cain said that the fault lies with the actions of some illegal immigrants. “It’s insensitive for them to be killing our citizens, killing our border agents,” he said. “That’s what’s insensitive. And that mess has to stop.”

In addition using a fence and unspecified “technology” to cut down on illegal immigration, Mr. Cain added: “If we have to put troops with real guns and real bullets for part of it, we can do that too.”

Brent Wilkes, Vice Chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, said Mr. Cain’s remarks were reflective of increasingly harsh prescriptions for dealing with illegal immigration being offered by Republican presidential candidates.

“These folks who come across the border are at most committing a misdemeanor,” Mr. Wilkes said. “To suggest that they would be electrocuted or shot would be to treat them harsher than we treat murderers or rapists. It’s a real distortion of the rule of law.”

Mr. Wilkes said Mr. Cain is mistaken when he implies that it would be easy for would-be Mexican immigrants to enter the country legally. In fact, he said, there are few if any visas available for Mexican nationals who do not have a firm job offer in this country or who do not already have relatives living here legally.

After long being considered an also-ran in the Republican field, Mr. Cain has surged into the spotlight following his victory in the Florida straw poll and because of interest in his unusual 9-9-9 tax plan, which would set personal and business income tax rates at 9 percent each and institute a 9 percent national sales tax, eliminating all other federal taxes.

The Tennessee tour, which began Friday near Memphis, Mr. Cain’s birthplace, has drawn crowds of several hundred supporters and curious onlookers at each of eight stops

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/cain-proposes-electrified-border-fence/

GOP Debate Touches On Borderland Immigration

KFOX 14
September 8, 2011


El Paso, Texas -- The republican front runners all had a battle plan for immigration reform, which became a topic in the GOP debate at the Ronald Regan Presidential Library in California on Wednesday evening.

Governor Rick Perry called for more border agents and attacked President Obama for not doing enough with immigration reform.

"For the President of the United States to go to El Paso Texas and say the border is safer than its ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people," said Governor Perry. "It is not safe on that border."

Mitt Romney talked about continuing the fence along the entire U.S. Mexican border, adding more border agents, and "stopping the magnet."

"I learned this while I was with Border Patrol agents in San Diego," said Romney. "'They said, 'Look, they could always get a ladder to go over the fence and people will always run to the country. The reason they come in such great numbers is because we've left the magnet on.' And I asked them, 'What do you mean the magnet?' And they said, 'When employers are willing to hire people who are here illegally -- that's a magnet because it draws them in.'"

Michelle Bachman called for more fencing and worried about the U.S. surrendering freedoms if the problem goes undetected for too long.

"In Mexico right now we are dealing with narco-terrorists," said Bachman. "This is a very serious problem. To not build a border or a fence on every part of that border would be an effect to yield United States sovereignty. Not only to our nation anymore but to yield it to another nation. That we cannot do."

Hermain Cain, a former CEO of Godfather's Pizza who has also joined the GOP race, also agrees with Bachman, Romney, and Perry that securing the border should come first.

Newt Gingrich avoided the border issue and jumped to the rights of illegal immigrants instead, citing the need for a legal guest-worker program.

Jon Huntsman referenced his Chinese and Indian daughters who are immigrants to the country and said he sees the issue through their eyes.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum pointed out his father is an Italian immigrant and suggested that immigrants have contributed to the building of America.

Ron Paul suggested the government start looking at ways to use border fences to keep people in, instead of keeping people out.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/29115292/detail.html

Bachmann's swing through SC brings swipe at billionaire Buffett, calls for Mexico border wall

Associated Press
August 16, 2011
by Jim Davenport



GREENVILLE, S.C. — Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann on Tuesday called for a wall on the border with Mexico and suggested that billionaire Warren Buffett should write a big check to the government if he's eager for higher taxes on the wealthy.

The Minnesota Republican began a three-day swing through this early GOP primary state fresh off winning a narrow straw poll victory last week in Iowa over Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Bachmann said lax enforcement of immigration laws was a threat to the nation's security. She agreed with a town hall questioner at a Greenville stop that U.S. troops should be redeployed from South Korea to south Texas.

"How do you solve it? You build a barrier, a fence, a wall — whatever you want to call it. You build it," Bachmann said. "As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border."

The "problem is not our laws on immigration," Bachmann said. "The problem has been in our unwillingness to enforce the laws that are on the books." South Carolina legislators this year passed one of the nation's toughest illegal immigration laws. It goes into effect in December.

Bachmann's first stop was at a popular burger joint in nearby Spartanburg where she was surrounded by a crowd of about 300 people baking in a black top parking lot.

Bachmann criticized President Barack Obama's call for the wealthy to pay higher taxes and Buffett's support of the idea.

"We do believe, unlike Warren Buffett, that taxes are high enough already," she said. "I have a suggestion: Mr. Buffett, write a big check today."

In a state where candidates are rarely heckled, Bachmann got an earful. A man in a black suit called out repeatedly: "Are you anti-gay marriage." During an interview Sunday, Bachmann was asked about her faith, same-sex marriage and whether she would appoint someone who was openly gay.

Bachmann noted the heckler and the interview questions. "I am not ashamed to say that I believe in God. We were founded on religious liberty and we are going to stand on religious liberty," Bachmann said. "And we believe in marriage between one man and one woman."

Bachmann was sharply critical of Obama's fiscal policies and job policies in a state with 10.5 percent unemployment — the highest among the nation's early primary states.

She called Obama "an anti-job president."

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/d6f6cc77419143e38d0b6dedab5e1a8a/US--Bachmann-2012/

Fundraising website for border fence starts quest

Arizona Daily Star
July 20, 2011
by Brady McCombs

The website where people can donate to build a state-supported border fence is up - but it'll likely take millions of dollars for the ballyhooed plan to lead to actual construction.

Modern, sturdy border fences are expensive - it cost between $2.6 million to $7.4 million per mile to build hundreds of miles of new fencing in Arizona over the last five years. The most recent project, replacing 2.8 miles of old fence in Nogales, cost $4.14 million per mile.

The Arizona lawmaker who sponsored the fence bill is aware of the high costs, but Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, says that standing by and accepting the federal government's refusal to build more fences is not an option.

"Somebody has to put the first foot on the ladder and start climbing," said Smith. "Border security is the name of the game. That's why we are doing this."

Under the legislation passed in April, the governor is allowed to enter an "interstate compact" to build and maintain an international border fence using private or public donations.

Critics call Smith's plan a misguided stunt that will only inflict more damage on the border environment that has already been harmed by the unprecedented buildup of barriers, roads and agents in the last decade.

"Their intent is to score some cheap political points by acting tough on immigration," said Dan Millis, program coordinator for the Sierra Club Borderlands Campaign. "These lawmakers are misled if they think this a project they are going to be able to complete."

More than four-fifths of Arizona's 378 miles of Mexican border have some type of border barrier already. There are 123 miles of pedestrian fences, 12- to 25-foot-high barriers designed to stop, or at least slow down, people. There are another 183 miles of vehicle barriers, waist- to chest-high barricades designed to stop cars.

The rest of the Arizona-Mexico border doesn't have barriers due to natural barriers such as mountains and other difficult terrain, said Customs and Border Protection spokesman Victor Brabble.

The agency declined to comment on the state project because it is a state legislative issue, Brabble said.

The federal government spent $2.4 billion to build 264 miles of pedestrian fencing and 226 miles of vehicle barriers from 2004-2009, the Government Accountability Office reported in 2009. Today, there are a total of 350 miles of pedestrian fences and 299 miles of vehicle barriers along the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

Customs and Border Protection officials acknowledge that fences are not a panacea, but say they help deter, slow and funnel traffic. The impact of barriers on illegal immigration and drug smuggling is unknown because it has not been measured, according to a September 2009 GAO report.

Saying the fence is "basically complete," as President Obama did during a May 10 speech in El Paso, is disingenuous because the vehicle barriers are not fences, Smith said.

"It might stop a car, but it certainly isn't going to stop anyone on foot," Smith said. "If we really had a secure border and fencing that is adequate, explain to me how we have 12 million illegal aliens in this country?"

The type of fence built will be contingent on how much money is raised and upon the decision of the committee that will be formed, Smith said. But his wish would be to build an 18-foot high steel beam fence such as a the one up along 6.24 miles of border west of the San Pedro River in Cochise County.

"That's exactly what I think the state needs," Smith said.

That fence was built by Kiewit Western Company under a $16.6 million contract in 2008 - an average of $2.6 million per mile, information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shows.

But this fence should cost less because under the legislation approved in April, the state would use inmate labor at 50 cents an hour, Smith said. He also expects very competitive bids from construction companies.

Ideally, they'll be able to build fence on the federal government's 60-foot "Roosevelt easement" right next to the border, Smith said. But he's not expecting to get permission and said he's already identified several tracts of state or privately owned land that are highly trafficked areas where a fence would be helpful.

If they are able to raise enough money to build fences, it will be bad news for border wildlife and habitat, Millis said.

While it could take years to fully gauge the environmental toll of border fences, there are already examples of flooding caused by the barriers and wildlife being blocked by the barriers.

A recent study in the Diversity and Distributions journal of amphibian, reptile and some mammal species that live along the border found that additional barriers would further increase the number of threatened species whose survival would be at risk, Millis said.

"That's why we are fighting so hard against additional barriers," Millis said. "We're already seeing problems."

Smith said they won't build fences through riverbeds, for instance, and that there will always be open sections for animals to migrate.

The website - www.buildtheborderfence.com - will be simple, offering opportunities to donate online or by mail with a simple click of a button. It will also feature a letter from Smith about why the fence is needed.

"No matter if you live in Arizona or Maryland, you will be able to clearly understand the problem we are facing and why we need to do something about it," Smith said.

He hopes to get donations from all over the country from people who recognize illegal immigrants and drug smugglers who cross through Arizona end up throughout the nation. Donors will be able to print out a certificate that shows they donated to the border fence, he said.

If they can't raise the millions needed to build a fence, Smith said the project may at least pressure the federal government into continuing to build more fences.

This isn't the first time the state has set up a special fund for a border-related cause. In 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer set up a defense fund to accept private donations to pay the legal costs in fighting challenges to SB 1070. To date, more than 45,000 people had given almost $3.8 million to the fund, said spokesman Matthew Benson.

As soon as they have enough money in the fence fund, construction can begin, Smith said.

"I have teams that are ready now," he said. "It's all contingent on the amount of money raised."

http://azstarnet.com/article_5b7aea2d-8f67-5ff0-838f-9d0d0004ad36.html

Ariz. seeks online donations to build border fence

Associated Press
May 8, 2011

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona lawmakers want more fence along the border with Mexico — whether the federal government thinks it's necessary or not.

They've got a plan that could get a project started using online donations and prison labor. If they get enough money, all they would have to do is get cooperation from landowners and construction could begin as soon as this year.

Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a bill that sets the state on a course that begins with launching a website to raise money for the work, said state Sen. Steve Smith, the bill's sponsor.

"We're going to build this site as fast as we can, and promote it, and market the heck out of it," said Smith, a first-term Republican senator from Maricopa.

Arizona — strapped for cash and mired in a budget crisis — is already using public donations to pay for its legal defense of the SB1070 illegal immigration law.

Part of the marketing pitch for donations could include providing certificates declaring that individual contributors "helped build the Arizona wall," Smith said. "I think it's going to be a really, really neat thing."

Construction would start "after we've raised a significant amount of money first" but possibly as soon as later this year, Smith said.

"If the website is up and there is an overwhelming response to what we've done and millions of dollars in this fund, I would see no reason why engineering or initial construction or finalized plans can't be accomplished," he said.

The nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border already has about 650 miles of fence of one type or another, nearly half of it in Arizona. The state's 376-mile border is the busiest gateway for both illegal immigrants and marijuana smuggling.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Matthew Chandler said federal officials declined to comment on the Arizona legislation.

State Corrections Director Charles Ryan said getting inmate labor to help construct border fencing wouldn't be a problem.

Minimum-security prisoners already have been used to clear brush in immigrants' hiding spots near the border and clean up trash and other material dumped by border-crossers, he said.

Work crews of Arizona inmates also have been used to refurbish public buildings, build sidewalks and construct park facilities.

At 50 cents an hour, "we are a relatively inexpensive labor force," Ryan said. "If we have the funding to do it, we're capable of doing it."

Arizona's existing border security fund is being used to pay for legal costs of defending SB1070 in court, though Brewer's 2010 executive order creating the fund allows its money to be used for any "border security purpose." A federal judge has blocked implementation of key parts of SB1070, but Brewer has said she'll take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

The fund through Wednesday has received nearly 44,000 donations totaling more than $3.7 million, collected online and through mailed donations since May 2010. Roughly half of the money has been spent, and Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said the balance is also needed for SB1070-related legal expenses.

Smith and other supporters of the border-fence legislation haven't produced any cost estimates for the state project, saying only that the state should be able to do it far more inexpensively than the federal government.

That still could be put the state's costs in the tens of millions of dollars — or more.

A 2009 report by Congress' Government Accountability Office said costs of federal fencing work to keep out people on foot ranged from $400,000 to $15.1 million per mile, while costs for vehicle barriers ranged from $200,000 to $1.8 million. Costs varied by such things as types of fencing geography, land costs and labor expenses, the report said.

Brewer signed the Arizona fence bill on April 28, and it will take effect with most other new state laws on July 20.

It took the bill about 2½ months to land on her desk, easily winning approval on party-line votes during a legislative session dominated by budget-balancing work

During committee hearings and floor debates, Republicans said the state has a legal and moral obligation to take action because the federal government hasn't done enough to secure the border.

"My constituents want this thing fixed and fixed once and for all, and we're going to do it," Republican Sen. Al Melvin of Tucson said during a February committee hearing. "People should not be dying in the desert."

Democrats questioned the project's feasibility and called it a feel-good distraction from pressing for more comprehensive action on border and immigration issues.

"If we are here to pass symbolic legislation and not really address border security, SB1406 does the job. But people don't benefit from symbolic legislation," Democratic Rep. Catherine Miranda of Phoenix said April 18 House vote.

Under the bill, the border fencing work could be done either in conjunction with other border states or by Arizona alone.

Smith said the committee will consider where to build the fence and what kind of fence is needed.

But the eventual choice could be like double- and triple-fence barriers already installed along the border in Yuma County in southwestern Arizona because they appear to block crossings, he said.

Any type of fence would require approval of landowners, but Smith said he expects that to be forthcoming from the state and private land owners, including ranchers who have complained of break-ins and other trouble associated with smugglers and illegal crossings.

Individual ranchers likely will cooperate with the state fencing project, just as they have done with federal officials on placing helipads, watering stations and communications equipment to help officers patrolling the border, an Arizona Cattle Growers Association official said.

However, the 1,100-member association didn't take a position on the fence bill, said Executive Director Patrick Bray.

"We certainly appreciate the efforts put into this legislation, however the funding is a huge question. It's an empty solution because we don't know where the money is going to come from."

Bray added: "We want to stay focused on the overall border security issue. At this point we are looking for a more comprehensive security approach rather than this pieces that might come to fruition."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAETb5TcPFGARqPEZjmQdOBUHkbA?docId=1d1d25a9338f416bb4b2aee94d0a35b5

Read County Judge Escobar's testimony at Senate committee hearing on border security

El Paso Times
April 7, 2011

Below is a prepared statement of County Judge Veronica Escobar's testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
I have the honor of being the County Judge for El Paso, Texas, the greatest community in the U.S. In Texas, the County Judge is the Chief Executive of the County. In this administrative capacity, I preside over a five-member commissioners court, which has budgetary and administrative authority over county government operations. The County Judge is elected county-wide. That means, as of the 2010 Census, I represent 800,000 people in the world's largest bi-national metropolitan community.

El Paso also happens to be the safest city of our size in America, and we've consistently been ranked among the top three safest communities for well over a decade. Not only do we have some of the lowest crime rates in the nation, but a recent poll of our citizens shows that we know we are safe and we feel safe.

I appreciate the opportunity to share the border experience with all of you. It's sometimes frustrating when policies created and laws passed in D.C. do not address the realities that border residents live.

Residents who live on the U.S.-Mexico Border have seen their communities used as a convenient backdrop to heated debates and political posturing about immigration and drug policies. Incredibly, it's been said by some elected officials-two from our own state-that there are bombs going off in the streets of El Paso. That is absolutely untrue. As a border community, we have challenges, no doubt, but exploding bombs are not among them.
What happens when the rhetoric escalates and the facts get lost? It hurts my local economy; it hurts our ability to recruit talent; it negatively affects our convention business; and it doesn't solve the real problems.

We are all concerned about and devastated by the tragedies occurring every day on the other side of our river - the drug war raging on the streets of Ciudad Juárez. I am glad for the assistance being given Mexico, and I hope there is more to come, including discussions about our own contributions to the drug war that is devastating Juárez and El Paso families. In the mean time illegal drugs continue to flow north to feed Americans' insatiable appetite for them; U.S. guns used in that bloodshed continue to move south; and El Paso, like other border cities, is a corridor caught in the middle of that north/south activity as well as the rhetoric that emanates from our state's and nation's capitols.

My local law enforcement agents are dealing with transnational gang activity; my jail houses them; our prosecutors are pursuing charges against them in court; and my local property tax base is shouldering much of that burden.

The federal government has been aware of the costs associated with the challenges we face on the border and the burden carried by local property taxpayers; your financial assistance is very much appreciated, especially through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) funds. However, according to the El Paso County Sheriff's Office, HIDTA funds have remained relatively stable since the program's inception over 10 years ago. Meanwhile, salaries, benefits and equipment costs have all increased over time; we either have to scale back operations or fund increases on the backs of local property taxpayers. SCAAP funds are also very much appreciated but only cover a small portion (10-15%) of the costs of housing these offenders. And, unfortunately, in the 2012 budget, SCAAP funds are being reduced by 60%, which would mean yet another increased burden on my residents.

Federal grants offer a supplement that we appreciate, but they can be inflexible. For example, the 2010 Operation Stonegarden grant did not allow us to purchase vehicles, which we badly needed. That significantly diminishes our capacity to effectively patrol the County of El Paso, which consists of over 1,060 square miles, 47 miles of which are adjacent to our international border.

We need help with investments that supplement our ability to recruit and hire more officers. The COPS grants have poured money into Texas but the El Paso County Sheriff's Office has been passed over for two years. The El Paso Police Department likewise has been ignored. Meanwhile cities like San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, and Austin have received funding for as many as 50 new officers. These are not border cities. Let me repeat: These are not border cities. My Sheriff's office needs "boots on the ground." While receiving funding for overtime is helpful, our officers are getting burned out.

We are concerned that with the talk of slashing budgets and cutting support to our communities, we will erode the gains we have made in getting the federal government to assist us as we assist you.

When the war between cartels began to reach a critical level in Ciudad Juárez, we saw a pattern emerge that we never predicted and hasn't stopped. Our county hospital district, which houses the only Level 1 trauma center in our region-the next closest center is 275 miles away-began seeing victims of the violence who were rushed through our ports of entry and into our ER. Since 2008, we've spent $4.9 million in trauma care specifically for these victims; to date, we've been compensated for only $1.2 million, leaving local property taxpayers to pick up $3.7 million in uncompensated costs. We've repeatedly requested funding from the Merida initiative to help off-set the costs borne by local property taxpayers because we just don't see that financial burden diminishing - unless the U.S. changes its drug policies or the cartels suddenly declare a cease fire.

Where has some of the federal funding gone, if not to my trauma facility or increasing my law enforcement capacity? It's gone to a wall. While federal law enforcement has gone on the record to praise the border wall, it is to me and others an example of considerable federal dollars being spent on a rusting monument that makes my community look like a junk-yard.

The vast majority of border crossers are not criminals, but economic migrants; and as you know, a significant amount of illegal drugs are funneled through our ports of entry.

A true fix to undocumented immigration could come from comprehensive immigration reform that would create a path for the undocumented to regularize their status, institute migrant worker visas, and, in general, offer a realistic, common-sense approach to a complicated challenge. And comprehensive immigration reform will finally take away the platform used by state politicians who want local police and sheriff's departments to enforce federal immigration laws. For the record, the El Paso County Sheriff, the El Paso Police Chief, the El Paso Mayor, Congressman Reyes and I all oppose having local law enforcement officers enforce federal immigration laws.

Community policing, the strategy utilized so effectively by local law enforcement in El Paso, involves building trust and relationships between law enforcement and citizens that helps solve crimes and keep neighborhoods crime-free. If my sheriff's deputies are required by the Texas legislature to enforce federal immigration laws, and if they become de-facto immigration officers, that trust disappears, families become afraid to report crime, and we become a less safe community.

Another facet of an overall fix should focus on our border ports. Our ports of entry should be as modern as our cell phones are. Unfortunately, they are not. They lack significant investment in staff and infrastructure, and what should be a point of opportunity becomes simply a point of obstruction. Every year, $30 billion of commerce comes across El Paso's ports, but a minimum of at least an hour wait for vehicles and up to 2 - 3 hour wait times for pedestrians during peak periods, creates a disincentive. Consider what that wait feels like, especially for pedestrians, in the sweltering summer southwest sun.

To help be a part of the solution, El Paso County has partnered with our Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to access FHWA funds for a Southwest Border Trade Demonstration Project (SBTDP) that will use the latest technology to track trucks coming across our ports of entry. It's a solution that, if successful, will help ease the congestion and help create smarter, more secure and efficient ports of entry that keep people and goods moving. We need more solutions like this for our ports of entry so that they are not complete bottlenecks where cars and trucks idle for hours, polluting our air and harming our economy.

I live in a thriving, safe and wonderful border community. I am fiercely loyal to and very proud of El Paso. While some politicians like to use caricatures of the border for purposes of political rhetoric-rhetoric that portrays our communities as dangerous, volatile, and unsafe-the reality for us couldn't be more different. Don't get me wrong. We have challenges, but those challenges can be addressed much more effectively by more responsible burden-sharing by the Federal government, whose mission it is to secure our borders and, by extension, our public safety, our commerce, and our immigrant population. We are indeed on the front-lines and a safe border means a safe nation. But vilifying immigrants, building expensive, ugly walls, and encouraging hysteria and xenophobia only hurts our border communities, our commerce, and the economy of the nation.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17793766

Arizona Seeking Pacts With Other States to Defy Federal Government

Arizona Republic
March 9, 2011
by Gina Rough

Arizona lawmakers are working to create alliances with other states on controversial issues such as health care, immigration and firearms regulation in a growing effort to challenge the authority of the federal government.

The push to form interstate compacts, which have the power to supersede existing federal law if approved by Congress, is part of a broader effort at the Arizona Capitol to promote states' rights.

Lawmakers have introduced bills that seek to limit congressional spending and federal authority on issues from elections to environmental inspections, and Gov. Jan Brewer lists federalism as one of her top priority initiatives this term.


So far this session, Republican legislators have introduced more than a dozen bills that propose to create compacts, about three times as many as lawmakers introduced in each of the past two or three years. Among them are measures to allow participating states to build a border fence, regulate endangered species without federal interference and set up their own health-care programs.

Most of the bills are working their way through the legislative process.

Even if the House and Senate pass the measures and the governor signs them, Congress would still have to approve them - and other states would have to pass similar legislation.

Critics question the point of the bills and the motivation of the lawmakers promoting them.

"Right now, Arizona is the epicenter for a lot of - and I am trying to be neutral here -innovative strategies for voicing displeasure with federal law," said Greg Magarian, a constitutional-law expert at Washington University in St. Louis. "I have to believe the primary motivation here is political. You pass this and then essentially dare Congress to invalidate it."

Magarian said that it is unlikely that Congress would be willing to sign off on compacts that would essentially give the states a broad range of powers.

"You can't just snap your fingers and make federal law go away," he said.

How it works
The power to form interstate compacts, which are essentially contractual agreements or treaties between participating states, comes from Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

The "Compact Clause" essentially prohibits states from banding together and issuing their own currency, keeping troops and engaging in certain other activities without the consent of Congress. But, in recent decades, states have used the clause to create agreements to take control of a host of issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as water regulation, waste disposal or power use.

Nick Dranias, director for the center of constitutional government at the Goldwater Institute, said there are about 200 interstate compacts throughout the country, with the average state participating in about 25 agreements. Arizona, for example, is part of the Colorado River Compact, a 1922 agreement among seven Western states that regulates use of the river's water.

The new push to use compacts, however, is as a means to directly challenge the authority of the federal government. Proponents of states' rights believe the federal government has, in recent years, overstepped its boundaries by suing Arizona over its immigration law and decreeing that all individuals must carry health insurance.

They typically turn to the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as their legal basis for challenging the federal government. It states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Compacts are a way of returning control over those issues not specifically delegated to the federal government back to the states, said Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, chairwoman of the Senate's Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty Committee.
Allen, the primary sponsor or co-sponsor on several of the compact efforts, said she introduced the bills because "the proper balance" needs to be restored between the states and the federal government.

"The states aren't able to do anything anymore," she said. "We aren't able to do the things we need to do for our citizens."

Arizona's efforts
Two of the measures introduced in this year's session are slated to have hearings in committee today.

The House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee is expected to discuss Senate Bill 1406, which authorizes the governor to enter an interstate compact to build and maintain a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

And the House Health and Human Affairs Committee is expected to hear SB 1592, the health-care compact bill. It proposes an interstate alliance in which states would be responsible for managing and regulating health care within their own borders.

The Senate has passed other bills, including measures to regulate the Mexican gray wolf, but the House still needs to hold committee hearings.

Allen and other lawmakers said they have been in contact with or are working with other states to try to drum up interest in the agreements.

But some measures are having trouble gaining traction in other legislatures.

The compact that has the most momentum is the one that seeks to challenge the new federal health-care law, Dranias and others say.

Seven states, including Arizona, have introduced legislation to regulate their own health care.

The compact would give member states authority to set up health plans and requirements as they sees fit. If participating states received congressional approval for the compact, constitutional experts believe it would supersede requirements in the recently passed federal health-care bill, including a mandate that every individual have health insurance.

Dranias said he believes the compacts could be a powerful mechanism for returning some powers to the states. "This allows states to combine forces to reduce the size and scope and intrusiveness of the federal government."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/03/09/20110309arizona-lawmakers-defy-federal-government.html

Finagling Access to Friendship Park

Voice of San Diego
February 27, 2011
by Adrian Florido

For 38 years, Friendship Park was a symbol of amity between Mexico and the United States, despite the fence that separated the two countries and suggested otherwise.

But in 2009, the park that straddled San Diego and Tijuana — where families and friends separated by the fence came to chat, kiss, or graze cheeks — was closed, the casualty of a second fence the U.S. government built to provide an added layer of border security.

Since then, advocates have been pushing to regain access, with only limited success.

But in the last two weeks, they have won their largest concessions yet from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which this summer will begin replacing the primary border fence, now rusted and deteriorating, with a brand new, taller one. The agency has agreed to revise its original designs for the project and allow visitors closer access to the fence over a wider area than originally planned.

Friendship Park, while hardly a park anymore, will be a little friendlier.

"It's impossible for this park, when it's finished, to be beautiful. It won't be," said Jim Brown, an architect who designed an alternative proposal to the Border Patrol's, and who, along with a group of advocates, presented it to agency officials. "But it's going to be a super important symbol amid all this militarization of the border."

The Border Patrol's proposal for access to Friendship Park called for not much more than the current setup. Since last year, the agency has allowed limited access to the border fence on Saturdays and Sundays, letting visitors go through a gate in the new outer fence and enter a corral-like area that gets them within a few feet of the primary fence to talk to people on the other side. But it does not allow them to be close enough to touch or kiss.

The agency has agreed to some of Brown's design proposals, which would allow visitors to walk right up to the fence across about a 100-foot area, depending on whether Border Patrol officials are concerned about a security threat.

To social activists, the reinforced border fence is a symbol of division, enmity, and loved ones torn apart by immigration status. For the Border Patrol and enforcement advocates, it represents security and the containment of illegal crossers and illicit contraband.

Those two perspectives are hard to reconcile, especially amid the constant politicking that surrounds border issues. And if anything, the tug and pull over access to Friendship Park has reaffirmed that notion.

The negotiations have been a give and take. More access in one place has meant more security in another.

The government's original plan for the new fence, for example, was to build it of thick metal pylons with gaps between them, enough space to stick a hand or an arm through. Visitors on the American side would have to stay behind a shoulder high fence a few feet away, so as to prevent them from passing contraband.

But that dashed advocates' hope that families and friends could come together to talk up close, to touch, as they'd always done before.

"We wanted people to be able to have more of a private conversation than the public one they would have if they had to talk across a wide gap," Brown said.

The Border Patrol agreed to allow it. But in exchange, it will build a different kind of fence — a tight mesh one with holes so small that items won't fit through. The agency also plans to install a canopy overhead that will prevent things from being tossed over.

"Our priorities are a little bit different," said Kelly Good, the Border Patrol agent who has negotiated the design with advocates. "Our first priority is security of that area, our second priority is the safety of our agents, our third priority is to make this a place where people want to go and visit. Our last priority is their first priority."

The government's plan would also only have allowed visitors to approach a section of the border fence roughly 50 feet wide. They would have been contained to that area by a fenced-in corral similar to the one that's there now.

Advocates wanted to make a wider stretch accessible, so families could spread out. So the agency agreed to do away with the corral.

But it still wanted the ability to restrict access, or grant it, depending on the so-called security threat level on any given day.

On days when threat levels are perceived to be low, visitors might be allowed to spread out across a 100-foot section of the fence. On riskier days, when agents want to keep a close eye on people, they might only allow access to 40 feet. Brown designed an adjustable barrier system similar to the knee-high ropes that keep visitors from getting too close to paintings at museums. Agents will be able to move the ropes depending on how wide a section of the fence they want to make available.

But some things could not be negotiated, like access to the obelisk monument that First Lady Pat Nixon dedicated as a symbol of friendship between the two countries in 1971, as a reassurance that despite the fence, good will remained. The monument currently straddles both sides of the fence, but the Border Patrol's redesign will leave it on the Mexican side.

That's because the new fence will not be built directly on the international line. When it replaces the existing one, it will move a few feet north. Visitors standing at the fence on the Mexican side will technically be on United States soil.

The Border Patrol wants to be able to perform maintenance on both sides of the fence. Currently, it can only maintain the American side, because to access the other, agents would have to step on Mexican soil. Moving the fence a few feet to the north will allow them to go through a gate and make needed repairs to the other side without technically entering Mexico.

"We're the only ones that will maintain it," Good said, because it is not Mexico's fence.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/survival/article_e947d334-42bb-11e0-b13b-001cc4c03286.html

Arizona sues government on Mexico border security

Reuters
February 11, 2011
by Tim Gaynor

(Reuters) - Arizona on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that Washington has failed to secure the state's porous border with Mexico.

Gov. Jan Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne, both Republicans, told a news conference that they filed a counter suit against the government in federal court in Phoenix.

The suit is in response to a government lawsuit last year blocking key parts of the state's tough law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

"Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens ... of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer told reporters at a news conference in central Phoenix, as several boisterous protesters attempted to shout her down.

"We did not want this fight. We did not start this fight. But, now that we are in it, Arizona will not rest until our border is secured and federal immigration laws are enforced," she added.

The desert state straddles a furiously trafficked corridor for human and drug smugglers from Mexico, and is the principal gateway for illegal immigrants entering the United States.

In Washington, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security dismissed the suit as a "meritless court claim" that "does nothing to secure the border."

"Smart strategies, dedicated law enforcement personnel, and strategic partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments and agencies do," spokesman Matt Chandler said.

'RAMPANT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION'

The suit detailed five separate counts, including allegations that the government had failed to achieve "operational control" over the border, enforce immigration laws, and protect Arizona from "harms associated with rampant illegal immigration."

Brewer locked horns with the federal government last April, when she signed the state's controversial measure cracking down on illegal immigrants into law.

It provoked protests in Arizona and around the country, although opinion polls showed that a majority of Americans supported the law,

At the heart of the state law is the requirement that police determine the immigration status of a person they have detained and suspect of being in the country illegally.

But before it could take effect last July, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of the state law, arguing immigration matters are the federal government's responsibility.

In November, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case. It has yet to issue a ruling.

Brewer said the state would most likely have to pursue its claims all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

She added that legal costs were covered by donations from thousands of Americans, and that no state taxpayer funds had been spent in defending the law.

Brewer said the state would most likely have to pursue its claims all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

She added that legal costs were covered by donations from thousands of Americans, and that no state taxpayer funds had been spent in defending the law.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/us-arizona-immigration-idUSTRE7197GY20110211?pageNumber=1

Arizona proposal would use donations to build border fence

Arizona Daily Star
February 10, 2011
by Howard Fischer

PHOENIX - Saying the state can't depend on the federal government, a Senate panel on Thursday voted to let the governor start taking donations to build a border fence.

The proposal by Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, allows for construction of a new barrier on private property, with the consent of the landowners. Estimates are that would cover about a third of the approximately 370 mile long border, with the balance either on the Tohono O'odham reservation or federal land.

Jaime Ferrant of the Border Action Network called the plan in SB 1406 "fiscally irresponsible.'' He said it is costing the federal government about $4 million a mile to construct the kind of fence designed to keep people and vehicles out.

Smith said he has no firm idea of what it might cost to build a suitable fence. But he said that the costs to the state could be minimal if the state is able to get private donations.

Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, said labor costs could be next to nothing if the state uses inmate labor. And Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, said if the money comes from outside sources, the price tag is irrelevant.

What's behind the plan is the argument that whatever the federal government has build is insufficient, leaving large portions of the state vulnerable.

"We have a crisis in our state and it is caused because our borders are not secure,'' said Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake.

But Allen said the failure of the federal government to build an adequate fence all along the border is more than just incompetence.

"I feel, unfortunately, if the little secret were known, for some reason, somebody's protecting the cartel,'' Allen said. "They don't want to shut the border and the flow of drugs that are coming in here because of how powerful and how wealthy these cartels are.''

Smith's plan, if enacted, would cover only a part of the border.

Antenori said about a third of the area is within the Tohono O'odham Reservation. When national forests and other federal lands are eliminated, he said that leaves private lands along only about a third of the border.

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said an effort to build a new fence is misplaced. He said the key is fixing the immigration system, a system he said makes it virtually impossible for people to come to this system legally.

Gallardo said securing the border does need to be a part of any solution.

"If you truly want to stop illegal immigration, you have to look at reforming our immigration process, allowing people a legal method to come to this country,'' he said. Once that happens, Gallardo said, "no one's going to want to risk their lives coming through the Arizona desert in 120-degree heat.''

Sen. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, said there is evidence that fencing works. She said there are large areas of the border around Yuma, El Paso and San Diego that have been secured by federally built fences -- fences that don't exist along other large stretches of the border in Southern Arizona.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_539a55c0-357b-11e0-900b-001cc4c03286.html