Immigration agents raid AZ van shuttle businesses

[The Northerner]

Source: Associated Press

PHOENIX — Federal agents on Thursday targeted more than 50 shuttle operators and smugglers accused of using the vans to transport thousands of illegal immigrants from spots near the Mexican border to Phoenix.

Investigators, who billed the bust as the largest human smuggling case in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's seven-year history, said the operators of four shuttle services in Tucson and a fifth in Phoenix created their businesses solely to help immigrant smugglers move their customers to Phoenix under a veil of legitimacy. The shuttle operators are accused of giving illegal immigrants fraudulent receipts and coaching them on what to say if the vans were pulled over by police.

"They are in knee-deep. They know exactly what's going on," said John Morton, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement.

Arrests were made in Phoenix, Tucson and two other Arizona towns along the border, Nogales and Rio Rico. Investigators also made arrests in Tennessee, and Mexican authorities detained people south of the border. More than 800 agents from nine law enforcement agencies were involved, authorities said. The number of arrests hasn't yet been released.

In Phoenix, dozens of agents — some wearing black hoods over their faces — swarmed two shuttle business early Thursday in a strip mall in a heavily Latino neighborhood, just west of the state Capitol. They seized at least a dozen vans from shuttle companies, including new full-size vans emblazoned with the name of Sergio's Shuttle and older full-sized and minivans from other companies.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOJtMzev9B8u5b9EqUNwv8LUpTrgD9F3NE8G0

[Ian David]

1. I hope the company running The TeaBag Express is involved in this. n/t

[StopTheNeoCons]

2. +100

[SoapBox]

3. Creepy...I'm glad I'm no longer in that state.

And...what is Mexico's policy regarding "illegal" immigrants?

Can they start picking up and kicking out Americans that moved down there, bought property and work?

Arizona and CrazyAmericans, "As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap."

[paulsby]

4. mexico is far harsher on aliens , even LEGAL ones, than we are

for example, take a look at their SOUTHERN border

and even legal aliens are forbidden by law from participating in writing letters to the editor, marches, and political debates

[Bobbieo]

5. Is there an 'upside' to all of this? Will there be more jobs for US citizens?

[ManiacJoe]

20. One upside is that

it will slow down the illegal immigration, as marginal that change might be.

That will probably not affect the job rates in any noticeable way.

[PWK]

9. You're an expert on Mexican law?

"mexico is far harsher on aliens , even LEGAL ones, than we are"

Substantiate, please. At least link to something.

[paulsby]

10. i already gave you 2 examples

but since you make false accusations, (i never claimed to be an expert), why should i accomodate you.


http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4AIcmcmfvj8J:www.c4ads.org/files/waller_csp_apr2006_mexico.pdf+speech+restrictions+mexico+aliens+foreigners+political+debate&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgS4tdUajcgtRziPvxJXTdeA14JPvp3IQaYLC2zmVg2Q3CE3YzfY4pOThQLHsj7GiVmiXDPABYZHkuDU-BX7h9sGaTxVqJ-6TOX_Tvg18ClRYn5evDaZrRtso6hwqar8HnIgZl_&sig=AHIEtbRyqRggnyQWSx5KITJEQg1pj0wfLA

go to the bottom of page 1 in the above link for a summary

"The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s
political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in
public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take
part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in
any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”"

The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
ones, in the public sector. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under
equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or
commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of
peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.”
The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real
Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants,
and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship
and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or
commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for
captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the
crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is
also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and
all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs
agent in the Republic.”
An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican
citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article
37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.


do you DOUBT either of my claims?
http://www.cjd.org/paper/cause.html
http://www.worldpress.org/0901feature22.htm
http://www.chiapaspeacehouse.org/cs/node/74162
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back702.html
http://csis.org/multimedia/audio-understanding-mexicos-southern-border


in brief, illegal entry into mexico is a felony with up to a 2 yr sentence.

General population act of Jan. 7, 1994. Section C. Sanctions , Article 6, Federal Penal Code, Article 140. D. Illegal entry is a crime in Mexico (delito) subject to imprisonment for up to 2 years.

[PWK]

12. Thanks for providing sources. And, sorry for calling you an expert.

Now, about those laws:

Do Mexico's harsh laws mean that the US ought to pursue equal harshness? (An answer in the affirmative appears to be the purpose of your original post.)

No, they do not. The people of Mexico do not necessarily agree with their government's laws and policy regarding immigration, just as many (most?) US citizens disagree with a substantial amount of US law and policy. Mexican laws, therefore, are not representative of many Mexican citizens; yet, an argument for harsher US law, policy, or enforcement founded on the harshness of Mexican law places the onus on Mexican citizens, not on the laws promulgated by the government of a broadly heterogeneous country. Trying to justify US immigration law by the bad acts of another is wrong-headed; punishing the people of Mexico for harshness imposed on immigrants in Mexico confuses the issue entirely. Mexico taking an objectionable stance toward immigration does not qualify a similar stance elsewhere, and pursuing Mexican immigrants with greater fervor because of Mexican immigration law ignores the entirety of the situation in the US. If you understand why a "well, they did it to us!" stance never renders bad things bonified--especially when you've confused and imposed imaginary homogeneity upon both the "they" and the "us," as here--then you'll understand why Mexico's immigration laws are irrelevant, and why your stance boils down to perverse nativism and nothing more.

Better to ask yourself just why it is--in reality--you're excited about harsh US immigration policy. (Please don't say "They took our jobs!"--and be careful with you pronouns; there's been quite a lot wrapped up in your use of "they" thus far.)

[paulsby]

13. i appreciate it

but

#1 we don't HAVE a harsh immigration policy. remember, we are a unique nation in that the cops are not federalized . canada and most other western nations have federal COPS. we don't. RCMP etc.

local cops are often prohibited (in seattle, it's a violation of city code- iow illegal) for a SPD cop to even QUESTION somebody's immigration status. we have two very porous borders, and we treat those crossing it illegally with kid gloves.

i think there few more fundamental aspects of national authority exist, than the authority of a nation to determine who does and doesn't come in

period.

i don't expect ANY other country to accept US citizens that enter THEIR country unlawfully, and i feel the same way about our country

spare me the terms like "nativist" etc. that's just name calling. you may not believe that borders matter. i do . you may not believe that sovereignty matters. i do .

i don't BLAME illegal immigrants. if i was a poor mexican (as opposed to one of their filthy rich) , i'd probably cross the border illegally.

[PWK]

14. Wrong direction.

Actually, US immigration law is quite harsh; it's simply under-enforced by agencies driven by bigotry and xenophobia rather than competence. US immigration law tears families apart everyday, and, perhaps more important to you, ICE raids leave whole companies and towns eviscerated. Sure, there's the "well, they shouldn't have come here and established a family to lose" rhetoric flying about everywhere, but as you said, "if i was a poor mexican...i'd probably cross the border illegally." The imposition of jail sentences is comparatively minor in light of the long-term damage done to families, businesses, and communities whenever ICE takes notice of what's always right in front of them: tens of millions of undocumented workers and their families, many of whom have been here for generations.

I certainly understand the importance of borders and sovereignty. However, contemporary conceptualizations of these things don't make much sense--but that's another discussion. I do not discount the role that borders and sovereignty play in today's international and domestic politics, though. But it is also important to remember that conceptualizations of these things vary widely from place to place, country to country, and nobody with the time to write on this blog can understand the drive to "violate" these "fundamental aspects of national authority," except to express some intuition that illegal border crossings become necessary for many "poor mexican." And, the belief that it is indispensable to government, sovereignty, etc to hold the authority "to determine who does and doesn't come in" is one that can hardly withstand even a cursory examination of US history and political theory; it may be a political stance with a good number of followers, but it's also the sort of nationalism that can hardly exclude itself from the term "nativism."

A better approach to the issue of immigration in the US takes a more pragmatic stance, and asks questions like: Just why do so many want to badly to exclude those who cross without papers? Do undocumented immigrants actually do any exceptional harm? What do they contribute? What drives those who cross without documentation to do so? If it is worthwhile to prevent such crossings, can it be done in a humanitarian way (ie, without the effects of "deterrence by punishment/deportation" described above)? With so many undocumented workers in the country, and with them having been in the US for so long, could the US really sustain the deportation of substantial numbers of them? And more normative questions are equally worthwhile: What theory of punishment warrants the horrendous effects described above--can any? Should "borders and sovereignty" be conceptualized in such a way as to perpetuate this sort of conflict (as they're conceptualized now)? Among many, many others...

These questions are not addressed in any meaningful sense by rhetorical argumentation like "i think there few more fundamental aspects of national authority exist, than the authority of a nation to determine who does and doesn't come in" and "we have two very porous borders, and we treat those crossing it illegally with kid gloves."

I understand that I'm not offering much substantive argument; rather, the point of my posts is to point out the folly of empty protectionist rhetoric. I hope the standard in the future for these sorts of discussions will not remain bound to terms like "THEIR country" and "our country" and "borders matter." There's quite a lot wrapped up in those words (consider especially the possessive pronouns), and it'd be worth your while to address their origins meaningfully.

[PWK]

15. not sure why half my post is crossed-out

should still be legible, though, unless it doesn't display...

[PWK]

16. Wrong direction.

(Re-post, without the lines. Sorry for the mistake.)

Actually, US immigration law is quite harsh; it's simply under-enforced by agencies driven by bigotry and xenophobia rather than competence. US immigration law tears families apart everyday, and, perhaps more important to you, ICE raids leave whole companies and towns eviscerated. Sure, there's the "well, they shouldn't have come here and established a family to lose" rhetoric flying about everywhere, but as you said, "if i was a poor mexican...i'd probably cross the border illegally." The imposition of jail sentences is comparatively minor in light of the long-term damage done to families, businesses, and communities whenever ICE takes notice of what's always right in front of them: tens of millions of undocumented workers and their families, many of whom have been here for generations.

I certainly understand the importance of borders and sovereignty. However, contemporary conceptualizations of these things don't make much sense--but that's another discussion. I do not discount the role that borders and sovereignty play in today's international and domestic politics, though. But it is also important to remember that conceptualizations of these things vary widely from place to place, country to country, and nobody with the time to write on this blog can understand the drive to "violate" these "fundamental aspects of national authority," except to express some intuition that illegal border crossings become necessary for many "poor mexicans." And, the belief that it is indispensable to government, sovereignty, etc to hold the authority "to determine who does and doesn't come in" is one that can hardly withstand even a cursory examination of US history and political theory; it may be a political stance with a good number of followers, but it's also the sort of nationalism that can hardly exclude itself from the term "nativism."

A better approach to the issue of immigration in the US takes a more pragmatic stance, and asks questions like: Just why do so many want to badly to exclude those who cross without papers? Do undocumented immigrants actually do any exceptional harm? What do they contribute? What drives those who cross without documentation to do so? If it is worthwhile to prevent such crossings, can it be done in a humanitarian way (ie, without the effects of "deterrence by punishment/deportation" described above)? With so many undocumented workers in the country, and with them having been in the US for so long, could the US really sustain the deportation of substantial numbers of them? And more normative questions are equally worthwhile: What theory of punishment warrants the horrendous effects described above--can any? Should "borders and sovereignty" be conceptualized in such a way as to perpetuate this sort of conflict (as they're conceptualized now)? Among many, many others...

These questions are not addressed in any meaningful sense by rhetorical argumentation like "i think there are few more fundamental aspects of national authority that exist, than the authority of a nation to determine who does and doesn't come in" and "we have two very porous borders, and we treat those crossing it illegally with kid gloves."

I understand that I'm not offering much substantive argument; rather, the point of my posts is to point out the folly of empty protectionist rhetoric. I hope the standard in the future for these sorts of discussions will not remain bound to terms like "THEIR country" and "our country" and "borders matter." There's quite a lot wrapped up in those words (consider especially the possessive pronouns), and it'd be worth your while to address their origins meaningfully.

[AlphaCentauri]

18. +1000

[alp227]

19. Oh c'mon Center for Immigration Studies? Anti-immigrant, nativist junk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/cis-the-independent-think-tank

[paulsby]

21. if u have a disagreement with any facts presented

then present them

i presented NUMEROUS sources, including the MEXICAN CONSTITUTION

[AlphaCentauri]

23. What's the point of the comparison of the Mexican constitution to a fascist Arizona law?

has anyone been advocating for immigration right in Mexico or is just a derailed argument?

http://guadalajarareporter.com/


Plans for a permanent immigration office near Chapala City Hall have been given the tentative green light from Mexico City, although finalizing the exact location, installing the right equipment and personnel could mean it won’t open until the end of this year or even later.

“It’s been officially approved and the state recognizes the new Chapala branch of the National Migration Institute (INM),” says Chapala Local Delegate Juan Carlos Galvan, who will head the new Chapala office when it comes into being.

As many who have applied for a visa or another governmental permission may attest, government tramites (applications) can be notoriously frustrating. Guadalajara’s Migration Department seems to be similarly frustrated at the pace of organizing papers from the INM’s Mexico City headquarters.

“If it were up to us, we’d open the office today,” says Jalisco immigration chief Frabel Espinosa. “But there’s getting the right building approved by Mexico City, getting the server up and running and all this at a time when the government are putting in austerity measures. It’s going ahead though.”

http://guadalajarareporter.com/news-mainmenu-82/lake-chapala-mainmenu-84/26652-chapala-immigration-office-plans-move-forward.html

[paulsby]

27. the point is to prove MY point

that , contrary to popular belief, mexican law (and their constitution) recognizes FAR FAR FAR fewer rights for aliens (legal or therwise).

heck, it does not even allow citizens who are not native born to serve in various positions, such as cops, etc.

and illegal entry to the country is a felony punishable by TWO YEARS in prison

those are indisputable.

all your rhetoric aside.

[xsquid]

28. Give it up, there's no way you can convince

the armchair gringos of how it really is in mexico. We have a house there, they are tougher than the us ever thought of being.

[paulsby]

29. i know. facts are irrelevant to the ideologue

fwiw, i LOVE mexico

i'm not bashing mexico. i am giving concrete examples of their law vs. our law.

[xsquid]

30. Exactly, and you are right. That doesn't matter

to a good percentage of the people here though.

[AlphaCentauri]

31. So how many Americans are in jail becouse they entered Mexico illegaly?

Old news

As it turns out, Americans make up a tiny portion of Mexico's deportees, who are usually Central Americans crossing Mexico's southern border with Belize and Guatemala. The 350 Americans sent home in the first nine months of this year represented just over 1 percent of the 28,778 deportations carried out by Mexican authorities. In contrast, Mexicans represent nearly two-thirds of America's deportees.
http://www.citizenorange.com/orange/2008/12/when-a-us-citizen-is-deported.html

On the other hand the US is deporting it's own citizens

Deported Americans: Melissa in Mexico
I am very much like you. Or I was about seven years ago. I was raised in a conservative home, with American morals and values, in a law enforcement environment. I never quite understood immigration or why in a few years, my family and I would be living in a third world country. I didn't need to. I am an American and born with all the rights I would ever need.

When I met my husband, I didn't notice anything different. He rocked out to the same style music, read the same books, had similar friends. But he was. Ten years earlier, he was young and stupid ... unaware that he didn't have the same rights that his born-right friends did and unaware of the consequences. When he was 18, he had committed a crime and deported soon after. Five years later, he could reapply. Seven years later, he did. Again and again. Finally, he took his green card and went to the border, assuming they would deny him if his application had been denied. He went back to living his life. His American dream.
http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/deported_americans_melissa_in_mexico

[xsquid]

33. What's your point? They are deporting people

passing through there illegally (staying) so your post just proves Americans are not moving there illegally. Go to chapala, ajijic, etc. and see how many there are illegally. Americans are not being deported because if they go they are doing it legally.....like me. We live both places.

Central and south americans are almost all of those being kicked out because they are almost all there illegally.

If you are saying the US immigration system is broken, I agree with you. Go through the Juarez hell required and you will see just how bad it is, the last time we were there a guy was killed next door. As bad as it is though, mexico treats the illegals there worse.

[xsquid]

11. Try talking to people from countries that

come through mexico to get here. Mexico is extremely harsh on their southern border. I know a woman from guatamala that was held at a mexican officer's huse till she escaped, he's her youngest dauther's father. Talk to the salvadorenos that passd through there, they call themselves tres veces mojado because the pass through guatamala and mexico. Ask them where they get treated the worse, they will flat out tell you on mexico's southern border if they get caught.

Here's some laws:

http://www.sbsun.com/columnists/ci_3767570

Under Article 123 of the General Population Act, illegal immigration is an offense punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of up to 5,000 pesos, or about $450. Typically, any crime with a punishment of a year or more is considered a felony.

Article 118 of the act says foreigners who are deported and then later attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be punished with up to 10 years in prison.

Under Article 73, local police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities when asked to help enforce the nation's immigration laws.

As set forth in several articles of the act, immigrants are admitted into Mexico according to their potential to "contribute to the national progress" and must have the income needed to support themselves.

Article 9 of the constitution says only citizens may assemble to "take part in the political affairs of the country." Under Article 33, noncitizens "may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

Read these:

http://gbgm-umc.org/nwo/02mj/border.pdf

http://www.viceland.com/int/v16n6/htdocs/borderline-bigots-895.php?page=1

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/06/opinion/ed-mexico06

Here is national Geographic

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/mexicos-southern-border/cynthia-gorney-text/1

COHA

http://www.coha.org/mexicos-other-border-issues-affecting-mexico%E2%80%99s-dividing-line-with-guatemala/

If you just search you can find lots of info on this, If you get to know people that have passed through there you will get the info first hand.

[AlphaCentauri]

17. Mexicans could let everybody use their country as a bridge to get to the US

but who benefit from Mexico's policy of deporting central americans?

[xsquid]

22. It won't happen, easy money for the police and military (not to mention criminals)

targeting these people. They by no means start out empty handed, it takes money to come here. It's a misconception that people start out dead broke, they would never make it. People working here that we know from el salvador normally save anywhere up to 10,000.00 to get one of their family members here. I'm not saying all illegals have 10,000.00 by any means, just that it takes money and even more for people south of mx.

[AlphaCentauri]

24. Mexico just police their border on behalf of the US

almost no one from latin america likes to stay in Mexico.

[xsquid]

26. Thats pure BS, do you have a link?

I posted plenty of links with abuse of immigrants in mexico. They are easy prey for the police etc. You ever drive accross mexico? We have a house there (Toluca,mx) and the us, drive accross there and hope you don't get hit for bribes. People from south of mexico illegally get robbed, raped, etc. They only get deported to get rid of them afterwards. Try going down there and find out for yourself, funny how the armchair gringos have mexico all figured out.

[AlphaCentauri]

32. Amnesty for Central Americans is the solution

make them legal and they fly with out going to Mexico

[xsquid]

34. How is that a solution unless you give the whole country amnesty?

They have to go through there to come here and get amnesty in the first place.

[AlphaCentauri]

36. To the ones that are already here

they usually go back and for

[xsquid]

37. No, the ones here illegally from south of mexico

do not go back and forth. It's far too much problems. They normally save money for the thousands need to bring family members here that way.

ontrary to popular belief illegal mexicans do not go back and forth unless they live where it is easy to cross, although there are always exceptions.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Kick them out? They throw Americans in JAIL for it.

And I don't mean temporary detention.

[AlphaCentauri]

25. yeah, those dealing with guns and drugs n/t

[alp227]

6. Immigration Raids Center on Shuttles

Source: The New York Times

PHOENIX — With sweeps on both sides of the border Thursday, American and Mexican authorities carried out their largest immigrant smuggling raid in United States history, aimed at dismantling smuggling organizations that have brought thousands of illegal immigrants to the United States.

The investigation, which used 800 law enforcement officers, the largest deployment in a human smuggling investigation, targeted what authorities said were suspicious companies running in the shuttle vans that officials said have been a key link in the chain that carries illegal immigrants from the border to cities across the United States.

But the sweep was also the biggest example of what immigration agency officials said was a ramped up effort to curb illegal immigration by focusing more on taking down the networks that transport people and the businesses that facilitate it than by simply making mass arrests of illegal immigrants and deporting them.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/16raid.html

[Gin]

8. since MONEY is god in the country...the only way to stop this

illegal activity is to hit the employers in the wallet....they understand that and nothing else.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. ...