As listener Rob snorted of the lack of muscle, “Right. This will scare them.”
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said requests by Arizona law enforcement personnel and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) for 3,000 National Guard troops along the state’s border with Mexico have been answered so far with 1 percent of that number deployed there this week.
“We have a whopping 30 [National Guard troops] this week that are showing up,” Babeu told CNSNews.com. “It’s less than a half-hearted measure designed to fail.”
But the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has placed 15 signs along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 that links San Diego with Phoenix and Tucson warning travelers of drug cartels and human trafficking operations.
“DANGER – PUBLIC WARNING, TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED,” read the signs placed along Interstate 8. “Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed. Stay Away From Trash, Clothing, Backpacks, and Abandoned Vehicles.”
“BLM Encourages Visitors To Use Public Land North of Interstate 8,” the signs say.
A handful of signs and 20 National Guard troops! FTW!
I’m trying to figure out why so few of the initial National Guard request were sent. It’s within the governor’s jurisdiction to call out the Guard (i.e. when Bush was criticized for not getting the National Guard in LA after Katrina when really, it was the gov’s lawful responsibility to do so and had Bush superseded this some would have made it a states’ rights battle); by all accounts Gov. Brewer made the request for the Guard but why so few sent? It would seem that the hold-up isn’t with her authority, but rather perhaps with the Defense Department.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced in July that the deployment would commence Aug. 1, but National Guard officials later said that date was meant only to reflect when troops would begin training.
In March 2009, Brewer wrote to the Defense Department requesting 250 additional soldiers for Arizona’s Joint Counter Narco-Terrorism Task Force, which already uses National Guard personnel.
About 30 troops will start their jobs on the border Monday, and waves of more troops will be deploying every Monday until all 532 are expected to be on the Arizona border by the end of September. In May, Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the border.
Brewer has been a sharp critic of the National Guard deployment, saying the troops aren’t enough and that Obama should have sent 6,000 along the border, half of them to Arizona.
But in March 2009, Brewer wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking for 250 National Guard troops, less than half the amount now being sent.
I have to say, given the current state of things near the border, I agree with Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Babeu. The Department of Defense needs to get serious about border security. Too little only exacerbates the problem and sends worse than a weak message to those placing bounties on the heads of US law enforcement.
Reid supports the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law, but 63 percent of Nevada voters oppose the lawsuit, according to a Rasmussen poll.
Reid voted against a measure to complete a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border in May, but 68 percent of voters nationally support building a border fence, according to Rasmussen.
Reid’s “negro dialect.”
Reid believes if he says it enough the action will Jim Crow minorities into staying with a political ideology that works against, rather than for their interests, such as freedom and opportunity.
Click here, first up in the Audio on Demand.
Also check out Keyboard Militia’s post on the subject.
Bad, heinous strategy to attack the force multiplier. Sheriffs are speaking out:
Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ridiculous. Especially when you consider that a Hezbollah leader is living just across the border.
Local law enforcement are the ones who routinely come into contact with illegal aliens due to routine traffic stops and other issues. ICE agents, federal immigration agents do not possess the same numbers and are unable to cover as much territory as our local law enforcement.
It’s irresponsible to not note that had local law enforcement access to immigration statuses in the National Crime and Information Center database (the database that law enforcement are able to access via the computers in their squad cars) and check on the immigration statuses of the four 9/11 terrorists, those men would have been detained for being in violation of the Immigration and Nationalization Act – especially Mohammed Atta, who, during a previous visit to the U.S., had stayed on an expired visa. Nineteen of the hijackers had contact with law enforcement upon entry into the United States. Atta was stopped in Broward County, Florida on a traffic violation. If the United States actually did something supportive towards the inherent right of local law enforcement to uphold the law and for states to act to protect citizens, Atta might have been detained.
Those protesting against the law via a bastardization of the supremacy clause misunderstand the inherent rights of local law enforcement in the issue of immigration; they are advocating diminishing the force multiplier and adding to a federal bureaucracy which is already unable to carry out the necessary tasks to enforce INA.
I’ll be delving into this more this week.
Reboot Congress has a good write-up as well, so also does Sharp. The Southern Illinois Tea Party rooted for the Cards while showing support for Arizona on Monday and yesterday the St. Louis Tea Party showed their support. We wore our Cardinal red and sat with our Arizona flags.
With Arizona is in town taking on the Red Birds, some local tea party members came to Busch Stadium to show support for the State of Arizona and the state’s controversial new immigration law.
We’re supporting the State of Arizona in simply guarding the borders,” said St. Louis Tea Party Member James Durbin.
Some 46 members of the St. Louis Tea Party took in Tuesday night’s Cardinals match-up against the Arizona Diamondbacks.
The Cardinals organization declined our request for an on-camera interview Tuesday night, but they did describe Busch Stadium as a “big tent” where people of all perspectives are welcome.
Amazing. True diversty. Refreshing.
Also from KSDK:
Cardinals Manager Tony LaRussa says he stands behind what Arizona is doing in terms of immigration.
During an interview before tonight’s game against the Diamondbacks, he had little to say when asked about a contingency from the local Tea Party that planned to show its support for Arizona and its controversial new immigration law in the stands. In fact, he said he didn’t even know they were coming.
LaRussa did say he felt any kind of political demonstrations being made in the stands would be easy for his team to ignore.
He also voiced his support for Arizona’s new approach to immigration. “This is America. You are supposed to have opinions and disagree,” he said. “I’m actually a supporter of what Arizona is doing… you know if people don’t fix their problems they have to take care of it themselves.”
Don’t you love it when people reaffirm the beauty of liberty and sports can be sports, as opposed to “Los Suns?”
Photo courtesy American Power
The analogy is beyond stupid. Jews were targeted BECAUSE of their ethnicity, not exempted because of it. #historyfail
Can I point out the irony of the left using Nazi signage as a way to claim persecution yet they continue to side with groups like Hamas whose statements against Israel sound like something lifted from Hitler’s diary?
American Power has a great post of the zany leftist groups, pro-trespass, and others who comprised the rally against the law in Arizona, including photos of the NUMEROUS naturalization, immigration, passport, and offices of other such services located all throughout Phoenix.
I’ve said it before: It amazes me the cosmetic quality of immigration concern from some on the left. It’s easier to encourage trespassers to break the law and riot in the street and hold protests denouncing leaders as Nazis than it is to actually pitch in and help these individuals become legal citizens. Conservatives are all for immigration. FTW! Bring more people over, add to the economic base, contribute to society! But just as immigrants from every other country are expected to abide by the rules when seeking citizenship, so must those coming from Mexico.
Some on the left don’t seem to care that encouraging trespassers to engage in illegal activity might hurt their chances at obtaining citizenship. They don’t care; they’re happy to use these ethnic individuals as tools for the leftist cause. I’ve featured on my show religious groups (in St. Louis even) who assist prospective Americans with becoming citizens. Where are the secular groups who do this? What happened to all the people on the left who would gladly gum for the camera and carry signs but scrammed after the protest, why did these individuals not stay and give of their money and time to help these prospectives become naturalized citizens? The Phoenix Suns, with all their millions, why have they not donated any of their money or time to help these individuals become citizens beyond a cosmetic jersey-change which gave them more press than usual?
Why are they not raising awareness for the groups which assist with naturalization? Why are they not taking up donations to offset fees to file? Why are they not petitioning their elected officials to make the process a bit easier or less expensive? Why are they not criticizing Mexico’s law and calling it “racist” as it is exponentially more stringent than our own?