FRIDAY, MAY 28, 2010
KLMNO
Washington FORUM
BORDER WARS
The truth behind the Arizona law
by Kirk Adams
L
phoenix
ately it seems as though each day brings a new group or city council an- nouncing that it will boycott Arizona in response to our state’s recently enacted immigration law, S.B. 1070. Many organiza- tions and individuals are jumping on the media-hype bandwagon rather than taking the time to read the bill and research the facts. It is not just incredibly unfortunate that cities such as Boston, San Francisco and Se- attle, which are far removed from the prob- lems that we face here on the southern bor- der, have announced boycotts against Ari- zona. Frankly, it’s offensive. If such drug- and gang-related crimes were affecting public safety in Manhattan or Boston, East Coast elites would be declaring a national emergency.
But instead we have Attorney General Er-
ic Holder, who, after criticizing S.B. 1070 and suggesting that the federal government may sue Arizona over the legislation, ad- mitted while testifying before the House Ju- diciary Committee that he hadn’t actually read the bill.
And then there is President Obama, who called S.B. 1070 “misguided” despite the fact that it mirrors federal law. After signifi- cant pressure to do something about illegal immigration, Obama pledged this week to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border. But this plan falls far short of real border security, and the people of Arizona will no longer be assuaged by such symbolic actions. Americans overwhelmingly support this
law, according to polls, and at least 18 other states are considering adopting similar im- migration laws. In fact, Arizona’s state gov-
S.B. 1070 mirrors federal law by making it a state crime to be in this country illegally. Even California has a similar law.
ernment has received hundreds of unsolic- ited donations in the mail from citizens across the nation asking us to use the mon- ey to fight illegal immigration. This sends an incredible message to our federal gov- ernment that, until it steps up to protect cit- izens, states will have no choice but to act, as Arizona did, for our citizens’ safety. I hope the president, the attorney general and other concerned Americans read Ari- zona’s legislation. If they do, they would learn that, as signed, S.B. 1070 mirrors fed- eral law by making it a state crime to be in this country illegally, as has been the case in federal statute for decades. The trailer bill makes it crystal-clear that racial profiling is not and will not be tolerated. It also recog- nizes an established standard, “reasonable suspicion,” for Arizona law enforcement of- ficials to use when determining whether a person’s presence is legal. This measure protects both the officer and the individual in question. Furthermore, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order requiring the state to use representatives from U.S. Immi- gration and Customs Enforcement to train our law enforcement officials, ensuring they receive appropriate training to apply federal standards. In any event, the legisla- tion clearly states that law enforcement of- ficials “may not consider race, color or na- tional origin” while enforcing immigration law. Under the law, officers can only attempt
to determine a person’s immigration status during “lawful contact,” which is defined as a lawful stop, detention or arrest. Any “rea- sonable suspicion” can be derived only through the investigation of another vio- lation or crime. Those who are concerned that law enforcement can simply walk up to a person and say, “Can I see your papers?” should keep this in mind. Even California, a state home to vocal de-
tractors of S.B. 1070 and Arizona boycot- ters, has a similar law on its books. I suggest critics research California Penal Code Sec- tion 834b, which states, in part: “With re- spect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the Unit- ed States in violation of federal immigra- tion laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: “Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent res- ident, an alien lawfully admitted for a tem- porary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documenta- tion to indicate his or her legal status.” Sound familiar? Arizona has plenty to do fighting the ef-
fects of illegal immigration. It’s a shame that because of our efforts to protect our citizens and uphold federal law, we now have to fight ignorance, too.
The writer, a Republican from Mesa, is speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.
Send in the Guard — but for what?
Focus on stopping crime rings, not immigrants
by Jennifer Bernal-Garcia
A
fter almost a year of debate between officials of the Homeland Security and De-
fense departments, President Oba- ma announced Tuesday that he would deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico, coupled with a request to Congress for $500 million to enhance border security measures. The deploy- ment’s main flaw is immediately clear: It does not fit into a broader strategy to counter the instability generated by drug violence. This is a tactical response to a strategic problem. Until the Obama adminis- tration develops a strategy for deal- ing with the growing turmoil along the border, deploying troops risks placing the United States on a slip- pery slope of escalating militariza- tion with little positive effect. Obama’s decision was largely a political gesture to win Republican support for immigration reform. Although some have welcomed the move, critics such as Sen. John Mc- Cain (R-Ariz.) complain that 1,200 troops will not make a difference. These skeptics are right. A couple of thousand more boots on the ground will barely affect the situation on the border. Moreover, Mexicans will rightly
be wary. Obama risks being seen as militarizing the border instead of taking measures the international community has long called for, such as placing further emphasis on drug reduction, renewing the ex- pired ban on assault weapons or ratifying the Inter-American Con- vention Against the Illicit Manufac- turing of and Trafficking in Fire- arms. (In fact, reluctance to “milita- rize” the border was a main reason Pentagon officials disagreed with Homeland Security counterparts
over the functions of troops that might be deployed.) The big question is: Would many more troops make a difference? The Bush administration sent 6,000Na- tional Guard members to the bor- der in 2006 under Operation Jump Start. Their two-year mission was to offer support — mainly logistical — to law enforcement; presumably, this will also be the mission of those Obama is deploying. Then, as now, the impetus was a political need re- lated to the debate on immigration reform. Overall smuggling of drugs and people did not diminish, and immigration law has yet to be reformed. Even in the best-case scenario,
the National Guard can act only as a stopgap, as at least one Bush ad- ministration official, now safely out of office, has admitted. The United States does not need more border enforcement but smarter border enforcement. The real threat to U.S. security along America’s southern edge comes from organized crime rings, not masses of immigrants, even illegal ones. Illegal immigra- tion rates have declined for several years, partly because of the reces- sion but also because border en- forcement has been improving. (For example, there are more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents, an 80 percent increase since 2004 and an all-time high in that agency’s his- tory. Spending on surveillance tech- nologies has also facilitated better monitoring of the border.) Yet even as border patrolling has improved, the power of criminal or- ganizations has grown. Crime rates in border cities are not skyrocket- ing as some claim, but high-profile incidents, such as striking murders and clashes with law enforcement, are on the rise, along with attempts to corrupt U.S. officials. The most dangerous groups are the most so-
phisticated ones, and they know how to avoid enforcement hot spots. Physical acts, such as in- stalling fences or increasing pa- trols, will not do much to affect drug violence, drug smuggling, drug-related corruption of public officials or the myriad other ills that drug trafficking visits on a popula- tion.
What is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign gov- ernments, not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on re- ducing criminal groups’ ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their so- cial base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social pro- grams). It would expand beyond borders and would include most countries in the region to counter “balloon effects,” the relocation of illicit activity from one area to an- other. Its ultimate goal would be to ensure that illicit trades do not up- set stability in areas of interest to U.S. security, be they regions in Mexico or in Arizona. In the meantime, questions about the troop deployment remain to be answered: What states will they come from? How will they be distributed? How will the govern- ment ensure that the National Guard counters criminals but does not deal directly with immigrants, as the White House has promised? Without a broader strategy, send- ing troops to the border smells of mission creep. Given the situation today, if the government continues deploying units, there is no saying what might bring them back.
Jennifer Bernal-Garcia is researcher at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
as immigration, conservatives have a responsibility to commit our- selves to our philosophy of less tax- ing, less spending, less government and more freedom. That means opposing any ad-
ministration, Republican or Democratic, when it taxes too much, spends too much or takes over nearly one-sixth of the economy.
Arizona’s law vs. GOP principles
A
by Connie Mack
merica is at a crossroads on a number of issues. And as we tackle national concerns such
president — Gen. Dwight D. Eisen- hower — led the allied forces in Eu- rope, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We de- stroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution. We did so under the guise that we
were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safe-
Conservatives’ most important responsibility is to protect liberty. The Arizona law doesn’t do that.
When the Obama administration undermines the basic concepts of capitalism and the free market through endless bailouts, “stimu- lus” plans and a government take- over of health care, it is picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy — and threatening our liberties. The latest issue freedom-loving
conservatives should be concerned about is the Arizona immigration law. This law clearly challenges citi- zens’ freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being af- fected.
During World War II, while a German American hero and future
guard our rights, our freedoms and our nation. Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens — a shameful overreach of the government. The Arizona immigration law re- minds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the pri- vate sector and our private lives. Illegal immigration poses clear
security risks to our nation and is a cancer on our economic well-being. The Obama administration and
previous administrations have failed to secure our border. While the announcement of additional National Guard troops at the bor- der is a good first step, the federal government must do more to se-
Obama’s foreign bribery crackdown
by Mark Brzezinski
forcement. The surge in investigations and pros- ecutions regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has produced real buzz that the days of doing business with a wink and a nod are over and that even decisions made years ago may result in serious punishment. The effort is motivated in part by the principle
A
SARAH L. VOISIN / THE WASHINGTON POST
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, second from left, prepares for a news conference on the 1,248 pounds of marijuana that was seized near the Texas border in February 2009.
that business shouldn’t be conducted one way in modern countries and another way in developing nations. In a May 4 speech at the Council on For- eign Relations, Lanny Breuer, chief of the Justice Department Criminal Division, framed the goal as “the creation of a global consensus that corruption is unacceptable, that it harms the least well-off of us the most.” The administration also links corrup- tion with national security challenges such as ter- rorism and trafficking in people, guns and narcotics. Ten years ago there were roughly eight federal
investigations at any time regarding foreign bribes. Today, the Justice Department has more than 130 open investigations. More FCPA-related indictments were brought in the past year than over the previous seven years combined. Justice’s Criminal Division has set up a task force and has requested additional funding for fiscal 2011 to beef up its workforce. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which enforces accounting provi- sions of the act, has also set up a task force. Those charged have included CEOs, CFOs and other senior corporate, sales, marketing and fi- nance executives, intermediaries and, where juris- diction exists, even some foreign officials. No busi- ness is immune; some in Hollywood were pros- ecuted in September for bribes made in connection with Thailand’s film festival. Charging individuals is part of the strategy. Nothing focuses the mind like personal accountability. This leaves executives more focused than ever
on what distant salespeople and consultants are doing to land business, because executives are be- ing held accountable even if they were never al- leged to have personally engaged in improper pay- ments. “Willful ignorance” of business partners paying bribes is enough to incur liability, as a founder of fashion accessories firm Dooney & Bourke learned last July as a passive investor in a
Ten years ago there were eight federal investigations into foreign bribes at any time. Now, there are 130 probes.
scheme to privatize Azerbaijan’s oil industry. One successful case may cause the government to focus on an entire industry, as is happening with phar- maceuticals. No longer does the Justice Department rely sole- ly on tips from whistle-blowers or business com- petitors to build cases. Today, officials are turning the tools of organized-crime investigations to anti- bribery. They are setting up sting operations, as took place in a recent investigation in which de- fendants from the United States, Britain and Israel allegedly tried to bribe a country’s defense min- ister to provide access to outfit the country’s presi- dential guard. While the FCPA is subject to a five- year statute of limitations, the government is ef- fectively stretching that period in some cases by tacking on conspiracy charges where appropriate. So companies are looking beyond the past five years to determine their vulnerability. For there to be true deterrence, the United
cure our borders — both north and south — now. But trampling on the rights of some Americans to protect the ma- jority conflicts with the values our nation was founded upon. Our Constitution protects indi- vidual freedoms and liberties. No- where does this document speak of protecting the majority over the mi- nority. Anger about the economy, increased crime and security concerns are fueling this law, not constitutional principles. Conservatives’ most impor- tant responsibility is to re- member to protect freedom,
liberty and the rights of every citi- zen. The Arizona immigration law doesn’t do that, and that’s why I op- pose it.
I am proud that the GOP has been the party in which freedom has always mattered. We are a party whose members are willing to stand up for liberty because we be- lieve that freedom matters and that it works. As the wise saying goes, he who
sacrifices freedom for security ends up with neither.
I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked “Where are your papers?” We are better than that.
The writer, a Republican, represents Florida’s 14th District in the U.S. House.
States can’t be the only jurisdiction enforcing anti- bribery laws. That would only take American com- panies out of the game and give corrupt compa- nies overseas a competitive advantage. Other ju- risdictions must enact and enforce their own laws. For example, Britain’s Bribery Act of 2010 expands beyond the FCPA by criminalizing failure to pre- vent bribery and creating no exceptions for “facil- itation payments.” New agreements between the European Union and the United States make it easier to extradite individuals and share information. But in key markets, while there is high-level rec- ognition of problems, little change has followed. Greek President Andreas Papandreou said last De- cember that his government was “riddled with corruption.” The Chinese government revealed in December that China lost approximately $35 bil- lion to fraud and corruption last year. As the United States seeks to match and coordi-
nate efforts bilaterally and multilaterally, we should think about several things: What if other governments — beyond Britain — pass similar laws and try to enforce them against us? Suppose Chinese prosecutors went after a U.S. company operating in China that had paid bribes in Russia? Would we view this as a positive or trou- bling development? The FBI is deploying “legal attaches” in more than 75 embassies worldwide, partly to focus on bribery investigations. But how can FBI agents prepare for this kind of work? Corruption in Paris is different from corruption in Kabul. There is no single, useful definition. How can governments work together to achieve coordinated and effective punishment of those who offer bribes and those who take them, and ad- vance real deterrence? As the United States claims the moral right to pursue corruption around the world, we are obliged to remember that our own record is not beyond reproach. The Justice Department has been appropriately humble in this regard. As Breuer said when discussing rule-of-law promo- tion and sustainable partnership: “Whether they be problems of corruption, organized crime or narcotics we must be candid that we . . . still have these issues in the United States as well.”
The writer is an attorney at McGuireWoods and counsels companies on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
mong the more underreported develop- ments of the Obama administration is the ramp-up in international “anti-bribery” en-
R
A23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128