Advanced SearchBusiness owners in Tubac carried out a passive protest on Friday to demonstrate their growing frustration over the U.S. Border Patrol’s Interstate 19 checkpoint.
|
|
“I guess you could call it civil disobedience, though no one here is breaking the law,” said Tubac business owner Gary Hembree, who organized the protest and was first in line.
The plan
Before the protest, Hembree said he planned to drive the speed limit and answer any questions the Border Patrol might have.
“Nobody here is against the Border Patrol, but we’re against what the government is trying to do in this community,” said Tubac resident Kelly Jones, who was part of the nine-car caravan through the checkpoint. Hembree had hoped for up to 100 cars. CONTROL ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.1
Jones says the checkpoint is driving smugglers off the interstate and into the community, and has led to “paramilitary operations happening our own backyard.”
Tubac business owner Lee Blackwell said the checkpoint is hurting local businesses by creating a false impression that the community is more violent than it is.
Debate
The temporary checkpoint at the northbound Agua Linda Road exit has sparked debate since it was placed there in 2007, but the controversy was stepped up with the announcement earlier this month that expansion could begin in a few months. Realtors have said the checkpoint is costing millions of dollars in sales, but some tourists earlier this month said they aren’t bothered by it.
Where?
The interim checkpoint expansion will go less than a mile south of Agua Linda Road on I-19, in the same spot where a permanent checkpoint ” the Border Patrol’s ultimate goal ” would go.
A permanent checkpoint would cost $27 million and would consist of 10 buildings on 25 acres.
“That would lead to huge expenditures of money, and a creeping loss of liberty,” Blackwell said.
(Contact the writer at jrichardson@gvnews.com | (520) 547-9726.)
Popular Searches
Comments
Jon D wrote on May 28, 2009 12:12 AM:
So if you opinion is that our U.S. Border can not be secured (now that's a scary statement)- why waste billions of our Tax Dollars buying high tech equipment for the brave men and women of the Border Patrol? Why not just setup Border Patrol Check points every 4 or 5 miles on the interstate and maybe a few more in downtown Nogales, Rio Rico and Tubac?
I believe our Border can be secured much much better than it is now. Sure there are areas that are very difficult to get to, or even traverse, but I think the BP Check points should be on those roads or paths and not 30 miles North of the Border. "
Mark wrote on May 27, 2009 1:23 AM:
Jon D wrote on May 25, 2009 10:43 PM:
neither do I... However, the point is why is it (check point)so desperately needed?
Why not Secure the Border AT the Border?
Why impede those that have not even traveled anywhere near the U.S. Border?
How many more check points will be allowed simply to make our Government bigger and more wasteful? How about another on I-10 near Phoenix? Phoenix seems to have a huge problem with Mexican Cartels (i.e. Kidnappings, murders, home invasions?)
Why have an agency named Border Patrol that "Fails to secure and Patrol the Border?"
Do I not have the right to travel this great country without having to concern myself in having to declare my citizenship?
I certainly understand doing so when I travel abroad, but while I am traveling within the State of Arizona is (in my opinion) a violation of my rights. This may sound silly to this current administration and Chief Gilbert, but why not put all of that money and resources (men, women and equipment) at the source - "The Border" and why is it such a novel concept to "Secure the Border AT the Border?"
hmmmm...I know - SBInet and the billions of dollars that has been wasted over the last 2 years developing a "Virtual" Border Patrol...
Does anyone know how much of your tax dollars have been spent on this failed program? Oh....I don't know....a couple of billion dollars or so?
I actually do know....and I also know that most of the technology it has purchased has failed.
How many Border Patrolman, equipment etc.. would that equate? "
Teej wrote on May 25, 2009 9:03 PM:
nothing to hide wrote on May 24, 2009 2:20 PM:
Carlo wrote on May 22, 2009 7:38 PM:
Please, "Get Over It," help me out here.
Can you cite court cases in which the ACLU has defended this reprehensible organization that advocates illicit sex between men and boys?
Also, from my point of view, the Bill of Rights is totally absolute. And the ACLU has, over the years, done an excellent job of assuring that.
Including, most especially, the right for you and me to disagree, without fear, in a public forum like this one.
Meanwhile, I'll be waiting to Goggle your citations that prove that the ACLU has ever supported NAMBLA.
If you can, I'll definitely withhold my next donation to this loyal and patriotic organization. "
pctrombley54gmail.com wrote on May 22, 2009 2:17 AM:
Maybe it would be worthwhile for us to review a little of our Country's history.
We had several small battles with the British troops over the years before our revolution. Most of those battles were the result of the Brit's not respecting our
freedoms. Very much like the Border Patrol are doing to us, when they subject us to unwarnted searches, etc. So, after we won our freedom from the British. We made sure that we would be free from unwarrented search's. It is part of our Bill of Rights. Each time they stop us, question us, and search our car, they are breaking the law. That is why they should be working on the Border. They have the right to do all the searching they want, at the Border.
When our politicians do not do their job, as Kyl and the rest of the Republicans choose, then we need to get someone to get them off their butts. That is why they (the Republicans) hate the ACLU so much. The ACLU exists only because they are needed to protect our Civil Liberties from the Conservative Republicans who seem to think that they know more than our Forefathers did. "
Jon D wrote on May 20, 2009 5:19 PM:
My contention is with the facade of the U.S. Border Patrol claiming to require a check point 30 miles north of our border with Mexico - without first "Securing the Border AT the Border"
We have a Constitutional Right to protest, complain, or voice our disagreements - no matter what others may think is only self serving!
I will refuse to "get over it" - I have the right NOT to do so. "
RR wrote on May 20, 2009 1:25 PM:
Get Over it. wrote on May 20, 2009 10:41 AM:
What is the big deal of stopping saying US citizen and moving on? Your right to travel freely is not being taken away, it is simply a small inconvenience. Quit whining people and quit interpreting the constitution in a manner that simply serves your purposes. The Bill of Rights is not absolute. "
Remember... wrote on May 20, 2009 10:37 AM:
Jon D wrote on May 20, 2009 8:33 AM:
Keep complaining - keep writing - keep encouraging your family, friends and neighbors to use their Constitutional Rights to sound off!!! "
Jon D wrote on May 20, 2009 8:17 AM:
This IS NOT a new concept!!
securitydebrief.adfero.com/the-third-and-worst-deadly-sin-pride-and-dhs/?display=print
(Add h t t p / / to the link)
Call or write the White House, Congressman, Senators, AZ Governor, and your local politicians.
Stand up and demand that the Border Patrol "Patrol the Border!" and Secure the Border AT the Border! "
Weedly wrote on May 19, 2009 9:35 PM:
If our Senators actually did their job, maybe they could explain why it is ok to force American Citizens to stop for inspection before being allowed to travel in our own Country. And I don't want to hear someone say, that its not an inspection. Because we are required to stop, confirm our citizenship, while a dog sniffs our vehicle for drugs and a officer
looks over the inside of our car. We supposedly are protected from this type of intrusion by our Bill of Rights.
We need the ACLU to get this in court wjhere it belongs. It would also be reasonable for the courts to put a cease and desist order on the check points until it is a settled issue.
Maybe we can get the ACLU involved?
If anyone knows if this has been discussed with the ACLU, pleae let me know. I will put in a call to them if no one else has made the call. At least maybe they can get the cease and desist order
issued, while we get the issue into the media. I am willing to help in any way that I am able. Thank you. "
Daniel wrote on May 19, 2009 9:32 PM:
Why must they search vehicles also? I say 'no' so they put their dog in it.
They are generally very pleasant, but I do like 'having rights'. "
Jon D wrote on May 19, 2009 8:33 PM:
Border Patrol needs to "Patrol the Border" and "Secure the Border AT the Border". There is absolutely no need to surrender 30 miles of the border to organized crime! It is simply a waste of money to put this type of facility on a highway. Put the money into more men, women and equipment and put them to work ON the Border. "
Douglasaz wrote on May 19, 2009 5:29 PM:
Nikki wrote on May 19, 2009 12:08 PM: