By Nick Dial
Recently you may have heard of the botched attempt of the federal government to “track” weapons being purchased in the United States and being moved across the Mexican border. The ATF knowingly allowed these weapons to be transported across national lines, but when agent Brian Terry was killed by one of these weapons by Drug Cartel members, the debate over U.S. weapons and their impact on Mexico began all over again. You may have heard recent claims by gun control activists and politicians in support of such actions, but the claims they continue to parrot are not just factually false; they’re intellectually dishonest. To clear some of the falsehoods propagated by such groups of people, let’s take a look at the following claims.
Myth: “The violence in Mexico started when the assault weapons ban expired”-Mexican President Felipe Calderón
Fact: This statement is not only false; it’s grossly dishonest and shameless demagoguery. In no way can such a statement be supported. The Drug Wars in Mexico have a long history; cartel violence is nothing new. In fact, you may remember the 2000 movie “Traffic” starring Michael Douglas and Benicio Del Toro. This movie tackles the very issues of the increasing cartel influence and violence on our borders and in Mexico a full four years before the assault weapons ban expired. For Calderón to suggest such a thing is a blatant denial of Mexico’s own local criminal history and corruption. It should be also pointed out that the assault weapons ban had nothing to do with “assault weapons.” Often people are under the impression that weapons such as AK-47’s and AR-15’s are not legal under such a ban. This was made evident when in a 2004 debate between George Bush Jr. and John Kerry, Kerry asserted the ban needed to be renewed in order to remove and prevent weapons such as AK-47’s to be available on the streets. In reality, these firearms have always been available. The assault weapons ban limited items such as high capacity magazines, limiting the amount of rounds to 10. Collapsible stocks or mounted bayonets. If an AR-15 had a collapsible stock, under the bill, it was an “assault weapon”. The bill itself never removed the weapons. Instead, it placed arbitrary guidelines as to what was and was not considered an “assault weapon. Calderón’s statement is inflammatory, carless, and provides a perfect example of pulpit preaching for the sake of political expediency.
Myth: 90% of weapons used in Mexico to commit crime are traced to the U.S.
Fact: This statement serves as a perfect example of how to take a small bit of truth, and spin it to push an ideological agenda. Hillary Clinton, among many others, parrot this statement many times over, but do the facts support this statement? No. What one must understand is the use of the word “traced.” In 1968 the Gun Control Act was passed, and required all weapons manufactured and imported in the United States require a serial number. This serial number allows the weapon to be traced. Because we have such a requirement, it should come as no surprise that 90% of weapons “traceable” come from the U.S. The other masses of weapons have no such ability to be traced and therefore are not in the same demographic. What we have here is a case of political spin, where one takes a small truth and applies it in a general statement. For example, if you took 100 guns, and only 30 of them had serial numbers, then only those could be traced. Of those 30 guns, if 27 of them have U.S. serial numbers. This means that 90% of these weapons were traced back to the U.S. The other 70 weapons have been omitted from the equation and have left us with a statistic that gets thrown around carelessly.
“A large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.” Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (Lott, 2009).
In 2007-2009, the Mexican Government reported the seizing of 29,000 guns. Of those, only 68% of the guns were not traceable. As Lott points out, “In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.” (Lott, 2009).
Another point that should be made is why Drug Cartels would, with access to Central and South American black markets, two open coastlines, and the ability move mass amounts of narcotics across land and sea resort to getting the majority of their weapons from high priced retailers in the U.S.? The answer is they wouldn’t and they don’t. No weapons manufactured or imported after 1986 in the U.S. can be an automatic, unless there is a federal class 3 license involved. The majority of weapons used by drug cartels are of military grade, including fully automatic assault rifles, grenades, and RPG’s (rocket propelled grenade launchers). The idea that an individual is walking into a U.S. gun store, and walking out with such hardware is simply false. So where do these weapons come from? According to Tim Johnson of the McClatchy Washington Bureau, many of these weapons come from Central American military weapons arsenals.
“Crime groups in cahoots with venal army officers are looting military arsenals in Central America, giving them powerful weapons that allow them to outgun police and challenge the region’s regular armies. The weapons run the gamut from assault rifles to anti-tank missiles, some of which the U.S. supplied during regional conflicts more than two decades ago. The slippage from military armories occurs regularly. The feared Mexican organized crime group known as Los Zetas has stolen weapons from military depots in Guatemala three times in recent years, Guatemalan Deputy Security Minister Mario Castaneda told an anti-narcotics conference in early April in Cancun, Mexico. In February, U.S. prosecutors unsealed a five-count indictment against a retired army captain from El Salvador for allegedly selling or offering C-4 plastic explosives, assault rifles, grenades and blasting caps to undercover agents.” (Johnson, 2011).
Not only does Central America play a massive arms role in weapons supply, but so does the black market from China, South Korea, former Soviet blocs, and Africa. All of which can bring boatloads into Cartel controlled coast lines.
The idea that the U.S. supplies Mexico’s drug war with the majority of weapons, and therefore is to blame for the violence associated with it is not only misleading, it is quite simply false. While many politicians and gun control groups love to spread these myths as if they’re stating fact, it is important that the people of the United States arm themselves with knowledge of the truth.
References
Johnson, T. (2011, April 21). Drug gangs help themselves to Central American military arsenals. Retrieved 2011 2, July, from McClatchy Washington Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/v-print/112616/drug-gangs-help-themselves-to.html
Lott, W. L. (2009, April 2). The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. Retrieved July 2, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/
By Nick Dial
Recently Arizona passed into law a new bill, 1070. This new bill has brought on an onslaught of controversy, rumors, myths, and nonstop attacks. The problem is, when you listen to the outlandish statements made by those who oppose this new law, it quickly becomes evident that they themselves either did not read the bill and have no understanding for how the law works in practice or they are simply ignoring the facts and dishonestly exploiting the issue for political gain.
Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked liked an illegal immigrant, and if you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (2010). This statement coming from a sitting president is shocking. My first question is this; tell me, Mr. President, what does an illegal alien look like? I wasn’t aware that in the United States illegal aliens were labeled as one race over another. Are there not illegal immigrants that may be Canadian, Asian, or European? The fact that now the President is insinuating the Latino race as the Poster Child for what an illegal immigrant looks like, should be troubling and offensive to all Latino people of this nation. In a debate where the word “racism” often gets thrown around, you must ask yourself, who are the ones really making race a focal point? It’s certainly not a law that only focuses on legal status. Nowhere in this bill does the law make any reference to race or skin color in any way.
President Obama’s statement also demonstrated that he either has no understanding of how law enforcement works, or he is choosing to ignore the facts and push misinformation to drive more hysteria in support for his political position on this issue. By stating that you may be “harassed” by simply going out in public is both false and inflammatory. To have the leader of our nation spread such misinformation on legislation when Obama himself was a sitting legislator displays gross negligence on his part as the representative of this nation.
To clear up some of the myths about this bill being spread by activists on the left, let’s take a look at the popular talking points being repeated.
Myth: Hispanics will be randomly stopped by police when they go out in public. Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked like an illegal immigrant, you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (Politcal punch, 2010).
Fact: This could not be any less true. A police officer must conduct themselves as they always have, and have probable cause for their stop. Citizenship status is not a primary infraction and therefore does not constitute probable cause for a stop. It is a secondary infraction. An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation, and then later find the driver has no legal status or identification. At this point an arrest may result after further investigation. This is no different than a drug charge. You don’t look at a car and say, “hey, they have drugs.” Once the vehicle is stopped, however, there may be other factors that indicate further probable cause to look for drugs, for example, an odor being emitted from the vehicle.
Myth: You will be questioned without just cause. “Republican governor Jan Brewer is deciding whether to sign the bill. “Reasonable suspicion” is not clearly defined. But it’s obvious that anyone who “looks” Latino, just like anyone who looked Jewish, could be stopped and required to produce documentation proving they are legally in the country.” (Valen, 2010).
Fact: Reasonable suspicion is very uniform in its application. If an officer pulls a vehicle over and the driver does not speak English, has no driver’s license, no state ID, no social security number to give, at this point there is ample reasonable suspicion for the officer to investigate further. The officer would then run a name and date of birth check to see if any DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records show. If this comes back blank with no record, there is probable cause to detain the individual to investigate their legal status. The argument made by the above author claims there is no definition in the state law as to what “probable cause is.” This is unnecessary. This falls under federal law which is mandated by constitutional law, which in return trumps state law.
“When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).” (Probable Cause, 2011).
Probable cause is clearly defined, and this argument holds no truth or merit in its current argued state.
Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.
“The legislation makes it a misdemeanor for foreign nationals to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. But since it’s impossible to identify a foreign national by sight, it effectively mandates that all individuals in Arizona carry papers. That’s right: you, American citizen, can’t walk your dog or buy milk from the grocery store without having papers on you that confirm your legal residence. If you take your kids to the park and forget your documentation at home, you can be held in police custody until your information is verified, even if you’re a U.S. citizen.” (Menendez, 2010)
Fact: Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green card. In most states you must carry a form of ID and if an officer asks for your identification on a stop, you must give it to them. Arizona’s law is no different then what is already on the books. When you go to the DMV, you MUST provide vital records such as a birth certificate in order to obtain a valid driver’s license. If you are not a citizen, you still must have the proper paper work that shows you are in the nation legally before obtaining the license. The following are an example of some of the identification requirements provided by AZdot.gov, the Arizona State website for the vehicle Motor Division.
“Identification Requirements: You need two documents listed below-one must have a clear photo of you, or three documents listed below with no photo” (azdot.gov, 2011)
Examples of such identification include the following,
Primary: U.S. state or territory issued driver’s license, state issued birth certificate, U.S. passport, U.S. certificate of citizenship.
Secondary: U.S. Military ID, Social Security Card, Concealed Weapon Permit, Marriage Certificate.
As you can see, the documentation required by the state of Arizona to legally obtain a driver’s license already verifies one’s legal status and would not be accessible unless they were here in the country legally. When an officer stops an individual and must enquirer into legal status, whether or not that person holds a valid driver’s license with the state tells the officer most of what they need to know. Having a valid license takes the place of a birth certificate. The notion that you would have to carry such papers is false and not supported by fact, but rather emotional sentiment and misconception.
Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.
“The practical effect of the law will likely result in officers engaging in racial profiling by questioning and detaining individuals based on their race and ethnicity. Even if you think that your State legislators are opposed to SB 1070, it is still beneficial for them to hear from constituents that a dangerous racial profiling law will not be tolerated” (ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070!, 2010).
Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. In fact, it’s a false logic based on ad populeum and sloganeering of racial profiling. Most police officers’ conduct themselves in a professional manner and are careful not to violate a person’s civil rights. The idea that somehow a new bill will cause racial profiling is an empty one. This statement is based on the assumption that officers who racially profile would only do so if it were “in the rules.” Racial profiling is illegal, and whether or not an officer participates in such acts is the choice of that individual. This law will no more encourage the officer who chooses to profile anymore then racial profiling being illegal will discourage it. This is like the empty argument stating that making guns illegal to carry will rid gun crime. If you’re a criminal, you don’t care about the law hence the title “criminal”, and will carry a weapon anyway regardless of what the law states. The same concept applies to the corrupt officer. Ethics come down to the individual, not what a law may or may not state. They will either profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that reality.
Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime. This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.
“SB 1070 did NOTHING useful to really deal with the real problem on our border. The real problem is those guys armed with AK 47s that were shooting at Pinal County deputies over by Interstate 8.We have a serious problem when drug cartel gunmen can get all the way to Interstate 8 to shoot at our deputies. Would there be a meaningful federal response if the gunmen were speaking Pashtun instead of Spanish? SB 1070 didn’t even come close to that problem” (Holub, 2010).
Fact: While this bill is not focused specifically at drugs, it does aid in the cartel drug problem in a large way. Illegal immigrants who come here to work depend on an economic system that caters to their illegal status. Their ability to find work, employment, earn an income and maintain a place to live is necessary for their survival. This bill makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to seek employment. It makes it unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal and unlawful to rent a home to an illegal. The end result of this will become a natural weeding- out process. The people, who are truly here to work, will leave on their own merit. They will have no other choice because you must be able to provide an income and shelter for families to live upon. They will either go back home or simply move to another state that is lax on immigration law. In 2008 E-verify for employment and immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpio made Arizona a more restricted place for illegal aliens to reside. Since 2008, an estimated 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state. The natural result of this will make law enforcement more effective when fighting drug and cartel crime, because people who are only in AZ to work will have to relocate, largely leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegal aliens who are here for malicious reasons, i.e. to traffic, push drugs, and run cartel errands will not need to relocate. They do not rely on legitimate work to provide an income. The lack of a general population of illegal aliens to blend in with may even result in cartels moving operations to cities and states that do not have such strict laws. Because the general population would move away, this leaves their operatives exposed for tracking and apprehension. It is much harder to blend in as just another landscaper looking for work when all the legitimate workers have moved away to other states where they can still obtain work. This will greatly aid both ICE and local law enforcement in combating cartel activity and tracking down operatives for such operations.
AZ Bill 1070 is in place simply to enable our local law enforcement with the power to enforce laws that often get neglected on the federal level. For example, one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no driver’s license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was however, we did not have the tools in place to detain the man. This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration.
“The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported. “The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying” (Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons, 2008).
If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented the first day they discovered his legal status.
The outcry against Arizona’s new law is not only silly, but is a complete demonstration of ignorance of the already existing laws of this nation. Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same as double jeopardy. Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal, Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense. The question can be asked, “What’s all the fuss about?” The real answer is simple… enforcement. Illegal aliens and their supporters have long lived comfortably in the United States relying on the complacency and lack of enforcement of the federal government to thrive. Now that a border state like Arizona has made a stand to enforce the law the federal government chooses to ignore, they have no more economic collusion that came with sanctuary policies. They are angry because in Arizona, the gravy train has made its final stop, and the tax payers have had enough. There will be no more free meals; no more living in comfort while law abiding immigrants patiently wait for their legal papers to enter this country the respectful and correct way. The message here is that we reward those who follow the rules, and tell people who cut the line and break the rules to get in the back. The first step has been taken and hopefully, many other states will soon follow suit.
References
Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons. (2008, April 08). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513378,00.html
ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070! (2010, May 11). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from CAIR California : http://ca.cair.com/losangeles/action_alert/action_alert_say_no_to_racial_profiling_stop_the_spread_of_sb_1070
Politcal punch. (2010, April 27). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/president-obama-says-arizonas-poorlyconceived-immigration-law-could-mean-hispanicamericans-are-haras/
azdot.gov. (2011). Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Motor Vehicle Division.
Probable Cause. (2011, September). Retrieved Septmeber 22, 2011, from LectLaw.com: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
Holub, H. (2010, May 23). SB 1070 does nothing to stop drug cartel gunmen. Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Tucsoncitizen.com:
Menendez, A. (2010, April 23). SB 1070: A Little Bit of History Repeating . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Laprensa-Sandiego.org
Valen, C. (2010). probable Cause . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ChristopherValen.com: http://christophervalen.com/blog/?p=259
