Copyright 2000 – Arizona Republic – All Rights Reserved

DOUGLAS – The United States ends right here, with a 12-foot-high steel fence that runs the length of Independence Avenue. This appears to be a neat line of demarcation, until you understand what edges up to the fence from the north, our side.

A battleground.

Make no mistake, a battleground is what Douglas has become: No longer a quaint border town, a dusty strip of postage-stamp front yards, one high school and a few mercados, but a war zone. The front line in Arizona’s – and America’s – battle against illegal immigration.

If you doubt this, consider some numbers: On Jan. 12, according to the hometown newspaper, Border Patrol agents set their personal record for busts in the city: 1,410 illegal immigrants arrested in 24 hours. This on a day when the men in green shirts arrested 2,902 immigrants total in the Tucson sector, which spans much of the state.

During the first three weeks of January, Douglas agents made more than 16,000 arrests. This nearly doubled their total for the same month of 1999 – and more than exceeds the entire population of the city. Their year 2000 arrest total has already surpassed 30,000.

Most everyone in town, ranchers and merchants, old-timers and newcomers, agrees with the mayor. It’s a siege.

“If you had to deal every single day with knowing people were going to trespass on your property, leave trash, destroy your land . . . that wears on you,” says Mayor Ray Borane. “You’re not even comfortable in your own home. You have no quality of life.”

For all this, you can certainly blame Mexico, which has done little to provide its citizens with a quality life, or to discourage their flight. You also can blame the lawbreakers themselves, and the coyotes who profit by smuggling them in, and geography and bad luck and economics. But make sure you blame the U.S. government, too, especially the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

See, the INS, with help from Attorney General Janet Reno, actually planned this war.

It’s what the feds call their “Southwest Border Strategy.” Unveiled in early 1994, this “bold” and “innovative, multi-year strategy” – the INS’ own words – essentially hung Douglas out to dry.

How, you ask?

The effort’s initial focus was in Texas, near El Paso, with Operation Hold the Line. By 1996, by vastly increasing the number agents and resources in the area, arrests in the El Paso sector dropped by 50 percent.

Next came San Diego and Operation Gatekeeper. Four years later, the push there saw arrests drop to an 18-year low. At its peak, according to INS records, San Diego had accounted for 45 percent of the country’s illegal alieN arrests – by late 1998 that number stood at 16 percent.

Where did the illegal immigrants from Texas and California go? They were squeezed to the center – into southeastern Arizona. According to a federal audit of the project, this is exactly what the strategy’s authors had predicted: “A shift in the flow of illegal alien traffic from sectors that traditionally accounted for most illegal immigration to other sectors.”

Nogales was bombarded first, so the feds focused there: By late 1999, INS documents show, arrests in the area had fallen 70 percent, and the city’s crime rate had fallen 40 percent.

This squeezed the illegal traffic eastward, to Douglas. David Aguilar, chief patrol agent for the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, explains why.

“It’s a transportation hub,” he says. “What the smugglers utilize is any kind of stash house and transportation they can find to transport their commodity – the immigrants – to a final destination. In order to do that, they need a staging area, such as the area of Douglas.”

This sets the terms of battle: a flow of maybe 1,000 illegals a day vs. Douglas’ newly beefed up army of 400 Border Patrol agents. Aided by their fabulous new toys – a helicopter, infrared scopes, mobile Skywatcher towers, underground sensors – the green shirts seem to have regained control of downtown proper. Borane, the mayor, lauds their efforts. Still, ranchers on the Douglas fringe suffer mightily. Their fences get cut, livestock killed, land trashed. Some of the men, militialike, have even started to round up the illegals on their own, at gunpoint.

Roger Barnett is one of them: “We just follow their tracks in to where they are,” he explains. “They’re just holed up in a wash or a ditch. . . . Twenty, 30, 40, 50 at a time. We can see them coming from up on the mountaintop.”

The illegals have been docile, Barnett says, but largely unimpressed. “Sometimes they tell us, ‘See you tomorrow.’ They’re just going to try again.”

So it goes in the war zone: Citizens enforcing the law because those at the top, those who command your side, have been far too late to respond. Anyone who visits the front lines must walk away shaking his head.

“It’s going to ultimately cause a very serious problem,” says Borane. “And it’s going to embarrass the United States government.”

It should have already.

Actually, it’s like twice a day.

Still … even by Arizona standards the latest brainstorm on the street … a campaign bombshell from Barry Wong, a candidate for Corporation Commission … seems pretty desperate.

Barry Wong: Corp Comm candidate

And pretty stupid.

Wong’s idea is to force Arizona’s utilities to check the immigration status of all their customers. And then turn off the power to those customers who turn out to be illegal immigrants.

Wow. Just when you think you’ve heard everything, huh?

Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say again: America needs to reform its immigration policy immediately. We need practical solutions to complex problems, like how we deal with 12 million people who live in our shadows. We need to secure our borders, establish a guest worker program and reform the inefficient, years-long process we use to vet immigration applications.

And we need to go after the drug cartel members and the human smugglers — the predators who enter America illegally.

But unplugging abuela’s power in 112 degree heat? That’s not practical. That’s not serious. It’s cynical, hateful, political garbage.

The sad thing is, this ploy was hatched by Barry Wong, whose parents fled to this country from Mao’s China. He’s a great story … a guy who rose from working in his folks’ south Phoenix grocery store to become a lawyer, a state Legislator and an appointee to the Corporation Commission.

Wong ran to keep that seat in 2008 but finished next to last in a field of six.

Maybe he’s desperate to win this time around. Maybe throwing some gasoline on the fire that is illegal immigration in Arizona helps him gain office. Maybe he really believes this stuff.

I can’t say, but there’s an old saying that applies here. If you’re not part of the solution, Mr. Wong, you’re part of the problem.

The Alfred P. Murrah building: Can't believe it's been 15 years

It’s a question that always comes up for me this time of year, on the 20^th day of April, the date my mind inevitably returns to Oklahoma City and to Littleton, Colorado.

15 years ago yesterday, I was in Oklahoma, standing outside the Murrah federal building, reporting on the destruction and death a madman brought on with bomb the size of a truck.

The killer, Timothy McVeigh, claimed 168 lives that morning … including 19 children under the age of 6. He wounded nearly 700 people and took a little piece out of all of us … at least for a while.

The memories aren’t as fresh any more, not as emotional. I used to get upset thinking about the Murrah building, cored like an apple, and about all the letters and teddy bears people dropped off in memorial to the dead. Now it just feels like one more historical fact, the same way the massacre at Columbine High School feels.

The Columbine killers in mid-spree

I was there, too, 11 years ago to the day, the morning Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 fellow students, a teacher and themselves. That night, I spoke with grieving families and stunned friends, the same way I had dozens of times before … but that time there were too many teenage bodies to comprehend, too much potential erased in a few deadly minutes.

The thought pained me then. Now it seems far away.

That’s how we process the past, I suppose. It grows distant, the feelings fade. We couldn’t handle it otherwise. We say we learn lessons from those events, but I have a feeling the lessons fade, too … until next time.

I guess that’s the biggest lesson of all: In America, there’s always a next time.

Dan Rather, Fool.

That’s dumb – and really offensive. But so is Rather’s written apology afterward. He blamed his childhood in Texas, racial stereotypes and the “charged environment.” And then he gave us the standard line: “I’m sorry people took offense.”

Dan Rather: He's sorry ... that you're offended.

That bugs me. There’s a big difference between being sorry you said something and being sorry folks are too sensitive. A real apology doesn’t blame others; it takes responsibility for your conduct.

What should Rather have said? How about:

I’m sorry that I said something so blatantly stupid and bigoted. Though I didn’t mean it in a racist sense, I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully. I should know better. It won’t happen again.

It’s not hard to apologize well. It’s just requires a sense of personal responsibility. That used to be popular in America – you know, back when Dan Rather made sense.

The reason I bring it up, of course, is the story of 11-year-old Zane Champion. Stop me if you’ve heard a tale like Zane’s before: Young kid, a good student, quiet, well-mannered, brings some relatively harmless object to school and ends up facing the education equivalent of the death penalty.

Dead on editorial cartoon

Expulsion.

Why? Because the adults in charge would rather act like robots and hide behind the rules than act like adults and use their brains. That’s what zero tolerance policies do … they reduce people into decision-making machines.

Brains optional.

Take Zane’s case. The kid brought a 2-inch penknife to school. Everyone agrees it was an accident. And since I haven’t seen a penknife Columbine yet, personally I’d cut the kid some slack. I’d have sent him home for a couple days, given him a detention or two and confiscated the penknife.

End of story. Instead, his mom has a petition out there for you to sign, to save his school career.

The worst part about zero tolerance policies is the message blanket rules send to kids. One size fits all. Forget proportional response, forget the punishment fitting the crime, forget using your intellect. Treat everyone the same, regardless of the circumstances.

I know administrators do this because they’re worried about appearing weak and unfair. The sad part is, they end up appearing weak-minded and even more unfair.

As for the argument I’ve heard in the past … “Well, where do you draw the line?” … let me tell you something: In the real world, we draw lines all the time. We have speed limits, we have a voting age, a drinking age, we have first degree murder, second degree, third degree.

Drawing lines and making distinctions is one of the things that separates us from the rest of the primates. An opposable thumb is great, but it’s even better when it’s accompanied by a functioning brain.

Zero tolerance policies make zero sense.

The hero of the tale: Not So Silent Bob?

On Saturday, Smith … who’s happy to tell you he’s really fat … tried to fly Southwest from Oakland to Burbank. He got on the plane, got in his middle seat and was all set … until a Southwest employee pulled him off the flight for allegedly violating their “customer of size” policy.

That’s where the story gets murky. In his blog and his Twitter account, Smith told  his 1.6 million followers … and I quote … I know I’m fat. The point of all this? I’m not too fat for Southwest Air, yet someone deemed me so.

The airline, which has apologized profusely on its blog and Twitter feed, admits they handled the whole thing badly, but they haven’t conceded the point about Smith’s gut.

The bottom line? No one knows who to believe. The airline looks small-hearted. And Smith looks like a big guy with an even bigger ego.

Speaking of which,  there’s one thing I’m not buying … that all the attention to his waistline hurt Smith’s feelings. Read his blog, check Twitter. This guy spends all day telling you how stoned he is, or about the intimate details of his sex life. His movies work the same way: He freely admits to mining his days as a loser for laughs and for profit.

Our hero's last hit

I don’t begrudge Kevin his success. He’s had a great run and I loved “Clerks.” But, seriously, after making fun of yourself as a fat dope for 15 years, are you really offended that you might be “too fat to fly?”

And on Southwest Airlines? That’s the truly embarrassing part. Dude, your last movie made $30 million … and you’re flying standby with us tubbies?

Sad, Silent Bob. Very sad.

The president’s decision to call on Congress to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay soldiers.

I think after 17 years of discrimination, it’s about time we value the contribution of all soldiers, not just straight soldiers or silent soldiers.

Simply put, ending don’t ask, don’t tell is the right thing to do.

Defense Secretary Gates testifies before Congress. Stay tuned ... for a year.

That’s why I’m disappointed about the Pentagon’s big announcement this afternoon. They’re putting together another one of those Washington panels to study the possible impact of relaxing the ban.

They’ll get back to us in about a year.

In the meantime, the interim plan is to ignore some aspects of the current policy. That means the military will no longer discharge gay soldiers who are outted  by third parties or jilted ex’s.

Gee, that’s great. Of course, it comes a little too late for the 13,000 soldiers who’ve been discharged under this sad, sad policy since 1994.

My take? If you’re willing to sacrifice your life in the service of your country, then we should accept your offer with grace and with gratitude. And we shouldn’t judge your service on your sexuality, in the same way that we shouldn’t  judge it based on the color of your skin.

Get the picture?

Think about it: At West Point, our nation’s leading service academy, the honor code demands that no cadet tell a lie. But once you’re a soldier, lies are encouraged by law.

That’s wrong. And it shouldn’t take a year for the Pentagon to figure out how to right that wrong. Yes, there will be an impact when don’t ask, don’t tell goes away. But some things – like treating all soldiers equally – should be done impact be damned.

I’d give it B-minus … mostly for President Obama’s skill as a speaker.

Glad to be here? You must be a Dem.

You know what killed me though? Everything else that surrounded the speech. All the boring, predictable performances turned in by politicians, the media and, yes, us. Citizens.

I know you caught Joe Biden sitting behind the President like Pinocchio in a fancy suit. Did he really have to nod every 30 seconds to signal his support? And what’s up with Nancy Pelosi? Is her face frozen in that grin? I thought I’d mistakenly flipped on Batman on HBO and she was playing The Joker.

Speaker Pelosi, is that you?

Then there’s the Republicans. Those old white guys kept grimacing for a solid 70 minutes. And they held their applause like my Uncle Nat holding on to the first dollar he ever earned.

We get it. You hated every minute of the speech. Every proposal. Every word. Gee, what a shock.

Afterward, I flipped around. Amazingly, every Dem on CNN called the speech gutsy, triumphant. Every Republican on Fox thought it was an incoherent disgrace.

Twitter and the blogs? Same deal. My Dem pals argued Obama gave the Gettysburg Address on steroids. My conservative friends? They dismissed him as a traitor … or worse.

Nowadays, it seems impossible for people to simply respond with independent thought. I mean, is it crazy to listen to the President and think, gee, he has a great point on repealing don’t ask, don’t tell. But, wow, did he let us down by ignoring immigration reform almost entirely.

Help the middle class? Expand tax credits for child care? Great. Reform health care letting government run it? Idiotic.

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to scare anyone by actually thinking for myself. I saw it last night and I see it every day: Free thought is dead in America in 2010.

Hey, guess what? I have like $100,000 in credit card debt. I’m teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

I'm all out of dough. But I keep spending!

No big deal, though. I’m still living off credit and spending much more than I earn. I’d like to fix the mess, but fixing it would require some suffering.

Me, I don’t feel like dealing with pain. Maybe you didn’t notice, but pain hurts. I avoid it all costs.

What would you tell me in response to that story? Let me guess.

You’d tell me I’m an idiot. Or you’d tell me, hey Leibo, learn a little bit of personal responsibility. Guess what … sometimes in life, you don’t always get what you want.

Sometimes, life stings.

Good advice. Honest advice.

I want you to remember it the next time you read about the state of Arizona’s $5 billion budget deficit.

See, lately, every time we hear about plans to cut government services, I read or hear people crying about who it’s going to hurt and how cold-hearted Arizona is.

Another day, another protest

Oh no, we can’t close state parks. How will I see trees? Close highway rest stops? Unacceptable. I can’t hold it in until we get to McDonald’s.  Find cost savings in the education system or health care for the poor and uninsured? Over my dead body.

The math is pretty simple. In the past three fiscal years, state government spent about $27 billion. Over the same three years, it took in about $22 billion.

To make up the difference, we charged, borrowed, delayed, gimmicked. Now the bill’s are due. And paying those bills will involve sacrifice. Either taxes go up and we all share that pain, or services get cut and the pain goes to people in need.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have all the government you want and all the money you think you deserve.

There’s a word for that. Bankrupt.

The Nevada Senator is under fire

We live in amazing times. Nevada Senator Harry Reid shoves an awful health care bill down our throats. Great. But he makes a remark about the skin color of the President and he’s a villain?

Ridiculous, as is the whole “Harry Reid’s a racist” controversy.

You’ve heard what Reid is accused of saying about Barak Obama. Thrilled at the prospect of Obama running for President, in part because he thought Obama’s race worked for him, Reid characterized Obama as a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Offensive? Not really.

Why not? Because it’s true.

Obama does have light skin, which may very well make him more palatable to some Americans. Personally, I think race – and races within a race – are lousy  criteria to judge politicians by, but I’m sure it happens every day. And I’m sure it played a role in Obama’s calculations during the 2008 campaign.

Then there’s the dialect comment – also true. Like all of us, Obama uses different tones and speech styles, depending on where he’s standing. In a black church, he’s a preacher. On the stump at Harvard, he’s an intellectual. With his wife, he’s probably someone else. I do the same thing. A minute ago, I used the word characterized. You think I do that playing hoops at the Y?

The big complaint is that Reid used the word Negro. It’s an old time word, from the era before civil rights. Even the United Negro College Fund started hiding it a couple years ago. Now that fine group just goes by UNCF.  If the other N word has been retired, I can respect that. But it’s hard for me to accept that using one word makes someone totally disagreeable.

Especially when there’s so many other reasons – valid, substantial reasons – to disagree with someone like Harry Reid.