Here’s another thing the mainstream media won’t report.
My wife and I sometimes attend a “wild game dinner” on Capitol Hill. It’s a lot of fun. People interested in environmental issues, some of them employed by congressional committees, almost all on the Republican side, discuss the latest “green” tactics. The basic position of those who attend is that free markets better protect the environment than government ownership.
At the latest dinner I was told something I had never heard before about the Arizona immigration law that has caused so much liberal fury. Why has the illegal immigrant problem been concentrated on Arizona? The mainstream media respond this way:
“As border controls are tightened elsewhere, including through the construction of a border fence in parts of Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico,” Peter Slevin reported in the Washington Post, “Mexican migrants and smugglers have gravitated” to parts of Arizona near Tucson. The police chief from Nogales was quoted: “When you plug a hole in the wall, the water looks for another spot to flow through. Arizona is that spot.”
But this story, and another in the New York Times (“On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas”), plus almost everyone else, missed the real story: migrants and drug smugglers (marijuana, mainly) are attracted to parts of Arizona for a specific reason. On these federal lands, environmental regulations prevent the Border Patrol from doing its job. That’s what the mainstream media won’t report.
A friend at the wild game dinner put me in touch with Spencer Pederson, Republican press secretary with the House Natural Resources Committee. As best I can make out from what he said, and from the Internet, this story has barely made it into the press, with the notable exception of Fox News. An excellent summary of the situation was presented in a “special ordersot; speech on the House floor by Utah congressman Rob Bishop in mid-June. It can be seen on YouTube.
Over and over again, Bishop makes this simple point. The U.S. side of the 1,950-mile border with Mexico is about 60 percent private land and 40 percent federal. “Almost all” of the migrants and drug smugglers come across federal lands, protected by stringent “wilderness” designations or endangered species rules. The federals are submissive before the environmental regs that interfere with border enforcement. The Border Patrol, a division of Homeland Security, has to complete lengthy environmental reports and get permission from the Departments of Agriculture and Interior before it can do anything. This can take several months.
So yes, there is indeed an Arizona funnel through which the illegals enter. One federal agency works against another to create the funnel. The Mexicans are all but invited to come in and trample down the wilderness, which of course they don’t care about. They actually cut down endangered cacti and lay them across roads to keep the Border Patrol out.
Why do we hear so little about the Texas border? It is 1,250 miles long, or almost two-thirds of the entire Mexican border. The Rio Grande certainly helps, but the main reason is that it is mostly private land. Private owners are capable of patrolling their own borders. The California border is increasingly fenced (fences do work, contrary to rumor), and that leaves Arizona and New Mexico.
Arizona is almost all “protected” federal land, and that means protected from rude incursions by the Border Patrol. In many areas, the Border Patrol people must exit their SUVs and proceed across dangerous and inhospitable terrain on horseback. Or foot.
That’s the story that Congressman Bishop has been trying to tell us. Here’s something from a Fox News story in June:
Border Patrol agents must navigate a patchwork of environmental regulations dating back decades in order to police for drug cartels, smugglers and illegal immigrants-often on foot and horseback in some of the most vulnerable areas of the southwest border.
To unlock the legislative handcuffs, a group of House lawmakers are pushing a bill [authored by Rep. Bishop] that would prohibit the Departments of Interior and Agriculture from taking any action that would “impede border security” on public lands.
A good addendum to this story, by Kevin Mooney, who also contributes to Fox News, was published by TAS online on May 12. He reported that Raul Grijalva, a leftist congressman from Arizona, has, “under the guise of environmental protection,” introduced “legislation that would restrict the movement of border security agents and create safe havens for criminal elements transporting illegal aliens and narcotics.”
Which is already happening, of course. Grijalva wants the enviros to redouble their efforts; Bishop wants to allow the Border Patrol to do its job. Grijalva, who seems to be primarily interested in representing Mexican interests, has also called for a boycott of his home state (Arizona, in case you were wondering). He is “a reliable mouthpiece for the cause of lawlessness on the U.S.-Mexico border,” Mooney wrote.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?