Drug gangs seize parts of Arizona as Washington goes to court against its efforts to control illegal entries and smuggling

The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.

The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.

They warn travelers that they are entering an "active drug and human smuggling area" and they may encounter "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to "use public lands north of Interstate 8" and to call 911 if they "see suspicious activity."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.

"Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona," he said. "They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.

"This is going on here in Arizona," he said. "This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."

He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government's "continued failure to secure our international border," saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.

In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them "an outrage" and telling President Obama to "Do your job. Secure our borders."

BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.

"We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up," he said. "The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all."

He said there should be "no sense that we have ceded the land," adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public.

"I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area," Mr. Godfrey said.

Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful cartels, yesterday announcing the arrest of Texas-born Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez - a powerful cartel leader captured outside of Mexico City on Monday evening.

More than 28,000 people have died since Mr. Calderon launched his crackdown in late 2006, and the bloodshed shows no sign of ending. Law enforcement authorities have been warning for more than two years that the dramatic rise in border violence eventually would spread into the U.S.

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol's front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.

"The federal government's lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity," he said. "Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.

"Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond," he said. "This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas."

Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government's new border security plan apparently is to "erect some signs telling you it's not safe to travel in our own country."

Returning English journalist finds a "feeling on so many fronts that Obama and his team simply don't understand governance"

The shock about coming to America after an absence of four months is how, in that time, respect for and confidence in President Obama has slumped. It wasn't good in March; now the effect of what one blogger has called his apparent "impotence" has taken hold. It is not clear what Mr Obama actually does. He isn't engaged with the economy; he certainly isn't engaged with foreign policy; he has abandoned hope of a climate change bill this year (and probably for ever); he has seen his health care bill into law, but America awaits news of how it will be implemented; he is under attack for a casual approach to illegal immigration, notably from the Mexican narco-state. He has only just girded himself to go campaigning for his party in the mid-term elections. Last Sunday was the 100-days-to-go mark, and the talk in politics here is of little else. Joe Biden, the vice-president, has been nominated as "campaigner in chief". Why? What is the President doing?

He appears to be reading the newspapers and the blogs and watching television. Last week, a twisted opponent put out a selectively edited video of a black Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, apparently admitting discriminating against a white farmer. Mrs Sherrod had done nothing of the sort – either the discrimination or, therefore, the admission of it – but was immediately sacked, for fear that Fox News was about to broadcast the video. This outrageous act was followed by an even more outrageous apology by the president the next day – outrageous in that Mrs Sherrod was not immediately given back her job. In the White House there were, we are told, great mutual congratulations (to start with) that swift action had stopped this becoming "a story". Well, it's a story now, not least because it exemplifies the incompetence and disconnection of the administration. Mrs Sherrod's husband was a leading civil rights activist and her father was murdered by white racists in 1965, so there is a resonance to this story that is causing discomfort.

The immediate proof of mismanagement adds to the cumulative feeling on so many other fronts that Mr Obama and his team simply don't understand governance. Last month Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, warned America that without more care being taken it could have a Greece-style debt problem. The president seemed to regard this warning as so self-evidently absurd that he quickly asked Congress for another $50 billion for various social projects. Last week, benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended for another six months at a cost of $34 billion. The health care programme is forecast to cost at least $863 billion. The total deficit this year is to be $1.47 trillion. America's debt is likely to be $18.5 trillion by 2020, though it will be so low as that only if growth is maintained at 4 per cent: it is currently 3 per cent, and rocky.

Brewer will spend $10 million in stimulus to guard AZ border

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, claiming to "reject" the Obama administration's assertion that the border is more secure than ever, announced Monday that she's directing $10 million in federal stimulus dollars to tackle smuggling and illegal immigration.

On the same day the administration announced its plan to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwestern states, Brewer said she's sending the pot of stimulus money to more than a dozen border cities and counties -- as well as several tribes and the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

She said the grant money would be targeted toward fighting drug trafficking, illegal immigration and human smuggling.

"Since the federal government continues to announce inadequate plans and place new warning signs on federal lands in Arizona, we are forced to do what we can locally to act on safety and security until the Congress and the administration act," she said in a statement. Brewer has said the National Guard deployment, which is directing more than 500 troops to her state alone, is not enough to handle the problem.

The border security stimulus money comes out of the stimulus package's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Though most of that money is intended to go toward education, states are allowed to use a small percentage toward public safety and "other government services." Brewer claimed in her statement that she was using her "discretionary" money pile to fight illegal immigration.

The grant money in Arizona will be active until September 2011. The money is primarily meant for paying law enforcement training costs and overtime, as well as travel costs and other expenses, and for bringing on new police officers and part-time personnel. The grant also can be used to buy certain equipment, like vehicles built for the "harsh environment" along the border and communications equipment.

The recipients include Yuma County, Santa Cruz County, Pima County, Cochise County, as well as the cities and towns of Benson, Bisbee, Yuma, Douglas, Nogales, Patagonia, Sahuarita, San Luis and Somerton.

As immigration fight heats up, Brewer and Obama win; we lose

On the eve of the Fourth of July, as here in Arizona we prepare to both celebrate this country's birthday and fend off its attack, it seems a good time to ponder the cage fight now under way in the land of the red, white and black-and-blue.

On one side stands Gov. Jan Brewer, who this week unleashed an ad that went national - as everything she does these days is apt to do. There she was, standing in front of one of those warning signs posted in the desert, turf now essentially ceded to drug and human smugglers.

"Washington is broken, Mr. President!" a visibly angry Brewer says. "Do your job. Secure our borders."

On the other stands President Barack Obama, who has been forced to take on the issue of illegal immigration given Senate Bill 1070. On Thursday, he called on Congress to fix America's "broken and dangerous" immigration system and then announced that it won't happen because of Republicans.

"I'm ready to move forward," Obama said. "The majority of Democrats are ready to move forward. And I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward."

So who wins?

Brewer does. Thanks to illegal immigrants, she's a rock star to the right and a regular now on the national talk-show circuit. On Monday, she even made an endorsement in the Georgia gubernatorial race, where a Republican candidate called her "an inspiration to conservatives." Polls that had her trailing Democrat Terry Goddard just three months ago had her 18 points ahead this week.

And Obama does. Latino leaders have been grinding their teeth for a while now, ever since Obama punted on his promise to tackle immigration reform during his first year in office. This week, he was able to both issue the call for a bipartisan approach and bash Republicans.

So who loses?

Oh, that's easy. The rest of us. Because the border remains a sieve and 11 million people remain in the shadows.

While unemployment was high and millions more were losing their jobs, legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. skyrocketed

With 10% unemployment, one would think that the government would consider lowering the number of green cards issued to foreign workers until Americans were back on their feet. Amazingly, recently released data from the Department of Homeland Security shows that we have actually increased immigration. Far from reflecting supply and demand, our legal immigration numbers continue to climb no matter the state of the national economy.

The latest figures come from fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, which is when our economic collapse began and continued through September of 2009. Over five million Americans lost their jobs during that period.

America issued 1,130,818 permanent green cards, 808,478 of which were given to immigrants of working age. This is an increase over 2008 and 2007. Excluding the extra green cards given after the 1986 amnesty, this was the second highest number of green cards issued since 1914. From 2000 though 2009, we issued 10,299,430—the highest decade in American history.

In addition to the green cards, the government issued 881,840 temporary work visas and gave refugee or asylum status to 96,721 aliens. The total increase to the American workforce was 1.75 million foreign workers. According to the Census Bureau, 1 out of every 6 workers is foreign born.

What are the possible justifications for this policy? Are these immigrants taking jobs Americans won’t do? With the unemployment rate at nearly 10%, no one can say this with a straight face.

Does this create diversity? The pool of legal immigrants is rather un-diverse. Less than 10% of them come from Europe.

Does more legal immigration decrease illegal immigration? If that were the case, you would have expected the illegal immigration numbers to decline as legal immigration increased. In fact, they have both skyrocketed.

Instead of talking about reducing these numbers, politicians are calling for raising the level of legal immigration.

By failing to control immigration the U.S. imports poverty and low skills, placing a long-term drag on the economy

Since 1970, America's largest source of immigrants has been Latin America, especially Mexico. More than half of these Latino immigrants lack a high school diploma.

Compare the U.S. experience with Canada's. More than half of all immigrants to Canada possess a university degree. Half of all Canada's Ph.D.s are foreign-born.

Why does America choose poorly educated immigrants? The short answer: America does not choose them. They choose themselves.

In the last decade, half of all the immigrants to the United States arrived illegally. Even many of the legal arrivals gained entry courtesy of relatives who originally slipped into the country against the law, then somehow regularized themselves.

By contrast, Canada (a country of 1/10 the U.S. population that takes proportionately many more immigrants than the United States) allows almost no illegal immigration.

The result: While immigration has enhanced the average skill level of the Canadian population, it has detracted from the average skill level of the U.S. population.

Many Americans carry in their minds a family memory of upward mobility, from great-grandpa stepping off the boat at Ellis Island to a present generation of professionals and technology workers. This story no longer holds true for the largest single U.S. immigrant group, Mexican-Americans.

Stephen Trejo and Jeffrey Groger studied the intergenerational progress of Mexican-American immigrants in their scholarly work, "Falling Behind or Moving Up?"

They discovered that third-generation Mexican-Americans were no more likely to finish high school than second-generation Mexican-Americans. Fourth-generation Mexican-Americans did no better than third.

If these results continue to hold, the low skills of yesterday's illegal immigrant will negatively shape the U.S. work force into the 22nd century.

The failure to enforce the immigration laws in the 1990s and 2000s means that the U.S. today has more poorly skilled workers, more poverty and more workers without health insurance than it would have generated by itself.

Arizona's new law against illegal immigration can do only so much to address the problem:

George Will: Arizona sees illegals as lawbreakers; White House sees them as new Democrat voters

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?

Next up: A strong bid for amnesty for illegals, followed by a surge in votes for Dem candidates

Between 1980 and 2008, 25.2 million people were granted permanent residency (green cards) by the United States. A comparison of voting patterns in presidential elections across counties over the last three decades shows that large-scale immigration has caused a steady drop in presidential Republican vote shares throughout the country. Once politically marginal counties are now safely Democratic due to the propensity of immigrants, especially Latinos, to identify and vote Democratic. The partisan impact of immigration is relatively uniform throughout the country, even though local Republican parties have taken different positions on illegal immigration. Although high immigration may work against Democratic policy goals, such as raising wages for the poor and protecting the environment, it does improve Democratic electoral prospects. In contrast, immigration may help Republican business interests hold down wages, but it also undermines the party’s political fortunes. Future levels of immigration are likely to be a key determinant of Republicans’ political prospects moving forward.

Thomas Sowell: November election "may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America"

What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term President, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power.

When all these newly minted citizens are rounded up on election night by ethnic organization activists and labor union supporters of the administration, that may be enough to salvage the Democrats' control of Congress as well.

The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don't usually bring out as many voters as Presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.

Human Events finds illegal immigration top issue

Among our respondents 90% are age 45 or older, 69% are male, 96% are Caucasian, 43% have household incomes above $75,000, 57% have at least a bachelor’s degree, and 36% are Veterans.

We asked readers to choose the top 5 social or political issues that concern them the most. The percent indicates the percentage of people that listed the issue in their top 5 concerns.

Top Issues:

Illegal Immigration/Border Control 77%

Terrorism 55%

Government Spending 55%

National Defense 42%

Second Amendment Preservation 41%

Energy Independence 40%

Abortion on Demand 31%

One Party Government Control 30%

Jobs/Economic Climate 29%

What can we take from these results? Americans are concerned about the economy but more deeply worried that the enemy of our Union is failure to guard what is most precious: United States citizenship. Illegal immigration is an assault on our citizenship and a devaluation of what American means.