Illegal immigration may hit another all-time monthly high for the Biden administration. That’s in addition to the current historic record of over 4.1 million encounters, excluding “gotaways.”
Over the last few weeks, Border Patrol (BP) has observed a sharp increase in illegal border crossings in the Tucson Sector. Chief John Modlin highlighted the encounters of “large groups” throughout the week. In all, Modlin documented seven large groups totaling over 1,000 illegal immigrants.
Between Tuesday evening and Thursday evening, Ajo Station agents encountered five large groups of migrants.
In just three days, 478 individuals were taken into custody. Representing 14 countries and covering four continents, several Tucson Sector assets provided assistance. pic.twitter.com/B0nzQIvyP2
Between late Monday night and early Tuesday morning, Ajo Station agents encountered three large groups of migrants. A total of 204 were taken into custody, all adults and family units.
Despite the challenges large groups present, Tucson Sector agents remain steadfast. pic.twitter.com/uFhQfVQSz7
Large groups of migrants from at least 17 different countries spanning three continents were encountered by Ajo Station agents over this past weekend. In just five groups, 321 were taken into custody near Lukeville, AZ. pic.twitter.com/9nxcRIvhCM
The first week of December, Modlin reported that these large groups accounted for hundreds of migrants at a time.
Two groups totaling 122 migrants were encountered by Ajo Station agents near Lukeville, AZ, Tuesday. Representing at least nine countries, the group was taken into custody without incident.
Tucson Sector agents handle large diverse groups with excellent professionalism. pic.twitter.com/sWFCjDbagl
Ajo Station agents continue to encounter large groups near the Port of Lukeville.
Fifty migrants were encountered Wednesday evening, consisting of Cubans, Dominicans, Nicaraguans, and Peruvians. They were taken into custody and transported for processing. pic.twitter.com/EKtqtMw7Ox
Ajo Station agents continue to encounter large groups of migrants.
On Friday, groups of 93, 101, and 59 were apprehended between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. A total of 253 migrants from 10 different countries were taken into custody, requiring several agents for transport and processing. pic.twitter.com/J5GuRS7qo2
The heightened migration surge doesn’t just include those seeking refuge from cartels and oppressive governments. On an almost weekly basis, BP officials document the arrests of illegal immigrants with prior criminal convictions.
Honorio Perez was arrested by Three Points Station agents near San Miguel, AZ, Sunday. The Guatemalan citizen is a felon. In 2013, he was convicted of aggravated child molestation in #Georgia and sentenced to prison for five years. He faces criminal charges. #BorderSecuritypic.twitter.com/FMBLWUG8rg
On Monday, Douglas Station agents arrested four Mexican citizens near Douglas, including Armando Perez-Vera. In #Colorado, he was previously convicted of felony sexual assault. He will be extradited for an outstanding warrant in that state. #HonorFirstpic.twitter.com/3YWW1pxhIb
Convicted murderer faces criminal charges after crossing the border illegally.
Raul Trevizo-Dominguez, a previously removed Mexican citizen, was arrested near Nogales, AZ. He was previously convicted of 2nd degree murder in #Phoenix, AZ, and sentenced to prison for 16 years. pic.twitter.com/IT1N8ub0Go
Another registered sex offender arrested by Tucson Sector agents.
Ramon Mendoza-Schultz was arrested Tuesday near Amado, AZ. The Mexican citizen was convicted of several felonies in #Phoenix, including sexual abuse and molestation of a child. He faces criminal charges. #GoodWorkpic.twitter.com/RLSgSvqtL4
For fiscal year 2022 (FY2022: Oct. 2021 – Sept. 30 2022), the number of illegal immigrants apprehended with one or more prior criminal convictions swelled to over 12,000.
The last time that the country experienced similar numbers was during the final months of the Obama administration and the first few months of Trump’s administration (over 12,800 in FY16). Throughout Trump’s administration, these numbers dropped steadily by several thousand every year: FY2017, over 8,500; FY18, about 6,700; FY19, over 4,200; FY20, over 2,400.
For FY2021, there were over 10,700 criminal illegal immigrants apprehended. At this trend, there could be around 14,000 criminal illegal immigrants arrested for FY23.
Percentagewise, the most notable increases in criminal conviction types concerned those convicted of homicide or manslaughter.
This year's criminal illegal immigrant data reflects a dramatic uptick since the last administration: Murderers +1,966% ; Weapons traffickers +530% ; Robbers & thieves +526% ; Drug traffickers +480% ; Assailants/Domestic abusers +449% ; Repeated illegal aliens +439% … pic.twitter.com/tw1FDPLTrQ
Despite the continuing surge of illegal immigration, President Joe Biden commented ahead of his first-ever visit to Arizona during his term that the border wasn’t important.
Based on the current average monthly encounters, there will be over 8.8 million illegal immigrants coming into the country by the end of Biden’s term. That’s more encounters than former Presidents Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George Bush’s last two years combined.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona State University (ASU) researchers grapple with some of the most pressing questions of our modern political landscape — most recently, whether “Shark Week” is guilty of a racism that perpetuates negative perception of sharks.
One of the study co-authors, ASU Postdoctoral Scholar David Shiffman, speculated to The Washington Post that the lack of diversity was purposeful. He pointed out that there were more white male experts and commentators than women, specifically men named “Mike.”
“When there are hundreds of people of color interested who work in this field, [and] when my field is more than half women, maybe it’s not an accident anymore that they’re only featuring white men,” stated Shiffman.
Researchers say Discovery’s programming overwhelmingly featured White men as experts while emphasizing negative messages about sharks.https://t.co/Fs71Qov5WG
The study noted that shark conservation efforts were hindered, in part, by presenting inaccurate facts, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of scientists.
“In addition to the logistical difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans,” stated the study. “Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation.”
The study went on to posit that white men were partly to blame for negative perceptions and limited conservation messaging concerning sharks. Shiffman and five other researchers analyzed 32 years of Shark Week documentaries (272 episodes) to draw their conclusions.
“Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white, mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific experts,” stated the study’s abstract. “While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole, while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad, even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.”
The study broke down “Shark Week” episodes by the rhetoric used, themes, and incorporated research methods, in addition to the demographics of featured experts and commentators. The publication noted that the show often presented non-scientists or those without peer-reviewed publications as experts.
The study also noted that none of the featured hosts or experts used non-binary pronouns or were publicly identified as transgender.
“Inclusion of all identities is critical for the future of STEM and shark science specifically,” stated the study.
AZ Free News reached out to Shiffman for comment. Specifically, we asked for his thoughts on criticisms that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation, if the negative perception of sharks in some way was connected to implicit bias and/or racism, and if his nature as a white man was impacted by the study’s findings.
Shiffman responded that he had no comment, but that he would encourage a read of the entire study rather than “ignorant alt-right criticism” of the Washington Post coverage.
The coverage and content of the study did draw sharp criticism from right-wing circles.
Shiffman also published another diversity-based study in May focusing on representation in a prominent shark and fish academic group: the American Elasmobranch Society. Shiffman discovered in this study that more than half of group members were women, but that over 70 percent of group leadership consisted of men.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
During oral arguments last Monday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) appeared to side with a Christian website designer who is challenging a Colorado law that would force her to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings. The final ruling is forthcoming.
Counsel in the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, is the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). At issue: whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Attorney Kristen Waggoner argued that SCOTUS precedent rejects government-compelled speech like what the state of Colorado wants to impose on graphic artist and website designer Lorie Smith with the threat of “pain of investigation, fine, and reeducation.”
Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson argued that the free speech clause exemption wouldn’t just apply to sincerely held religious beliefs, but “all sorts of racist, sexist, and bigoted views.” Olson claimed that such protections would allow a tech company to refuse to serve 303 Creative LLC because of Smith’s religious beliefs.
Near the end of arguments, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher stated that he wanted the Court to find religious business owner discrimination against same-sex unions to be as odious and invalid of First Amendment protections as racism.
“I don’t mean to equate those who have different views of marriage to racists, but the reason why I rely on those hypotheticals is because this court’s First Amendment jurisprudence does not distinguish between views we find odious and those we respect,” stated Fletcher. “The same principles apply in both places, and if the principles lead to unacceptable places when we consider them in light of odious views, then I think we have to reject those principles even in the case where we sympathize with and respect the views.”
The three liberal justices of the court — Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor — argued that website designers don’t speak through their product. They also argued that extending protection to speech arising from religious beliefs of true marriage would lead to protections for speech arising from discrimination against interracial or disabled couples.
The six conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts — repeatedly revisited the distinction between personalized, custom, commissioned products and goods and services served generally to the public.
Kagan claimed that websites weren’t particularly ideological or religious if there was an absence of explicitly written scripture or ideology. Waggoner disagreed, pointing to the context and message of the speech.
“When you switch out those names, you’re switching out the concept and the message that is in this website,” stated Waggoner. “The same words can convey different meanings.”
Sotomayor insisted that a creator wasn’t issuing speech by merely creating a product like a wedding invitation, but that only the distributor of the invitation was engaging in speech. Sotomayor further indicated that Smith’s work could only be viewed as her speech if she had stated expressly on her business website that her creations constituted her speech. Waggoner disagreed.
“In the same way that is the ghostwriter who writes an anonymous press release or a book. It is still that writer’s speech,” said Waggoner. “I don’t understand. How is this [the creator’s] story? It’s their story. […] It’s the story of the couple.”
Sotomayor questioned if there was a limit to compelling speech, citing examples of marriages between interracial couples or disabled persons. Waggoner said that was different, saying that it was “highly unlikely” that creators would serve certain races of people in certain contexts but not in a marriage.
“You’re not basing it on the nature of the message, you’re basing it on who you’re serving,” argued Sotomayor.
Waggoner contended that Smith has LGBTQ clients for other products, but can’t support same-sex marriage due to her Christian beliefs.
Sotomayor conflated Biblical and non-Biblical issues repeatedly, such as race and ability, insisting that creating content to display representation of a homosexual couple’s relationship wasn’t compelled speech. She compared Smith’s refusal to create a same-sex wedding website to a restaurant owner offering a limited menu to black individuals.
Waggoner said that book authors, newspaper editors, and writers for other types of publications were issuing their speech. Jackson interjected to say that those publication types weren’t “public accommodations in the same way.”
Jackson asked whether a caterer providing food to only Protestant customers would enjoy the same speech protections. She argued that conduct equated speech. Waggoner said no, drawing a distinction between speech and the messaging conveyed through conduct.
Alito questioned whether “plug and play” websites, essentially templates, imposed the same compelled speech issue. Waggoner said that was not the case because a creator wouldn’t be creating speech for the couple.
Barrett asked several hypotheticals: whether Smith would publish a site for a couple who describe their sexuality in a Biblically ambiguous way — “cisgender” and “heterosexual” — or a couple who admitted that they were marrying after cheating on their respective spouses. Waggoner said that Smith wouldn’t.
Waggoner argued that the court offers broad protections for speech arising from personal convictions.
“I think what’s important is the message she’s being asked to create,” stated Waggoner. “She believes that same-sex weddings contradict Scripture. And she’s announcing a concept of marriage that she believes to be false.”
Barrett asked why Smith couldn’t give a homosexual couple a website that was already created for a heterosexual couple. Waggoner said that it wouldn’t be the “same” since Smith would have to incorporate details and photos of the same-sex couple into the site.
“We know context changes meaning, just as Ginsburg said in Yates v. United States,” stated Waggoner.
Barrett asked whether the same could be said of a songwriter licensing an already-published song to a same-sex wedding. Waggoner said that the artist couldn’t because it was already in the stream of commerce, but admitted unfamiliarity with licensing procedures. She clarified that it would be different if the artist were to sing the song at or for the wedding.
Jackson argued that there’s no precedent for this type of case; Olson concurred. Thomas asked Olson to summarize any tradition of public accommodation laws, cases, or common law tradition applying to speech.
“The complicating factor here is this is not a hotel or a restaurant or a riverboat or a train. I’m interested in the intersection of public accommodations law and speech,” said Thomas.
Olson claimed that public accommodation laws don’t carve out exceptions for speech. He said there wasn’t a history of cases in which people asked for these exceptions.
Olson affirmed Sotomayor’s assertion that Smith’s business would be the first public accommodation that could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.
Kagan asked whether Colorado would allow Smith to refuse a same-sex couple’s request to quote Obergefell v. Hodges on their website: the SCOTUS case requiring states to recognize same-sex marriage. Olson said yes, since she would be denying that request for all customers. Then Kagan asked whether Colorado would allow Smith to refuse a same-sex couple’s request to put “God blesses this union” on their website. Olson said that was different because it implicates free exercise of religion concerns.
“It is a statement of opinion about the nature of this marriage,” said Kagan.
Roberts asked why an individualized, subjective, multi-factor determination in foster care and adoption wouldn’t be the same as a seat on a bus or room in a hotel. Olson said that since Smith engages with customers as a public accommodation, she needs to be held to that discrimination-free standard. Olson characterized Smith’s religious dissent as a “status-based discrimination.”
Olson said that Smith’s business would suffer because she would lose opposite-sex couples upset by her refusal to serve same-sex unions. Alito questioned if businesses were allowed to exercise any kind of selectivity; Olson responded that Alito’s hypothetical required a fact-based analysis.
Alito asked further if selectivity conferred a public service status to businesses. Olson affirmed on the stipulation that selectivity was the only factor in their decision-making, noting that selectivity based on protected characteristics like race or sexual orientation wasn’t allowable.
“The more selective and curated the process is, the less likely it is to be a public accommodation,” stated Olson.
Alito asked whether Jewish photographers could be compelled to photograph for customers using the pictures on the website facilitating affairs, Ashley Madison, which prompted laughter. Olson said they could.
“The website designer can choose to put on their websites whatever they want,” said Olson. “But they just can’t refuse to sell — if they’re a public accommodation — they can’t refuse to sell that website to someone solely because of the customer or couple’s religion.”
Alito then asked if it was fair to equate opposition to same-sex marriage with interracial marriage. Olson responded affirmatively.
“Of course honorable people have different views on this issue,” said Olson. “The way to honor that requirement is as this court has set forth in Fulton, in Masterpiece, is to have a rigorous interrogation to make sure that there are neutral and generally-applicable laws applied in fact that way that don’t single out religion.”
Alito then asked if writers could be forced to write customized wedding vows or speeches containing speech that they loathe. Olson said no, because the speech wouldn’t contain offenses against protected classes. He said that “things that people loathe” wasn’t protected like sex, gender, religion, or discrimination.
Gorsuch asserted that Smith’s customized and personalized products were different from offering general services. Olson argued that allowing Smith that freedom of creation would result in every single same-sex couple being turned away, but Gorsuch disagreed.
“Well, they can ask for what they want but what they get might be another thing,” responded Gorsuch.
Gorsuch asked if speechwriters would be held to the same standard as Smith. Olson said Colorado wouldn’t compel that speechwriter to produce work to which they object.
“You can choose the content of what you say, you just can’t choose who you sell to,” stated Olson.
Gorsuch challenged why a speechwriter would be any different from Smith’s company. Olson claimed that Smith wouldn’t sell a wedding site promoting homosexual unions to same-sex couples, but Gorsuch contended that Smith was refusing to sell sites promoting that content to any customer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, Senate President-elect Warren Petersen (LD-14) published his plan to help counter the burgeoning inflation crisis.
Petersen declared that four approaches would relieve the pressure of rising costs to Arizonans: eliminating rental and food taxes, increasing the housing supply, and reducing or eliminating occupational license fees. The president-elect insisted that the state could spare these cost-reducing measures because it has a surplus of funds.
“[H]ardworking taxpayers are reeling during this period of runaway inflation and are having a tough time paying for the most basic necessities,” stated Petersen. “These initiatives are not too difficult to accomplish. Local and state governments have surpluses in their coffers.”
The rental tax elimination proposal would allow tenants to stop paying a tax on top of their rent. Petersen reasoned that homeowners don’t have to pay a tax every time they pay their mortgage. He also noted that the state earns plenty from taxes to landlords.
“This initiative alone can put thousands annually into the pockets of tenants,” stated Petersen.
As for the food tax elimination proposal, Petersen argued that the state shouldn’t be taxing a necessity.
“This tax is regressive and hurts the poorest of the poor,” stated Petersen. “Let’s ban it completely.”
The increased housing supply proposal would cut through bureaucratic tape. Petersen indicated that incoming legislation would clear and expedite the administrative hurdles for land development and housing approvals.
“20 years ago, you could take a property from dirt and build a house within six months. Those days are long gone as a litany of hurdles have been placed in obtaining approvals for land development and housing. Now, it can take as long as four years!” observed Petersen.
The proposal to reduce or eliminate occupational licensing fees would likely boost jobs, with Petersen indicating that reductions of those fees would be half of what they are now.
Petersen shared that Finance Chair J.D. Mesnard (LD-13), Appropriations Chair John Kavanagh (LD-03), and Government Chair Jake Hoffman (LD-15) were on board to make these initiatives a reality.
Constituents interested in tracking legislative updates, especially concerning these four sweeping inflation-reduction initiatives, may access regular communications such as Kavanagh’s weekly “Kavanagh’s Korner” video reports.
The legislative equivalent of spring training began today in the senate with a pre-session orientation meeting of all senators. I will be keeping everyone informed with spontaneous tweets and my weekly Kavanagh’s Korner constituent video reports. pic.twitter.com/gI5Na1SySV
— Representative John Kavanagh (@JohnKavanagh_AZ) December 7, 2022
Arizona has the highest inflation rate in the country — specifically the Phoenix area, charting at over 12 percent. Inflation for the Valley rose by about two points every couple of months beginning in August of last year. Inflation reached a high in August at around 13 percent.
The Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP) urged Attorney General Mark Brnovich to investigate Governor-elect Katie Hobbs’ role in censorship of online speech.
The AZGOP asked Brnovich to determine whether Hobbs violated federal or state laws by using state resources in coordination with the Biden administration to remove posts on her office’s behalf. They further requested that Brnovich obtain the entire trove of communications between the secretary of state’s office and Twitter.
As the Arizona Daily Independent reported, court filings in the case Missouri v. Biden revealed that the secretary of state’s office used a middle man of sorts to censor online speech: the Center for Internet Security (CIS).
The Republican Party of Arizona calls on @GeneralBrnovich to immediately investigate @SecretaryHobbs over a government agency directing a private company to suppress free speech.
CIS is led by a former Obama administration official, and has received hundreds of millions in federal grants and contracts over the past two decades.
Several days after discovery of Hobbs’ arrangement to moderate online speech, Hobbs called on Arizonans during the statewide canvass certifying the election to suppress election misinformation and disinformation.
Secretary of State @katiehobbs directs Arizonans to monitor election-related speech and suppress conspiracies. Fascinating timing given the recent discovery that Hobbs' office effectively controlled election-related speech online. pic.twitter.com/W7nskWV63s
As of press time, Brnovich hasn’t issued a public statement on social media or by press release to address the AZGOP’s request. AZ Free News requested comment; the attorney general’s office didn’t respond by press time.
While Hobbs hasn’t addressed the controversy over her office’s moderation of online speech, her incoming chief of staff and former assistant secretary of state, Allie Bones, issued a statement to multiple mainstream media outlets defending the arrangement.
Bones told reporters that it was the job of governments, including the secretary of state’s office, to purge the public square of perceived misinformation and disinformation. Bones added that the CIS arrangement was a normal one between governments and social media companies. The chief of staff insisted that their actions weren’t silencing dissent.
“One of the ways we [make sure that voters are informed] is by working to counter disinformation online that can confuse voters,” stated Bones. “This is yet another example of conspiracy theorists trying to create chaos and confusion by casting doubt on our election system. It’s unfair to Arizona voters and it’s harmful to our democracy.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
