About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Print outlets reported Bush claim that decrease in border arrests is a sign of progress, but not that he said opposite in late 2005

April 11, 2007 2:01 pm ET

22 Comments

In April 10 articles on President Bush's new immigration reform plan, four news outlets -- the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and McClatchy Newspapers -- noted that, during an April 9 speech at the Yuma, Arizona, headquarters of the U.S. Border Patrol, Bush touted the decrease in the "number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our southern border" as evidence that his administration is "making progress" in curtailing illegal immigration. But none of the four outlets mentioned that, in November 2005, Bush cited an increase in the number of illegal immigrant seizures in the same geographic area as an indication that his border patrol policy was "getting results." Similarly, reporting that Bush attributed the decrease in apprehensions to the efficacy of his administration's policies, The New York Times noted criticism of the link but also ignored the apparent inconsistency in the two claims.

As the weblog Think Progress noted, during a speech at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, on November 28, 2005, Bush claimed that a "42-percent" increase in the number of illegal immigrant apprehensions over the previous year was a sign that the administration's "actions" were yielding "results":

BUSH: Our actions to integrate manpower, technology and infrastructure are getting results. And one of the best examples of success is the Arizona Border Control Initiative, which the government launched in 2004. In the first year of this initiative -- now, listen to this, listen how hard these people are working here -- agents in Arizona apprehended nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants, a 42-percent increase over the previous year.

In his April 9 speech in Yuma, Bush discussed "Operation Jump Start," a border security plan initiated in August 2006 that involved sending National Guard troops to assist in border patrol operations in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico. Bush emphasized that illegal immigrant seizures around the Yuma area decreased after the plan's implementation, saying that "one way that the Border Patrol can tell whether or not we're making progress is the number of apprehensions," adding, "When you're apprehending fewer people, it means fewer are trying to come across":

BUSH: I appreciate very much the fact that illegal border crossings in this area are down. In the months before Operation Jump Start, an average of more than 400 people a day were apprehended trying to cross here. The number has dropped to fewer than 140 a day. In other words, one way that the Border Patrol can tell whether or not we're making progress is the number of apprehensions. When you're apprehending fewer people, it means fewer are trying to come across. And fewer are trying to come across because we're deterring people from attempting illegal border crossings in the first place.

In its April 10 article, the Los Angeles Times reported Bush's claim but failed to note the apparent contradiction:

In his speech, Bush said that since his last visit, increased deterrence had resulted in a 55% reduction in apprehensions along the 125-mile border from the Yuma-Pima County line in Arizona to the Imperial Sand Dunes in California.

"One way that the Border Patrol can tell whether or not we're making progress is the number of apprehensions," he said. "When you're apprehending fewer people, it means fewer are trying to come across. And fewer are trying to come across because we're deterring people from attempting illegal border crossings in the first place."

Bush noted that under his watch, the number of border agents nationwide had risen to 13,000, from about 9,000 -- and that the total was to reach 18,000 by 2008.

"You can't do the job the American people expect unless you've got the manpower, and we're increasing the manpower down here," he said.

The Post, the AP and McClatchy also noted Bush's claim without mentioning his 2005 comments. From the Post article:

During his visit to Arizona, Bush attempted to highlight improvements in border security in recent years. He toured areas of the state's border with Mexico where illegal immigrants once could overwhelm the Border Patrol simply by rushing across. The deployment of National Guard troops, increases in the number of Border Patrol agents and improvements in technology have deterred such bold tactics, he said.

Last year, Border Patrol agents apprehended an average of 400 people a day attempting to sneak into the country in the Yuma sector of the border. Bush said that figure is now down to 140.

From the AP article:

In Yuma, Bush checked out a portable scope that tracks illegal immigrants trying to cross the border at night and the Predator, an unmanned plane used to monitor the region.

"The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our southern border is down by nearly 30% this year," Bush said. "We're making progress."

Sharply at odds over the war in Iraq, Bush and the Democratic Congress are seeking to show some accomplishment on a core issue such as immigration.

From the McClatchy article:

Bush commended Border Patrol agents for their fight to control illegal immigration and said his administration's efforts were paying off. The size of the Border Patrol will nearly double by the time Bush leaves office, from 9,000 agents to more than 13,000, he said. The increase in manpower, he said, has contributed to a 30 percent drop in the number of apprehensions on the southern border this year.

In its article, The New York Times reported Bush's "interpret[ation]" of the decrease in apprehensions but did not mention his seemingly contradictory claim from November 2005:

President Bush said Monday that tougher enforcement and a new fence at the Mexican border had sharply reduced the influx of illegal immigrants, and he pressed Congress to pass a sweeping revision of the nation's immigration laws.

"It's amazing progress that's been made," Mr. Bush said on a return visit to a section of the border that he inspected 11 months ago.

In the last six months, the White House said, Border Patrol reports showed that apprehensions of illegal immigrants along the Mexican border fell by 30 percent, to 418,184, from 594,142 in the comparable period a year earlier. In the Yuma sector, which spans parts of Arizona and California, apprehensions fell by 68 percent, to 25,217, from 79,131 in the comparable period a year earlier.

There are now 13,000 Border Patrol agents, up from 9,000 a year earlier. The number will reach 18,000 by the end of next year, Mr. Bush said.

The White House interprets the decline in apprehensions as a sign that the tighter security is working.

"When you're apprehending fewer people, it means fewer are trying to come across," Mr. Bush said. "And fewer are trying to come across because we're deterring people from attempting illegal border crossings in the first place."

However, in contrast to the other outlets, The New York Times reported that experts have criticized Bush's reference to the decrease in apprehensions as evidence of success:

While Border Patrol commanders have expressed cautious optimism that a corner is being turned, immigration experts note that apprehension figures swing erratically over the years. The numbers can be driven by a variety of factors aside from enforcement, including weather, Latin American economics and decisions by illegal immigrants to make fewer trips back and forth between the United States and Mexico.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (April 11, 2007 2:12 pm ET)
         

      Despite Bush's abyssmal record on securing our borders, these two statements by him in 2005 and last week are not entirely inconsistent, as this piece leads us to believe.

      Considering the number of border patrol agents in 2005 and the increase in apprehensions then, that was a good sign.  However, considering there are more agents now and apprehensions have decreased, he could conclude that there are less people attempting to cross the borders due to our increased manpower.

      Either way, we need far more border patrol agents than 13,000 at present.......and cracking down on employers is vital.  If people crossing illegally know that employers will think twice about breaking the law and hiring them, they will think twice before trying to enter this country illegally.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by neondesert (April 11, 2007 2:21 pm ET)
           

        Or maybe most are already here?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (April 11, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
             

          Good point, we don't need border patrol agents - we need WalMart greeters at the border.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (April 11, 2007 2:58 pm ET)
           

        Alleviate the symptoms, but neglect any effort to find a cure.  That's pretty much what making the border the main priority is in my view.

        You did mention cracking down on U.S. employers who hire illegals, which is good, but it's one of a myriad of problems.  America shares the responsibility for creating the conditions that resulted with the immigration problems.  We export our jobs there, but pay them with bread crumbs, only exasperating their resolve to leave.  Mexican citizens are also burdened by corrupt government, corrupt law enforcement and a huge income gap.

        Until these things change, border security is nothing more than a Band-Aid placed on a severed limb.  

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (April 11, 2007 3:14 pm ET)
             

          My emphasis is close the borders first before any talk of immigration reform.  This was the "promise" back during Reagan's term - amnesty now and we will fix it later.  It was an empty promise then, and it won't work now.  

          Unless the borders are far more secure and we slow the flow, all other talk should off the table - except the crackdown on employers, which should be strictly enforced.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by H-Man (April 11, 2007 4:33 pm ET)
               

            Tommy,

             

            I agree with you up to a point. I am much more concerned with securing the northern border than the southern border. The southern border has mostly hard working people trying to make a better life for themselves. The northern border is where I believe people out to hurt the US will try to sneak through. Both borders should be secure but imho the northern is a great risk. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (April 11, 2007 2:13 pm ET)
         

      I saw his *speech* in Yuma and I thought to myself that he could say ANYTHING and spin it one way or another... he is a joke and a fraud...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave_chicago (April 11, 2007 2:23 pm ET)
         

      Bush/Cheney/Rove & Co. have used the same intelligence-insulting phrasing with Iraq. More insurgent activity and more deaths = our efforts are working (because the "enemy" is frustrated). But less activity and fewer deaths = our efforts are working, too, you see. Shows you the low, low opinion they have of our memories and our brainpower.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (April 11, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
         

       

      "...but not that he said opposite in late 2005"

      Well DUH!

      The ball-chasing puppies of the MSM didn't have that on their handouts from Karl.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 11, 2007 2:30 pm ET)
         

      Mexico is running out of people.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Kaliman (April 11, 2007 5:49 pm ET)
           

        No, it's not.  The US is running out of people who don't mind working.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by valentinian (April 11, 2007 6:42 pm ET)
             

          The US is running out of people who don't mind working for four bucks an hour.

          Fixed your type. 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by valentinian (April 11, 2007 6:43 pm ET)
             

          The US is running out of people who don't mind working for four bucks an hour.

          Fixed your typo. 

          Fixed my typo. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by duncan12347948 (April 11, 2007 2:34 pm ET)
         

      The Los Angeles Times just print what ever Bush says. They are gutless

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (April 11, 2007 2:38 pm ET)
         

      Yes folks, the Bush Administration, no matter how you slice it, is just one big success story after another! 

      Nothing but good news today, tomorrow, AND EVERYDAY!!!

      As Lewis Black puts it, IT'S A GOOD NEWS EXPLOSION!!! 

      Now we just need that darn pesky MSM to open the bombay doors and deliver it. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (April 11, 2007 2:42 pm ET)
         

      The Imus effect

      This was and is an important story, however the media outlets on cable ignored this last night, exception of Olbermann and covered at nausiating rate the Imus story. I as I have been saying on here for a long time am no fan of Imus, but the MSM needs to keep the pressure on Bush also, they seem to always get swalllowed up in stories for days ie Anna Nicole, American Idol. Bush can never be allowed to get away with lies even for a few hours.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (April 11, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
         

      Bush is indeed a glass is half full person.

      More border arrests are a sign of progress. More deaths in Iraq are a sign of progress. A higher deficit and more debt are signs of progress. More poor people is a sign of progress. Negative savings for two years running is a sign of progress. And so on.

      Bush's outlook is so rosy because it's easy to perceive the glass as half full when your eyes are closed.

      Randy

      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (April 11, 2007 2:48 pm ET)
           

         

        FANTAGOR,

        I disagree - Duhhbya's eyes are open, but all he can see is the inside of his colon.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (April 11, 2007 2:57 pm ET)
             

          The lights are on, but he's not home.

          He ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

          Others?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 11, 2007 2:46 pm ET)
         

      Wait a minute.........just dawned on me, less border patrol arrests means more are getting thru, Bush is telling the truth here, after word engineering the remarks a little bit.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sicarus (April 11, 2007 2:46 pm ET)
         

      I don't expect any politician to step up and say "Wow, I'm a complete idiot and I apparently have no idea what I'm doing."  I do, however, expect a news organization to do their homework.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (April 11, 2007 2:52 pm ET)
         

      One of the more interesting aspects of this story, to me, at least: the Rovian calculation. My grade-school days long past, I am still troubled by the computation that 13,000 (or even 13,500) is "nearly twice" 9,000.

      No, given the prediliction of the Corporate Media to hide the truth, should some accidentally creep into a report, I guess I understand it.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The Associated Press
    450 W. 33rd St.
    New York, NY 10001

    Main Number
    +1-212-621-1500
  • Los Angeles Times
    Los Angeles Times

    Los Angeles Times
    202 W. 1st St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    (213) 237-5000
  • The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    1150 15th St. NW
    Washington, DC 20071