Comments on 'A year later, Arivaca checkpoint remains'
Sponsored by

Comments on

A year later, Arivaca checkpoint remains

Group of Arivaca residents hold 24-hour vigil and observation to mark a year of protests against a Border Patrol checkpoint on Arivaca Road, east of I-19.... Read more»

have your say   

8 comments on this story

Dec 9, 2014, 7:51 am
-0 +2

They are polite and professional to you Mr Hoffman because you are upper class and white and not Latino…maybe you should google how former Gov Raul Castro an elderly gentleman who was forced to stand in the hot sun for several hours

Dec 9, 2014, 11:46 am
-3 +2

Do I read this story right.  We have a reporter attributing a statement to the group No More Deaths , that the Border Patrol is responsible for deaths in the desert because they have the strategy to use the desert as a natural defensive barrier. OMG///////////??????What nonsense these people can come up with. At taxpayer expense, the border patrol has rescued any number of border jumpers in the desert.

Dec 9, 2014, 11:49 am
-2 +1

I’m thinking this checkpoint will still be here five, ten, perhaps twenty years from now. As long as there are people who won’t respect the border or our sovereignty, this checkpoint will always be needed. Sure, it sucks, but that’s the world we live in. It is the best of two bad choices.

Dec 9, 2014, 12:48 pm
-0 +2

That’s not merely a claim made by NMD, but a 2006 finding by the Government Accounting Office, and a strategy that’s been widely acknowledged by CBP officials.

Dec 9, 2014, 2:04 pm
-0 +2

And many reports of “border jumpers” being raped by border patrol. Is that at “taxpayer expense” Maybe not as linear as you wish it to be.

Dec 9, 2014, 4:37 pm
-0 +0

Dylan Smith got up on a soapbox and yelled:

That’s not merely a claim made by NMD, but a 2006 finding by the Government Accounting Office, and a strategy that’s been widely acknowledged by CBP officials.

I see nothing in that report from 2006 that confirms the claim by NMD that deaths in the desert are a consequence of a BP strategy to use the desert as a natural defensive barrier.

Dec 9, 2014, 4:51 pm
-0 +0

overgrowmexico typed:

And many reports of “border jumpers” being raped by border patrol. Is that at “taxpayer expense” Maybe not as linear as you wish it to be.

In your futile attempt to equate my comment on taxpayer costs to rescue border jumpers in the desert and rape by BP, you have failed. Linear? you should try that sometime instead of falling over your misguided correlation.

Dec 9, 2014, 4:59 pm
-0 +0


Further, the majority of the increase in deaths during this period occurred within the Border Patrols Tucson Sectorwhich includes much of the Arizona desert. Our analysis of the NCHS data indicates that, between 1990 and 2003, more than three-fourths of the rise in migrant border-crossing deaths along the southwest border can be attributed to an increase in deaths in the Tucson Sector. Over this period, deaths due to exposure, especially heat-related exposure, increased substantially, while deaths from traffic fatalities and homicide declined. This pattern represents a major shift in the causes of migrant bordercrossing deaths, as traffic fatalities were the leading cause of migrant border-crossing deaths during the early 1990s, while from the late 1990s onward, heat exposure was the leading cause of death. The increase in deaths due to heat exposure over the last 15 years is consistent with our previous report that found evidence that migrant traffic shifted from urban areas like San Diego and El Paso into the desert following the implementation of the Southwest Border Strategy in 1994. 


In 1994, the Attorney General announced plans for the Southwest Border Strategy, an enforcement initiative designed to strengthen enforcement of the nations immigration laws and to shut down the traditional corridors for the flow of illegal immigration along the southwest border. The strategy called for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)5 to incrementally increase control of the border in four phases with the goal of making it increasingly difficult and costly for migrants to attempt illegal entry so that fewer individuals would try. The strategy called for adding resources along the southwest border by first concentrating personnel and technology in those sectors with the highest levels of illegal immigration activity (as measured by apprehensions) and by then moving to the areas with the least activity. Additional Border Patrol resources were initially allocated in the San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, sectors. The strategy assumed that as the urban areas were controlled, the migrant traffic would shift to more remote areas where the Border Patrol would be able to more easily detect and apprehend migrants entering illegally. The strategy also assumed that natural barriers including rivers, such as the Rio Grande in Texas, the mountains east of San Diego, and the desert in Arizona would act as deterrents to illegal entry

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Paul Ingram/

Crosses marked with the names of migrants found dead in the desert hang from a barbed-wire fence near the Border Patrol checkpoint on Arivaca Road.


news, politics & government, border, crime & safety, family/life, local, arizona, breaking
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1766
  • Dylan Smith: 541
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 153
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Printer's Devil
$15/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below) is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves. does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by