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.
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 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.
- 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?
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.
- 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.?
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?
Smugglers' rights violated by border agents, jury finds
2013-04-20T00:00:00Z2013-04-20T15:41:52ZSmugglers' rights violated by border agents, jury findsArizona Daily Star
Two Border Patrol agents were convicted Friday in federal court in Tucson of violating the civil rights of four drug smugglers.
After deliberating most of the morning, about 3 p.m. the jury convicted Dario Castillo, 25, and Ramon Zuniga, 31, of four counts of civil-rights deprivation under color of law. Rather than arrest four Mexican smugglers intercepted the night of Nov. 12, 2008, the agents made them strip off their socks, shoes and jackets, forced some of them to eat marijuana and ordered them to flee into the desert.
The convictions are misdemeanors for Zuniga, but felonies for Castillo because the jury found he set fire to the smugglers' belongings.
The agents were found not guilty of a conspiracy charge.
Castillo was also found not guilty of tampering with a witness, the most serious charge.
A felony conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law carries a maximum penalty of 10 years and/or a $250,000 fine; a misdemeanor conviction under the statute carries a penalty of one year and/or a $100,000 fine.
Mike Bloom, representing Castillo, said he was disappointed with the verdict and would appeal.
Castillo and Zuniga would not comment at the end of the trial.
Moments before the verdict was read, Zuniga's wife was visibly nervous, biting her lower lip and trying to hold back tears until she heard the first "guilty" and couldn't contain them anymore.
Bloom placed his hand on Castillo's back and shook his head as the verdict was read.
Both agents are on unpaid suspensions, but attorney Sean Chapman said Zuniga's employment with the Border Patrol was probably going to be terminated.
"I think the jury did their best to balance the dangers involved in the situation with what actually happened," Chapman said. "We were given a very good trial by Judge (Jennifer) Zipps. The jury was very conscientious."
He said he is sorry his client got convicted, but Zuniga is going to move forward.
That night in November, Zuniga and Castillo were working out of a forward operating base of the Ajo station a few miles from the border. Two other agents initially spotted a group carrying backpacks with marijuana and one of them called for backup. When they approached the smugglers, at least eight escaped, leaving four behind. What happened later is what the defense disputed during the two-week trial.
According to prosecutors, even though there were more agents at the scene, only Zuniga and Castillo committed the civil-rights violations.
Zuniga never denied he lost his composure and made them chew marijuana, Chapman said.
Bloom disputed that Castillo had lit the fire.
Both defense attorneys argued Jose Grajeda, a horse patrol agent, was in control that night because he had seniority over the two agents.
They argued there was a culture among the horse patrol unit of letting people go and only taking the narcotics, meaning Grajeda told the smugglers to flee, not their clients.
The defense used a report as key evidence, in which Grajeda said he and agent Aaron Veckey, who initially spotted the group, seized 21 bundles of marijuana that night but didn't find any subjects.
The defense called inconsistencies in the testimony of several agents and supervisors lies.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Markovich told the jury in his closing arguments that it's not a defense whether others were involved.
"You might not like it that others didn't get prosecuted, but you took an oath you could be fair," he said Thursday.
Even if the drug smugglers were "mouthing off," law enforcement officers are not above the law, he told jurors.
"This verdict sends a clear message that abuse of authority by federal law enforcement officers will not be tolerated in our society," U.S. Attorney for Arizona John Leonardo said in a written statement.
"The defendants' abuse of authority in this case was in stark contrast to the vast majority of dedicated, hard-working federal law enforcement officers who do their best every day, under difficult circumstances," he said, in part.
Chapman said Zuniga is very upset but he knows he made a mistake and takes responsibility.
At the end of the trial, both families walked together towards the elevator, Zuniga and his wife holding on to their 4-year-old son's hand.
On StarNet: Find extensive coverage of immigration issues at azstarnet.com/border
Contact reporter Perla Trevizo at ptrevizo@azstarnet.com or at 573-4213.
After deliberating most of the morning, about 3 p.m. the jury convicted Dario Castillo, 25, and Ramon Zuniga, 31, of four counts of civil-rights deprivation under color of law. Rather than arrest four Mexican smugglers intercepted the night of Nov. 12, 2008, the agents made them strip off their socks, shoes and jackets, forced some of them to eat marijuana and ordered them to flee into the desert.
The convictions are misdemeanors for Zuniga, but felonies for Castillo because the jury found he set fire to the smugglers' belongings.
The agents were found not guilty of a conspiracy charge.
Castillo was also found not guilty of tampering with a witness, the most serious charge.
A felony conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law carries a maximum penalty of 10 years and/or a $250,000 fine; a misdemeanor conviction under the statute carries a penalty of one year and/or a $100,000 fine.
Mike Bloom, representing Castillo, said he was disappointed with the verdict and would appeal.
Castillo and Zuniga would not comment at the end of the trial.
Moments before the verdict was read, Zuniga's wife was visibly nervous, biting her lower lip and trying to hold back tears until she heard the first "guilty" and couldn't contain them anymore.
Bloom placed his hand on Castillo's back and shook his head as the verdict was read.
Both agents are on unpaid suspensions, but attorney Sean Chapman said Zuniga's employment with the Border Patrol was probably going to be terminated.
"I think the jury did their best to balance the dangers involved in the situation with what actually happened," Chapman said. "We were given a very good trial by Judge (Jennifer) Zipps. The jury was very conscientious."
He said he is sorry his client got convicted, but Zuniga is going to move forward.
That night in November, Zuniga and Castillo were working out of a forward operating base of the Ajo station a few miles from the border. Two other agents initially spotted a group carrying backpacks with marijuana and one of them called for backup. When they approached the smugglers, at least eight escaped, leaving four behind. What happened later is what the defense disputed during the two-week trial.
According to prosecutors, even though there were more agents at the scene, only Zuniga and Castillo committed the civil-rights violations.
Zuniga never denied he lost his composure and made them chew marijuana, Chapman said.
Bloom disputed that Castillo had lit the fire.
Both defense attorneys argued Jose Grajeda, a horse patrol agent, was in control that night because he had seniority over the two agents.
They argued there was a culture among the horse patrol unit of letting people go and only taking the narcotics, meaning Grajeda told the smugglers to flee, not their clients.
The defense used a report as key evidence, in which Grajeda said he and agent Aaron Veckey, who initially spotted the group, seized 21 bundles of marijuana that night but didn't find any subjects.
The defense called inconsistencies in the testimony of several agents and supervisors lies.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Markovich told the jury in his closing arguments that it's not a defense whether others were involved.
"You might not like it that others didn't get prosecuted, but you took an oath you could be fair," he said Thursday.
Even if the drug smugglers were "mouthing off," law enforcement officers are not above the law, he told jurors.
"This verdict sends a clear message that abuse of authority by federal law enforcement officers will not be tolerated in our society," U.S. Attorney for Arizona John Leonardo said in a written statement.
"The defendants' abuse of authority in this case was in stark contrast to the vast majority of dedicated, hard-working federal law enforcement officers who do their best every day, under difficult circumstances," he said, in part.
Chapman said Zuniga is very upset but he knows he made a mistake and takes responsibility.
At the end of the trial, both families walked together towards the elevator, Zuniga and his wife holding on to their 4-year-old son's hand.
On StarNet: Find extensive coverage of immigration issues at azstarnet.com/border
Contact reporter Perla Trevizo at ptrevizo@azstarnet.com or at 573-4213.
