Reporting released last week could redefine the border issue for Republicans and worsen already negative views of the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of border security. An internal memo from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) obtained by NBC News revealed that 30% of the multi-billion dollar border surveillance system is non-functional.
“Nearly one-third of the cameras in the Border Patrol’s primary surveillance system along the southern U.S. border are not working, according to an internal agency memo sent in early October,” NBC News reported.
“The large-scale outage affects roughly 150 of the 500 cameras perched on surveillance towers along the U.S.-Mexico border.” According to the outlet “severe technical problems,” have beset the networked camera system known as the Remote Video Surveillance System. Border Patrol officials who spoke anonymously cast the blame on outdated equipment and outstanding repair issues.
The system has been in operation since 2011 and was designed to “survey large areas without having to commit hundreds of agents in vehicles to perform the same function.” Two CBP officials told NBC that while some repairs were affected in early October, more than 150 repair orders are still outstanding and some areas of the border are still not visible to CBP surveillance as a result.
A CBP spokesman told the outlet that 300 new towers using more advanced technology have been installed along the border, but didn’t address the gaps described by the anonymous officials.
“CBP continues to install newer, more advanced technology that embrace artificial intelligence and machine learning to replace outdated systems, reducing the need to have agents working non-interdiction functions,” the CBP spokesman said.
As reported by Reason, spiraling costs began with a $1 billion outlay in 2010 that notably led to a 2017 GAO report filled with damning internal and external assessments “regarding the performance, cost, and schedule for implementing the systems,” that resulted in the cancellation of future installations of the SBInet systems.
In a similar accounting, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), addressing NBC News’ findings wrote, “U.S. Border Surveillance Towers Have Always Been Broken.”
EFF Director of Investigations Dave Maass wrote that the report is not a bombshell, but said, “What should actually be shocking is that Congressional leaders are acting shocked, like those who recently sent a letterabout the towers to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. These revelations simply reiterate what people who have been watching border technology have known for decades: Surveillance at the U.S.-Mexico border is a wasteful endeavor that is ill-equipped to respond to an ill-defined problem.”
Maas referred to a 2021 study from the DHS Inspector General which indicated that the situation had not improved.
“CBP faced additional challenges that reduced the effectiveness of its existing technology. Border Patrol officials stated they had inadequate personnel to fully leverage surveillance technology or maintain current information technology systems and infrastructure on site. Further, we identified security vulnerabilities on some CBP servers and workstations not in compliance due to disagreement about the timeline for implementing DHS configuration management requirements.
CBP is not well-equipped to assess its technology effectiveness to respond to these deficiencies. CBP has been aware of this challenge since at least 2017 but lacks a standard process and accurate data to overcome it.
Overall, these deficiencies have limited CBP’s ability to detect and prevent the illegal entry of noncitizens who may pose threats to national security.”
A set of follow-up plans, the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan and the Southwest Border Technology Plan, then came into effect priced at approximately $6 billion and were successfully combined into the Integrated Surveillance Towers network in 2022. But the integration of these systems has evidently had little effect. With Maas noting, “Border authorities and their supporters in Congress are continuing to promote unproven, AI-driven technologies as the latest remedy for years of failures, including the ones voiced in the memo obtained by NBC News.”
Surprise Police Chief Benny Piña has found himself once again taking wide criticism stemming from the arrest of a mother who defied the city council while exercising her First Amendment rights. Along with the initial arrest, the Chief is now at the center of a firestorm after an internal department video from a week after the incident was obtained by KFYI’s James T. Harris. The video features Piña giving officers “a few things to avoid when confronted by a 1st Amendment auditor,” and defending the woman’s arrest.
Rebekah Massie, a mother from Surprise, was arrested in front of her 10-year-old daughter after criticizing the Surprise City Attorney Robert Wingo in August in a now-viral video. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently sued the city, and the council eventually reversed the policy that led to her arrest.
In the Surprise Police Department video created a week later, Piña is seen telling officers, “What happened last week in a council meeting resulted in what I think everybody in the world is calling an illegal arrest and a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. That’s clearly not what we’re about, and that’s not what happened.”
Curiously, the Chief advised officers not to be completely open or truthful to what he called “First Amendment Auditors.” “[There are a] few things to avoid when confronted by a First Amendment auditor,” Piña said.
Piña introduced Sgt. Jamie Rothschild and suggested that the criticisms against him and the department are the work of “trolls and bots.” He responded to calls to fire Steve Shernicoff, the arresting officer.
The Chief told officers, “We took action that night to complete what we normally would do which is a use of force report. We took real quick action to make certain that we were in line with what our policy is and what our philosophy is, which is to take next steps to make certain that we were in a position of power to show that we, specifically Officer Shernicoff, acted with absolute speed to carry out the mission as directed that evening.”
He added, “When something doesn’t look right, or something doesn’t look popular, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
Footage of the meeting and of Massie being led out as her child cried quickly went viral within days of the arrest. Bodycam footage was later released by Surprise PD.
The footage shows that Piña was present during the arrest and did not intervene. Massie was charged with trespassing, resisting arrest, and obstructing government operations. Following the uproar in response to the incident, State Senator John Kavanaugh publicly called for Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate the arrest.
“In Arizona statutes, we have a provision that specifically says, ‘[a] public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body,’” said Kavanagh.
“Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy. Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”
AZ Free News has reached out to Massie via her representation from FIRE for comment. As of this report no response has been received.
While the Biden-Harris administration is still boasting of the success of the CHIPS and Science Act, the Intel Corp. announced it will cut 15,000 jobs across the nation, “as part of the broad-based cost savings plan.” New reports show that almost four hundred of those job cuts will be at the company’s Ocotillo campus in Chandler.
As reported by Phoenix Business Journal, the series of layoff has come despite an upcoming injection of billions of taxpayer dollars via the CHIPS Act aimed at expanding the Chandler facility. Intel as a whole has approximately 12,000 employees in Arizona.
In a written statement Intel explained, “As part of the broad-based cost savings plan we announced in August, we are making the hard but necessary decisions to reduce the size of our workforce. These are the most difficult decisions we ever make, and we are treating people with care and respect. These changes support our strategy to become a leaner, simpler and more agile company as we position Intel for long-term sustainable growth.”
According to The Center Square, the office of Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs was quick to announce the mobilization of state taxpayer-funded resources being made available to the laid off Intel workers.
Spokesman Christian Slater told the outlet, “The Governor’s Office is already mobilizing rapid response resources at DES to connect affected workers with the resources they need to receive support and find new employment. Ensuring that every Arizonan has access to good-paying jobs is a top priority for Governor Hobbs, and she will continue bringing together workers and businesses to navigate challenges, create jobs and build an economy that helps every Arizonan thrive.”
The company was recently granted up to $8.5 billion in CHIPS Act funding, leading to scrutiny over their 15k global layoffs.
I've been asking AZ politicians about this, given that AZ was one of the four states to which the money was allocated for Intel.https://t.co/m2sIsRzW1i
In an August statement, Hobbs stressed Intel’s expansion in the state after the non-specific “cost savings plan,” was announced saying, “They’re expanding here. We’re thrilled to have their expansion here. We’re working with them on workforce initiatives to grow the skilled pipeline of workers that they need. We’re continuing to do that.”
Any direct mention of the billions of dollars earmarked for Intel via the CHIPS Act was decidedly absent from the Hobbs administration’s statement. However, a statement from the office of Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) doubled down on the multi-billion-dollar giveaway, which failed to prevent the layoffs.
Kelly’s office wrote that the round of layoffs, “further underscores the importance of the CHIPS Act.” His office added, “American companies like Intel are facing unprecedented competition from China, but thanks to the CHIPS Act, we’re making sure Intel, and other companies can manufacture the most advanced chips right here in America—creating thousands of construction jobs, and generating even more good-paying, permanent technician jobs in Chandler and across the state that don’t require a four-year degree.”
As reported by the New York Post in August, despite the passage of the CHIPS Act, Intel suffered a staggering $1.6 billion in losses, with CEO Pat Gelsinger saying, “Simply put, we must align our cost structure with our new operating model and fundamentally change the way we operate,” per the memo published to the firm’s website. “Our revenues have not grown as expected – and we’ve yet to fully benefit from powerful trends, like AI. Our costs are too high, our margins are too low.”
When the initial announcement broke in August, Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake placed the blame for Intel’s problems squarely on the Biden-Harris administration in a post to X, writing, “For over 45 years, Arizona has been Intel’s U.S. manufacturing powerhouse. In the last job reports, Intel Shares plunged 20%, forcing them to lay off more than 15% of their employees. These are the devastating consequences #Bidenomics is having on our state. In the US Senate, I will work with President Trump to cut the deficit, turbocharge the economy, & bring back good jobs so that all companies both big & small can thrive in State 48.”
For over 45 years, Arizona has been Intel’s U.S. manufacturing powerhouse.
In the last job reports, Intel Shares plunged 20%, forcing them to lay off more than 15% of their employees.
These are the devastating consequences #Bidenomics is having on our state.
Intel’s CEO also noted that staff drawdowns through voluntary exits in September via “early retirement and separation offerings,” already had the company almost halfway to its 15k downsizing goal. But Gelsinger warned at the time, “We still have difficult decisions to make and will notify impacted employees in the middle of October.”
Democratic Candidate for Congressional District 1 Amish Shah has found himself facing demands from the Tempe City Attorney.
According to the Arizona Agenda, Tempe City Attorney Eric Anderson contacted the Shah campaign and ordered the candidate to cease using a mailer that depicts a retired Tempe Police officer in full uniform including his sidearm. The advertisement shows Shah speaking with the officer and claiming he “stood up to his own party to crack down on fentanyl trafficking” or that he “voted to increase funding for border security,” forwarding a narrative that he is at least pro-law and order if not pro-law enforcement.
The ad naturally came to the attention of incumbent Republican Congressman David Schweikert who forwarded it to the city attorney. The mailer appears to be in violation of Arizona law A.R.S. 9-500.14, which forbids the use of city resources to influence an election, including: “monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the city or town.” In this case, the city’s logo represents a “thing of value.” Anderson also confirmed to the outlet that city policy also forbids the practice.
“Accordingly, my office has directed correspondence to both the former officer as well as Dr. Shah’s campaign demanding that any such use be discontinued,” he wrote, adding that if the Schweikert campaign sees him use it again, they should tell the city “so further action can be considered.”
It’s not uncommon for politicians to pose with police. 🚔📸
But the cops aren’t usually dressed in uniform, complete with gun. 🔫👮♂️
As of this report, the advertisements haven’t stopped. Schweikert campaign consultant Chris Baker told the Arizona Agenda that one more mailer hit homes just a day after the letter from the city attorney, which could have already been in process. But a few days later, another was deployed, leading the campaign to alert the city.
Responding to the allegations, Shah told the outlet that he passed the city’s letter on to his attorney and if his campaign had indeed violated the law, he would update the ad. He did note though that his team had contracted with a major national firm for the mailers and were told by both the company and the retired officer that use of the photo was “kosher.”
Shah told the outlet, “We’re checking with our team and our lawyers to see if what they allege to be a violation, was indeed a violation. And if we are found to be out of compliance, then we will take corrective action, meaning, blur it out.”
National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesperson Ben Petersen reacted in a statement saying, “Lawbreaking liberal Amish Shah thinks he’s above the rules and will do anything for power. Shah shamelessly doubling down on his illegal behavior despite being warned shows his contempt for the rule of law.”
In a post to X, Petersen even noted, “Let’s not forget Shah clearly forgot Tempe is not even in #AZ01.”
According to the law, “For each violation of this section, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars plus any amount of misused funds subtracted from the city or town budget against a person who knowingly violates or aids another person in violating this section.”
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”
In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:
“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”
The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:
According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.
“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.
However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:
“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”
The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.
“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”
The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250.
The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.
“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.
Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”
“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”
