Comments IMMIGRATION BILL sent by Sue Krentz, Douglas, Arizona quoting other border ranchers April 22, 2013

Subject: Draft Immigration Bill - Comments

Patrick,

Here is our input.

We do not support this draft legislation in its current form. Border Security is not the Bill's first priority evidenced by the lack of a robust and uniform deployment of Border Security resources across the U.S. Mexico Border to include the active U.S. military. Furthermore the Bill lacks Border Security resource specifics. What we see in the Bill will not secure the Border. Its vague Border Security commitment, weak oversight and certification is left to DHS which is a conflict of interest. In our view the draft Bill is crafted to immediately grant Provision Immigrant Status ("RPI") without first securing the Border which is mostly a political and not a security mandate.

• The Bill immediately legalizes everyone living in the country illegally giving them RPI before the Border is sustainably and credibly secured. Once provisional status is in place, we seriously doubt the legislative committment and political will will endure to achieve lasting and uniform Border Security.

• The notion that Congress and the Administration will not allow open and extensive hearings on such an important piece of legislation with scrutiny and oversight by Senator Jeff Sessions, Federal and State law enforcement field personnel operating on the Border, Border area landowners (Rancher Landowner Border Security Commissions "RLBSC"), fiscal and labor experts also makes it an non starter. This is the same flawed process which produced the Obamacare debacle. Allowing only two Congressional hearings on this National Security Bill, demonstrates a serious lack of transparency and open debate on its merits, weaknesses and overall potential effectiveness.

A few of the obvious Border Security flaws that struck us are set forth in part below. These are not a definitive and final list but represent several inconsistencies and as we see them. We chose not to include our objections and suggestions concerning the Bill's immigration reforms (extensively discussed in the bill where Border Security specifics were omitted and/or are vague) because we believe Border Security must be the Bill's first priority.

• The draft Bill does not embrace all of the specific covenants set forth in the ACGA "ROB Plan".

• The notion that "Drones" are going to be a major factor in securing the Border without substantial additional CBP agent staffing (contrasting this with over 35,000 police officers in N.Y. alone), A&M air support rotor-craft, active military deployment to the Border, judicious Federal and State statutes enforcement and other security resources being built out is very naive and disappointing.

• Who determines the 90% Effectiveness Rate ("90% ER")? If it's only DHS or agencies under their direct/indirect operational/funding control that's a conflict of interest to public acceptance based upon realities on the ground and past legislative histories.

• As above the same comment applies to determining "Completion". Upon passage of the Bill will it recognize and empower our Border area "Rancher and Landowner Border Security Commissions" in AZ/NM/TX to lend credibility and equal weight in proving a 90% ER for any one Border High Risk Area?

• Must the "Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategies" ("CSBSS") be fully funded and implemented with a90% ER achieved and completed for all High Risk Sectors over a sustained and provable period before the Bill granting RPI?

• If you achieve 90% ER for one week does this constitute completion of the CSBSS or must the 90% ER be sustained over a credible extended period for all High Risk Areas before recommending completion? Security must be enduring. The draft Bill doesn't provide for that.

• Where is the recurring CSBSS funding coming from and are they legislatively guaranteed? Are recurring annual CSBSS funding provisions in the Bll to sustain permanent security measures? What is the funding mechanism if they need more security resources to secure High Risk Areas beyond what the Bill provides.

• Can "Completion" be blocked by State Governors/Judicary who believe High Risk Areas have not been 90% ER secured?

• Does RPI become effective upon passage of the Bill if 90% ER has not been achieved for all High Risk Areas and CBP Sectors?

• Must the Border Security Goal's 90% ER besimultaneously achieved for all High Risk Border Areas (Tucson and El Paso Sector Sectors and Stations) over an extended period of time before issuing to Congress the Notice of Commencement ("NOC") grantingRPI?

• Must all High Risk Sectors achieve a 90% ER before granting RPI or, can one be at 90% ER while another not and still grant RPI?

• For the above reasons this is why the entire U.S. Mexico Border must be considered a "High Risk Area".

• Why is the Southern Border Security Commission ("SBSC") put in place only after five years and not immediately? What Congressional authority does it have to override DHS? If it doesn't have any accountability and authority why form it in the first place? We know what needs to be done to secure the Border without another "toothless" committee. Besides, if they staff it with Border city mayors, politicians and business interests it ignores the reality on the ground that illegal activity moved out of urban areas years ago into our rural country. Out of sight out of mind. We're outvoted and marginalized.

• In the Bill's language, Border Security isn't a "Goal" it must be a "Mandate and First Priority".

• Where is the provision to automatically deploy the U.S. military to the U.S. Mexico Border if 90% ER has not been achieved for all High Risk Areas within 12 months? If existing and new Border Security resources cannot get the job done within a year, deploy the military.

• Why doesn't the Bill provide for enforcing U.S. drug laws and building sufficient judicial resources to do it? Why isn't this a documented first priority?

• Following the Bill's passage does the Bill provide that if someone enters the country illegally the first time, they irrevocably lose their right to ever work or live in the U.S.?

Border Security is once again being held hostage to political and business priorities. Past political compromises never delivered Border Security and it won't this time either. If Congress is really serious about security, they need to invite us to sit at the table with the drafters of this legislation before it's finalized and explain what works and what doesn't in the rural country and why.
Illegal and smuggling traffic continues unabated through our country 24/7. Political priorities must be established to assure Border Security is believable and attainable and not simply create the illusion of it. Of course, they may elect to proceed without us. "Selling" to the American Public false choices is disappointing.
Our final question is the following. What will it cost the American taxpayer to legalize 11 to 25 million illegal aliens and how ill we pay for it both Federally and in our States?