Court won't lift stay on Arizona immigration law

PHOENIX – A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.

The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction preventing four major parts of the law from going into effect pending a trial. Monday's ruling by the three-judge appeals court panel upheld that injunction.

The panel's opinion said the government is likely to succeed in its arguments that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws, and that Arizona's law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. One judge dissented.

Brewer's lawyers said the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state law will assist federal authorities.

"I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute," Brewer said in a statement.

The governor's office said Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and their legal team — in conjunction with counsel for the Arizona Legislature — will be considering their legal options, including appealing to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seeking an immediate petition for the U.S. Supreme Court, to lift the injunction.

The bill's author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, issued a statement saying the appeals court ruling was "utterly predictable."

"SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling," he said. "This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

"We're obviously pleased with the ruling, but we understand that there could be a long way to go with this litigation," said Robby Sherwood, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney for Arizona.

Parts of the law blocked from taking effect while the case works its way through the courts include a provision requiring police to question people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

Other provisions that are on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

In a separate opinion concurring with the panel's ruling, Appeals Court Judge John T. Noonan noted the intent of the state statute is clear and goes beyond what federal law allows.

"If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration in the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state," he wrote.

Judge Carlos Bea would uphold two of the provisions — those allowing police to question people about their immigration status and to make warrantless arrests — and wrote a pointed dissent.

"As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens," he wrote. He also included a footnote that quoted Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" to criticize what he called the majority's convoluted reasoning.

The passage of SB 1070 last year reignited an immigration debate that has simmered in Arizona and across the nation for years.

Opponents of the law protested in the streets as it was about to take effect and called for a boycott of the state.

Proponents called the law a long-overdue effort by a state that has been overburdened by illegal immigration and a lack of federal action on the issue.

Opponents of the law hailed the decision and said other states considering similar legislation should take note.

"Today's decision rightly rejects SB 1070's assault on the core American values of fairness and equality," said Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project. "Legislators in other states should pay close attention to today's ringing condemnation of Arizona's racial profiling law and refrain from going down the same unconstitutional path."

Feds targeting fake immigration lawyers; Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegals

WASHINGTON – A top federal immigration official is asking states' attorneys general to help him crack down on fake immigration lawyers and educate immigrants on how to spot them.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Alejandro Mayorkas told a group of attorneys general in Washington for a spring meeting that the federal government is eager to work with them to protect vulnerable immigrants and prosecute those who prey on them.
His agency and other federal and state agencies are launching an effort to warn people about the fake immigration lawyers known as "notarios" who charge exorbitant fees and give fraudulent advice to people seeking citizenship, green cards or other immigration benefits.
Seven cities Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, Fresno, Calif., Los Angeles, New York and San Antonio will serve as test sites.

Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegals
Immigrants Plan seeks middle ground but still faces legal hurdles

Proposed Texas immigration law contains convenient loophole for ‘the help’

Texas has long been a hotbed of controversy on immigration issues. And a proposed immigration bill in the Texas state House is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows. The bill would make hiring an "unauthorized alien" a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine, unless that is, they are hired to do household chores.

Yes, under the House Bill 2012 introduced by a tea party favorite state Rep. Debbie Riddle -- who's been saying for some time that she'd like to see Texas institute an Arizona-style immigration law -- hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law.
"When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers," Pena told the news giant. "It is so common it is overlooked."
Jon English, Rep. Riddle's chief of staff explained that the exemption was an attempt to avoid "stifling the economic engine" in Texas, which today is, somewhat ironically, celebrating its declaring independence from Mexico in 1836.
"Excepting household workers from a anti-immigration laws renders the law impotent and self-contradictory, just like the current U.S. immigration policy, of which it is almost a perfect microcosm," legal ethics writer Jack Marshall wrote on his blog. "It guarantees a measure without integrity that sends a mixed enforcement message and does nothing to stop the long-standing deplorable 'we don't want you but somebody has to do those menial jobs' attitude that has paralyzed our immigration policy for decades."
Rep. Riddle made headlines last year when she claimed unnamed FBI officials had told her that pregnant women from the Middle East were traveling to America as tourists to give birth, and then raising their children to be terrorists who could later enter the U.S. freely as citizens -- so-called "terror babies," a devious offshoot of "anchor babies." She became somewhat infamous on the web when she stumbled repeatedly in a CNN interview about the claims, complaining later that host Anderson Cooper's line of questioning was more intense than she had prepared for.
"They did not tell me you were going to grill me on specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight," Riddle said when Cooper pressed her for more details. "They did not tell me that, sir."

Large group of illegal immigrants found in Ariz.

PHOENIX – Border agents said Wednesday they arrested an unusually large group of illegal immigrants crossing through the western Arizona desert in what authorities said is proof that increased border technology is working.

Border Patrol surveillance video operators Friday morning spotted a group of more than 100 people walking just north of the Mexico border about 15 miles west of Lukeville, Ariz., Agent Eric Cantu said.
When agents responded, Cantu said they were able to arrest 22 people but the rest of the group scattered.
A helicopter team found much of the group hiding in thick brush, and agents arrested 106 additional illegal immigrants. The smugglers and other suspected illegal immigrants may have gotten away, Cantu said.
The 128 men who were apprehended have either been returned to Mexico or were jailed because of prior convictions.
The Border Patrol's Tucson sector typically sees such large groups of border crossers no more than once or twice a year, Cantu said. Illegal immigrants typically travel in groups of five to 15, he said, because larger groups are much easier to detect.
"Before in remote areas we didn't have the technology or infrastructure or personnel to actively patrol and monitor the more remote areas," he said. "The larger groups are easier to spot so they're getting rarer and rarer. We're getting to the point where it's almost impossible to cross in groups so large."
Cantu said it didn't make sense why smugglers attempted to take last week's large group into the U.S.
He said several smugglers likely were with the group but either got away or successfully blended in with the immigrants and went undetected as smugglers.
"Normally smugglers are the first ones to run, and they'll abandon the group and leave the group to fend for themselves," Cantu said.

Arizona Immigration Law: Jan Brewer Countersues Federal Government Over SB 1070

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer sued the federal government Thursday for failing to control Arizona's border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws, and for sticking the state with huge costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

The lawsuit claims the federal government has failed to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. It seeks increased reimbursements and extra safeguards, such as additional border fences.
Brewer's court filing serves as a countersuit in the federal government's legal challenge to Arizona's new enforcement immigration law. The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to invalidate the law.
"Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer said as sign-carrying protesters yelled chants at her and at other champions of the immigration law.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment on the filing. But a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of policing the country's borders, called Brewer's lawsuit a meritless action and said Border Patrol staffing is higher than ever.
"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," spokesman Matthew Chandler said. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."
Brewer's lawsuit seeks a court order that would require the federal government to take extra steps to protect Arizona – such as more border fences – until the border is controlled. Brewer also asks for additional border agents and technology along the state's border with Mexico.
The governor isn't seeking a lump-sum award, but rather asks for policy changes in the way the federal government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants who are convicted of state crimes. Such changes would give the state more reimbursement.
Arizona's enforcement law was passed amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Its passage ignited protests over whether the law would lead to racial profiling, and prompted lawsuits by the Justice Department, civil rights groups and other opponents seeking to have it thrown out.
The law would have required police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers had reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally. That requirement was put on hold by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, along with a mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.
The judge, however, let other parts of the law take effect, such as a provision that bans people from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
Brewer challenged Bolton's decision in an appeals court in San Francisco. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. Brewer's appeal is still pending.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, one of the lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, said Arizona bears staggering costs from illegal immigration, yet the federal government maintains the state is prevented from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
Horne said Washington has failed to protect the state against an invasion by illegal immigrants.
"The word 'invasion' does not necessarily mean invasion of one country by another country," Horne said. "It can mean large numbers of illegal immigrants from various countries."
The governor's filing hammers on the issue of the state's unreimbursed costs for jailed illegal immigrants. Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who is now the Homeland Security secretary, regularly sent the Justice Department invoices seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.
The lawsuit doesn't say exactly how much reimbursement money the state is seeking. Instead, it asks the court to interpret the criteria on which the reimbursements are based, which the state believes will ensure it gets more funding.
Brewer's filing noted Arizona's latest annual reimbursement from the federal government totaled nearly $10 million and the state had to eat an additional $125 million.
Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix, an opponent of the law, said Brewer's filing was intended to draw attention from the state's budget woes. Sinema noted the federal government has hired 8,000 new Border Patrol agents and added hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years.
"The state will be hard-pressed to show that we have been denied any promised benefit," Sinema said.

U.S. fast food caught in immigration crosshairs

LOS ANGELES/DALLAS (Reuters) – Chipotle Mexican Grill has a lot going for it -- an upscale burrito concept, a hip and eco-friendly image, expansion plans galore and a 500 percent-plus stock price gain in just over two years.

And then it has something not going its way -- a federal crackdown on its immigrant labor force that has so far forced Chipotle to fire hundreds of allegedly illegal workers in the state of Minnesota, perhaps more than half its staff there.
The probe is widening. Co-Chief Executive Monty Moran told Reuters on Friday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also issued "notices of inspection" for restaurants in Washington D.C. and Virginia.
Investors in the Wall Street darling are taking note and one firm, Calvert Investments, plans to talk to Chipotle about the large number of undocumented workers uncovered.
Dependence on illegal labor is the elephant in the room for the U.S. restaurant business. And experts say the Chipotle ICE investigations are a wake-up call for an industry that is one of America's biggest employers and generates over $300 billion in annual sales, according to research firm IBISWorld Inc.
Chipotle -- a Denver-based company whose motto is "Food With Integrity" -- is one of the most well-known names caught in the immigration enforcement shift that began two years ago.
At that time, Barack Obama, a proponent of immigration reform to help manage the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, became president. Also at that time, immigrant hiring by restaurants began to rebound.
Obama has had to walk a fine line on the issue. He must uphold the law and appease Americans resentful of illegal immigrants working as the unemployment rate stubbornly sits at 9 percent. But he needs to do it in a way palatable to Hispanic voters who will be key to his re-election in 2012.
Gone are the days of big raids that snared large numbers of workers, mostly from Mexico and Central America. Under Obama, immigration enforcement agents are cracking down on employers with so-called "I-9 audits" -- I-9 being the employment eligibility verification form.
ICE says that means companies' hiring practices could be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as their bookkeeping is by the Internal Revenue Service.
"When you get a big name like Chipotle, it stands out and sends a message," said Jacqueline Longnecker, president of Reno-based Employment Verification Resources Inc.
"The onus is on employers now ... It sends the message that nobody is going to be excused from this," she said, adding that many companies -- both large and small -- do not recognize the potential liabilities they now face.
Chipotle believes it has not been singled out.
"ICE has vowed to increase pressure on employers to avoid employing undocumented workers ... We are one of a large and growing number of companies to go through this process," Moran told Reuters by e-mail.
But to date, the majority of audits that have come to light in the restaurant business have been limited to small operators or franchisees of big chains, like Subway.

EMPLOYEE CHURN

The U.S. fast-food industry historically has offered relatively low pay and paltry benefits to legal workers and, as a result, has struggled with high employee turnover.
Longnecker and other experts said restaurant owners are attracted to illegal laborers because they work hard, are loyal and will go the extra mile to hold down a job.
It is hard to know the extent of hiring of illegal immigrants in restaurants. But immigrants -- both legal and illegal -- account for about a quarter of workers in the restaurant and food services industry and their numbers are up in recent years.
Their share fell from 24.5 percent in March 2006 to 21.4 percent in March 2008 -- before and during the recession -- but then recovered to 23.6 percent in March 2009 and March 2010, according to an analysis of the government's Current Population Survey (CPS) data conducted for Reuters by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
The overall number of immigrants employed in the sector climbed from just over 1.7 million in 2008 to 1.8 million in 2010, according to this data, even as native employment fell from 6.4 million to 5.9 million.
The Pew Hispanic Center -- whose demographic and labor market work is highly regarded -- estimated in a 2009 report that 12 percent of the workforce in food preparation and serving in 2008 was undocumented.
Chipotle, which has more than 1,000 restaurants mostly in the United States and plans to open as many as 145 more in 2011, pays its workers more than the average burger flipper but its building binge has stoked its appetite for new hires.
Alejandro, one of the Chipotle workers fired in Minnesota who asked that his last name not be published for fear of reprisals, worked there for five years and earned $9.42 per hour, taking home $1,200 a month. That allowed him to send up to $800 per month to his daughters to keep studying in Mexico.
"I thought it was a good company," said Alejandro, who lost his job in December along with 10 of his 20 co-workers. "I was even going to get training to be promoted to kitchen manager."

PROBLEMS WITH PAPERS

Alejandro, 37, and co-worker Tanya, a 35-year-old mother of four, admit they are in the United States illegally and had to use false documents to get their jobs at Chipotle.
"I believe that when you go to apply there, they know beforehand that you don't have papers," Tanya said by phone. "And after the six years I worked there, or the 10 years of some of my colleagues, they get rid of us without warning."
The false documents, which include things such as driver's licenses, Social Security cards and residence permits, are easy to come by "on the street," said Tanya. "Many people offer them. It is part of coming here and trying to make a better life for your children."
But Moran says that Chipotle has "always taken this issue very seriously, and over the last five years we have done a great deal to improve our systems, and our document review capabilities and procedures."
"Certainly this incident has been eye-opening for us and caused us to redouble our efforts to make sure we are doing all we can short of running afoul of the mandate of the Department of Justice," said Moran, adding that Chipotle performs two document reviews for each employee hired, one by the hiring manager and another by its human resources department.
The company, which has gained a cult-like following by serving natural and organic food where possible, stands out as one of the industry's top performers when it comes to sales at established restaurants and stock gains. Its stock price is flirting with $250 compared to under $40 in November 2008.
It also differs from other public traded chains in another very important way. Unlike McDonald's Corp and most other restaurant companies, it does not rely on franchisees to own and operate restaurants, which means it might be easier to hold its head office more accountable for infractions.

INVESTOR URGES 'BETTER SYSTEMS'

Investors, however, may not see much risk to Chipotle or other fast food companies from their immigration quandaries. Chipotle stock still ended 3 percent higher on Friday after the news of the widening immigration probe.
After all, the companies can simply go out and hire others or pay fines to ICE that probably won't dent their bottom lines. Total ICE fines last year were a paltry $7 million.
But Maryland-based Calvert Investments said it was surprised by the extent of Chipotle's undocumented workers because the company scores high on the issues Calvert monitors -- good social, environmental and corporate governance.
"We would urge them to put better systems in place so that the likelihood of this occurring again is slim," said Ellen Kennedy, senior sustainability research analyst at Calvert, which oversees $14.5 billion in assets.
Chipotle, which reports fourth-quarter earnings on Thursday, recognizes it is big deal for its operations.
"This incident has caused a lot of disruption -- both to us and in the lives of so many of our people," said Moran, whose company reported 22,250 employees at the end of 2009. "In addition, it's been a heartbreaking situation for us to lose so many excellent employees."
Indeed, it is not just a few workers who need to be hired and trained to keep the places running. Chipotle will not disclose the total number fired, but it could be as many as 700 of its estimated 1,200 Minnesota workers.
Those are the figures circulating among the Minneapolis legal community, according to Javier Morillo, the president of labor union SEIU Local 26, which does not represent the fast food sector but is helping the workers because of its interest in immigration reform.
The need for reform is where labor and business agree.
"We need those businesses that are being audited to speak up and say to the government this is insanity and it is not solving a thing," said Morillo.
Chipotle's Moran does speak up, saying in his email: "The system clearly isn't working very well as it is, and reform is absolutely necessary."
As for Tanya and Alejandro, they are fairly confident they will get new jobs in restaurants or factories in Minneapolis, but they probably won't get the good salary or long run they had at Chipotle.

Arizona proposal: Candidates must prove US birth

Associated Press – Fri Jan 28, 8:07 pm ET


PHOENIX – Arizona legislators have reintroduced legislation aimed at making President Barack Obama prove his U.S. nationality by birth.
The measure in the Arizona House would prohibit placing presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the state's ballot unless they submit specified documentation of their U.S. birth and other constitutional requirements.
Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's birth in that state, but so-called "birthers" contend Obama was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.
The state House narrowly passed a version of the bill in 2010 but it died in the Senate without a vote in the closing days of the legislative session. Secretary of State Ken Bennett had voiced concerns about the 2010 legislation's provision that would have prohibited his office from placing a candidate on the ballot if documents submitted on behalf of a candidate left reasonable doubt about the candidate's eligibility. That would have left the secretary of state with too much discretion, Bennett said through a spokesman at the time.
On Friday, Bennett noted that the reasonable doubt wording is not included in the 2011 version; instead, it mandates submissions of specific sworn statements and a copy of a birth certificate with specific information.
Bennett said he has questions about the new legislation's proposed requirements, noting that required information, including names of a hospital, attending physician and witnesses, might not be on all birth certificates. It would be best if federal-level processes assured the eligibility of presidential candidates, Bennett said.
"But it seems to be obvious that they must not have a process sufficiently implemented at the federal level or we wouldn't still be having questions about the president's birth status."
Bennett, a Republican and a former state Senate president, said he personally believes Obama was born in Hawaii.
This year's bill has not yet been assigned to a committee for a possible hearing. It has 41 co-sponsors, all Republicans and one more than last year. The Legislature has 90 members, with both chambers controlled by Republicans.
The bill's main sponsor, Republican Rep. Judy Burgess of Skull Valley, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Similar bills have been introduced in other states, including Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Texas.
Meanwhile, a legislative bill introduced in Hawaii would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.
The Hawaii bill, intended by Obama supporters to dispel claims that Obama was not born in the state, would allow anyone to get a copy of his birth records for a $100 fee.

News Web site News .House OKs amended illegal immigration bill

The version of an illegal immigration bill that passed the House Thursday has new provisions that may be too tough for one party and too lenient for the other.

District 53 Rep. Bobby Moak, D-Bogue Chitto, said the amended version of Senate Bill 2179, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2011, contains stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants and a sweetener for local law enforcement agencies who jail them.
"You need to shut the door right there," said Moak, who presented the bill on the House floor. "What the House did was hear from Mississippians who said the cause of this problem is people who continue to bring these folks in illegally. That's what needs to stop."
The amended legislation now stipulates businesses found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants may face fines of not less than $5,000 per day and not more than $25,000 per day, with those funds placed in an account accessible by local governments for reimbursement of costs or to pay for more training for law enforcement officers. The amount of the fine is up to the judge, Moak said.
Employers found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants will likewise be stripped of tax benefits, bonds and grants, and the state auditor's office will be charged with recovering any money the state has invested in that company.
Illegal immigrants found guilty of a non-violent crime would serve one-third of their sentence and then be eligible to be returned to their country of origin under a federal program, Moak said. If that illegal immigrant is caught in Mississippi a second time, they will serve the remainder of the sentence with no chance for parole, he said.
House leaders removed a provision in the original bill that would have allowed any Mississippi citizen to bring suit against local law enforcement agencies or governments suspected of refusing to enforce the immigration law.
Instead, agencies that comply and jail illegal immigrants will be reimbursed $36 per day on a program similar to the money the state sends to local jails for housing state inmates. The latter rate is $20 per day.
"Suing is not the answer," Moak said. "Let's say you win. Who gets to pay for it? You do, the local taxpayers."
The bill now returns to the Senate for review, where it could be amended even more.
"If it was up to me, it's either take it or leave it," Moak said.
District 92 Rep. Becky Currie, R-Brookhaven, said Republicans supported the amended version of the bill in force in order to keep it alive in the Legislature, but not all GOP members are happy with the House's changes. She said the bill underwent 55 deletions and 43 insertions of new language that she fears has crippled its ability to be enforced.
"For Democrats to walk away from this and say, 'Well, we passed the immigration bill,' no one needs to be fooled by that," Currie said. "Not everything in it is terrible, but it's just watered down."
Still, Currie - who introduced her own Arizona-style immigration bill in the House - called the passing of the bill "absolutely a step in the right direction" and commended Moak for the way he handled the bill on the floor.
"We'll do what the people of Mississippi want us to do - take care of the illegal immigration problem," she said. "The federal government won't do its job, so the states will have to step up and do theirs."

US cancels 'virtual fence' along Mexican border. What's Plan B?

Christian Science Monitor - The dream of a high-tech barrier stretching from one end of America’s southern border to the other – originally hailed by then-President George W. Bush as “the most technically advanced border security initiative” ever – is officially burst.

In announcing that it would pull the plug on the troubled “virtual fence” project, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday it would instead pursue a region-by-region approach, with different parts of the US border protected in different ways as dictated by terrain and other area-specific conditions.
“This new strategy is tailored to the unique needs of each border region, providing faster deployment of technology, better coverage, and a more effective balance between cost and capability,” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement.
Almost from the onset, the virtual fence – known as the Secure Border Initiative network, or SBInet – ran into problems. As pilot projects were built in two spots in Arizona along the border with Mexico, cost overruns mounted. Just as worrisome was that the technology – in the form of camera-topped surveillance towers that was supposed to pinpoint for border agents in a distant command post the exact location of illegal border-crossers – was often flummoxed by conditions on the ground such as terrain and weather.
“Cameras don’t come down off the poles and grab people by the ankle and arrest them,” T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council representing border patrol agents, told the Monitor in 2009. The technology, he said at the time, was effective only on level ground; in terrain with mountains and valleys it was ineffective beyond a few hundred feet.
In all, the government spent almost $1 billion on the virtual fence project since its inception in 2005, as contractor Boeing Co. endeavored to work out the kinks and refine SBInet’s capabilities. In the end, though, the cost per mile of coverage made it grossly inefficient: It is operational along 53 miles of Arizona’s 386-mile border with Mexico.
By contrast, the DHS expects that security for the rest of Arizona’s border can be buttressed for $750 million, by using commercially available surveillance measures, unmanned drones, thermal imaging, and other equipment.
“SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution,” Secretary Napolitano said Friday. It now falls to her department to propose alternative, region-by-region plans for improving border security, which she said would come later this year. In surrendering the “one-size-fits-all” solution offered by the virtual fence, DHS expects to use some of its proven components elsewhere.
The Obama administration has from the beginning made a point of highlighting its efforts to improve border security, knowing it will stand no chance of reforming America’s broken immigration policy unless it demonstrates to Congress and the public that it has first moved aggressively to prevent illegal entry into the US. Indeed, the DREAM Act, a bill to resolve the status of some illegal immigrants already in the US, failed to pass the Senate late last year.
The president, for his part, last year signed legislation to spend $600 million on two more unmanned drones to patrol the border and on 1,500 additional Border Patrol agents and other law-enforcement personnel to crack down on illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. And DHS noted Friday that Border Patrol manpower has doubled – now at a force of 20,500 – since 2004.
Few lamented the demise of the virtual fence project – even those who have criticized the Obama administration for not doing enough to tighten the southern border.
Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, now chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told The New York Times that the Obama administration should have ended SBInet before now.
Nor did Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona object to ending the project in his home state. “I am pleased to hear that Secretary Napolitano finally allowed the SBInet contract to expire,” he told The Arizona Republic. “A complete and thorough investigation should be conducted related to this waste.”