United States and Mexico border wall a costly failure film says

Washington’s plan to build a fence on the border with Mexico has cost $3 billion and has not deterred illegal immigrants or drug traffickers from entering the country, according to a new U.S. documentary.”The Fence” hopes to show Americans, who were divided when construction of the wall was approved in 2006, that the venture is a failure as conceived and a blemish upon the United States internationally.It argues that illegals and smugglers can easily climb over, dig under and even drive over the wall, which is only a few feet (meters) high in parts, has no razor wire, and abruptly ends in the desert.

“One of the most confounding and little-known realities of the fence is that it only covers about one third of the 2,000-mile (3,218-km) border,” said Rory Kennedy, the director and narrator.Kennedy, who is a daughter of the late Senator Robert Kennedy, spent weeks traveling along the border from California to Texas as the fence was being built in 2009. It is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Up to 500 people die every year crossing the U.S.-Mexican border, according to U.S. immigration experts and the Mexican government, a sharp jump from a decade ago. Tougher border security and the fence’s construction have forced migrants to take more dangerous, remote routes into the United States.Some 650 miles of the 670-mile wall called for under the Secure Fence Act and signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in October 2006 have been built. It contains 120,000 tons of metal and materials, ranging from railroad ties to concrete and chain link fencing.

“COMPLETE THE DANGED FENCE”

Lined in parts with stadium-style lights, cameras and roads to allow U.S. agents to patrol, the fence was partly a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It also aims to stop terrorists from crossing over from Mexico.”This was put up to illustrate to Joe whoever up in Dubuque (Iowa) or someplace that they see a picture of this and … they think ‘oh yeah, that’ll stop them’,” Arizona ranch owner Bill Odle said in the film. “Well of course it doesn’t.”

But it remains a magnet for Republicans keen to show their get-tough credentials in the run-up to the November U.S. elections. Arizona Republican John McCain, facing his toughest re-election battle in years for the Senate, demanded that the government in May to “complete the danged fence.”Despite calls for a fence along the entire U.S.-Mexican border, the terrain, which ranges from swamps to deserts, makes that idea almost impossible and financially prohibitive.

U.S. law enforcement uses helicopters, unmanned planes and agents in watchtowers and in vehicles to monitor the area stretching from the Tijuana-San Diego crossing in California to the Matamoros-Brownsville crossing in Texas around the clock.U.S. Border Patrol agents say the wall and virtual fencing cut the number of people caught trying to cross into the United States by a quarter in the fiscal year 2009.

Immigration experts counter that the deep U.S. recession in 2008-2009 and the resulting lack of jobs in the world’s biggest economy was a bigger factor behind the drop.Even with a sluggish economy, 300,000 illegal immigrants entered the United States every year between 2007 and 2009, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.But critics, both in the United States and Mexico, where there was an outcry when the plan was approved, also are questioning the wisdom of spending billions on the fence during hard economic times.

Future U.S. administrations are likely to spend $6.5 billion on maintenance of the fence over the next 20 years, the United States Government Accountability Office says, although researchers at the U.S. Congress say it could be more.The documentary airs on Thursday on U.S. cable television channel HBO.(Reuters)

UNITED STATES admits human rights shortcomings in UN report

WASHINGTON The Obama administration has told the United Nations that America’s human rights record is less than perfect but stressed that the U.S. political system has built-in safeguards that promote improvements.In its first-ever report to the U.N. Human Rights Council on conditions in the United States, the State Department said Monday that some Americans, notably minorities, are still victims of discrimination. Despite success in reforming such inequities as slavery and the denial of women’s right to vote, the department said, considerable progress is still needed.”Although we have made great strides, work remains to meet our goal of ensuring equality before the law for all,” it said.

The report noted that although the U.S. now has an African-American president and that women and Hispanics have won greater social and economic success, large segments of American society suffer from unfair policies and practices.High unemployment rates, hate crime, poverty, poor housing, lack of access to health care and discriminatory hiring practices are among the challenges the report identified as affecting blacks, Latinos, Muslims, South Asians, Native Americans and gays and lesbians in the United States.

The report, which drew on meetings that U.S. officials held with various groups around the country since January, also cited concerns from civil rights activists and citizens related to immigration and racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.The 29-page report was submitted to the Human Rights Council on Friday but was not published until Monday. Members of the council, which the United States joined only last year, are required to submit reviews of their rights records. The report was the first “Universal Periodic Review” produced by the U.S.

In one of his first moves to reach out to the international community, President Barack Obama decided that the U.S. should run for a seat on the council. The Bush administration had shunned the panel for years over its alleged disproportionate criticism of Israel and membership that includes repressive regimes.The report’s findings were cautiously welcomed by human rights activists but will likely draw fire from conservatives who opposed joining the council. They said the U.S. should not be judged by countries with poor human rights records.

The administration sought to rebuff such criticism in the report, saying its participation in the review was not an acknowledgment “of commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights.” It also said the report did not reflect “doubt in the ability of the American political system to deliver progress for its citizens.”At the same time, it said that the U.S. welcomed “observations and recommendations” from council members “that can help us on that road to a more perfect union.”

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the administration for engaging with the council but said the report neglected to address key areas where the U.S. has not met its human rights obligations. Those areas include inhumane prison conditions, racial disparities in death penalty cases, and abuses in the immigration detention system.”It is time for the U.S. to match its human rights rhetoric with concrete domestic policies and actions and create a human rights culture and infrastructure that promote American values of equality and justice for all,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s human rights program.(AP)

Brazilian police arrested 10 heavily armed men and rescued 35 people who had been held hostage for almost two hours at a five-star hotel in one of Rio de Janeiro's

Brazilian police on Saturday arrested 10 heavily armed men and rescued 35 people who had been held hostage for almost two hours at a five-star hotel in one of Rio de Janeiro’s richest neighborhoods.The gunmen, armed with automatic weapons and grenades, were driving in several cars on a scenic road along the ocean when they met with police patrols.

A shootout followed in Rio’s Sao Conrado neighborhood and the hooded suspects escaped into the Intercontinental Hotel, which last year hosted the World Economic Forum on Latin America. A woman bystander was killed and two police officers were hurt in the exchange of gunfire, police said.”I have never seen so many criminals together. All of them were wearing the same outfit, like uniforms, and were on the streets shooting into the open air,” a resident who witnessed the event and asked not to be named told Reuters. “It was a war zone.”TV images showed suspects wearing black bullet-proof vests and hiding behind a garbage truck during the shootout with police, before running into the hotel.

Colonel Lima Castro, a spokesman for Rio’s military police, said the 35 hostages were freed without harm. Police swept the entire hotel and arrested 10 people.Violent crime is a major concern in Rio, where heavily armed drug gangs control its many slums. The sprawling city is Brazil’s biggest tourist destination and will host the 2016 Olympic games, as well as be a venue for the 2014 World Cup.(Reuters)

Some Companies using criminal records or bad credit reports for job screening tactics challenged as illegal

WASHINGTON Companies using criminal records or bad credit reports to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws as the government steps up scrutiny of hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws.”Our sense is that the problem is snowballing because of the technology allowing these checks to be done with a fair amount of ease,” said Carol Miaskoff, assistant legal counsel at the EEOC.

With millions of adults having criminal records – anything from underage drinking to homicide – a growing number of job seekers are having a rough time finding work. And more companies are trying to screen out people with bankruptcies, court judgments or other credit problems just as those numbers have swollen during the recession.Just ask Adrienne Hudson, a single mother who says she was fired from her new job as a bus driver at First Transit in Oakland, Calif., when the company found out she had been convicted seven years earlier for welfare fraud.

Hudson, 44, is fighting back with a lawsuit alleging the company’s hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites. A spokesman for First Transit said the company does not comment on pending litigation.”People make mistakes,” said Hudson, who is black, “but when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system.”

Justice Department statistics show that 38 percent of the U.S. prison population is black, compared with about 12 percent of the general population. In 2008, African-Americans were about six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. The incarceration rate for Latinos was 2.3 times higher than whites.If criminal histories are taken into account, the EEOC says employers must also consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense and how long ago it occurred. For example, it may make sense to disqualify a bank employee with a past conviction for embezzlement, but not necessarily for a DUI.

Most companies tend to be more nuanced when they look at credit reports, weeding out those applicants with bad credit only if they seek senior positions or jobs dealing with money. But if the screening process weeds out more black and Hispanic applicants than whites, an employer needs to show how the credit information is related to the job.

About 73 percent of major employers report that they always check on applicants’ criminal records, while 19 percent do so for select job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.The same survey found that almost half of major companies conduct credit checks for some job candidates, such as those who would be in a position of financial trust. Another 13 percent perform credit checks for all potential workers.

Last fall, the EEOC sent a strong message to employers when it filed a class-action lawsuit against Freeman Companies, a Dallas-based events planning firm, alleging the company discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and males by rejecting job seekers based on credit history and criminal records. Freeman has denied the charges.The growth of online databases and a multimillion dollar background check industry have made it easy for employers to find out reams of information about potential hires. Companies see the checks as another way to weed out unsavory candidates, keep a safe work environment and prevent negligent hiring claims.

“Past indiscretions may be an indicator of future behavior, especially in the criminal context,” said Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC’s requirements.Devata said employers nationwide have seen the EEOC become more active in investigating employer hiring practices. The scrutiny has caused many companies to reevaluate their screening process and move to a case-by-case standard.

Ariela Migdal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project in New York, said a person might have a blemish that has nothing to do with the job he or she is seeking. And records sometimes are inaccurate or not updated to reflect that someone arrested later had charges dropped or a conviction overturned or expunged, she said.”Somebody with an old conviction that has been rehabilitated doesn’t have any greater likelihood of committing a crime, so its irrational to use that against them,” Migdal said.

Ron Heintzman, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, said he’s seen dozens of job candidates disqualified “for reasons that were just ridiculous.” His union, with 13,000 members in First Transit, is paying for the lawsuit that Hudson filed last month against the company which operates bus service in Oakland and several other major cities.

In Hudson’s case, she was fired after just two days on the job as a bus driver because of a 7-year-old felony welfare fraud conviction. The conviction was later dismissed under California law, but her lawsuit, filed in federal court last month, claims the company has a policy to deny employment no matter how old the conviction, the applicant’s prior work history or whether it is related to the job.

(This version CORRECTS name of American Civil Liberties Union.)(AP)

Arizona police officials warned officers not to use race or ethnicity when enforcing the state's new immigration law

PHOENIX Arizona police officials warned officers not to use race or ethnicity when enforcing the state’s new immigration law, saying that the country is watching their every move.In a new training video released Thursday, the officials said opponents of the law may secretly videotape officers making traffic stops, trying to ensnare them and prove that they’re racially profiling Hispanics.”Without a doubt, we’re going to be accused of racial profiling no matter what we do on this,” Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor tells officers on the video from Arizona’s police licensing board. The video is designed to teach officers how to determine when they can ask a person for proof they’re in the country legally.Officers can consider that someone doesn’t speak English well, is wearing several layers of clothing in a hot climate or is hanging out in an area where illegal immigrants are known to look for work, according to the video.

They can take into account that a person doesn’t have identification, tried to run away, is traveling in an overcrowded vehicle, or seems out of place and unfamiliar with the area.But the stakes for making a mistake are high: Officers can be fired if they start asking questions because of a person’s race, then lie about it later, the video warns.”It is also clear that the actions of Arizona officers will never come under this level of scrutiny again,” said Lyle Mann, executive director of the training agency. “Each and every one of you will now carry the reputation for the entire Arizona law enforcement community with you every day.

“Arizona’s law, sparked by anger over a surging population of illegal immigrants in the border state, generally requires officers enforcing another law to question a person’s immigration status if there’s a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.Officers are told that the law applies only to a stop, detention or arrest – not when a person flags down an officer. Police are not required to ask crime victims or witnesses about their status, and anyone who shows a valid Arizona driver’s license is presumed to be in the country legally.The law restricts the use of race, color or national origin as the basis for triggering immigration questions.

But civil rights groups and some police officials argue that officers will still assume that illegal immigrants look Hispanic.Arizona’s 460,000 illegal immigrants are almost all Hispanic. Yet Arizona also has nearly 2 million Hispanics who are U.S. citizens or legal residents, about 30 percent of the state’s population.In the training video, an expert advises officers to ask themselves whether they’d reach the same conclusion about a Hispanic person’s immigration status if the subject were white or black.”If any officer goes into a situation with a previous mindset that one race or one ethnicity is not equal to another’s, then they have no business being a law enforcement officer in this state,” Arizona Police Association president Brian Livingston says in the video.

The video and supporting paperwork will be sent to all 170 Arizona police agencies.Police bosses will decide the best way to teach their forces. There is no requirement that all 15,000 Arizona police officers complete the training before the law takes effect July 29.Gov. Jan Brewer ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to develop the training when she signed the law April 23.Opponents have challenged the measure as unconstitutional and have asked that a federal court block it from taking effect. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton plans to hear arguments on the request later this month.

President Barack Obama on Thursday called the law an understandable byproduct of public frustration with the government’s inability to tighten the system, but also said it is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local authorities.

The law was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of unions representing rank-and-file police officers who argued that they should be allowed to arrest illegal immigrants they come across.It was opposed by police bosses who worried it would be expensive to implement and would destroy the trust they’ve developed in Hispanic neighborhoods. (AP)

Obama's Justice Department will soon file a lawsuit against the controversial Arizona law

President Obama added a late meeting this afternoon, a closed-to-the-press session featuring only what the White House described as “grassroots leaders” to discuss “comprehensive immigration reform.”The meeting takes place amid anticipation that Obama’s Justice Department will soon file a lawsuit against the controversial Arizona law that gives law enforcement officers authority to ask residents about their citizenship.

Obama said the law opens the door to potential harassment and that a better solution is comprehensive reform that combines tighter border security with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S.

Critics such as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the focus should be on border enforcement. Brewer, who met with Obama this month at the White House, said her state’s law is a logical response to the federal government’s failure to protect the border.And in related Arizona immigration news, the Supreme Court today agreed to review a 2007 state law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.(AP)

Obama administration poised to challenge Arizona immigration law

The White House is expected to file a lawsuit next week. Arizona has raised more than $120,000 in private donations to defend the legislation.Reporting from Washington  A White House showdown with the state of Arizona over its tough new immigration law is likely to unfold next week, when the Obama administration is expected to file a lawsuit aimed at blocking the state’s bid to curb illegal immigration on its own, according to people familiar with the administration’s plans.

Arizona officials are girding for the legal challenge. The state has raised $123,000 in private donations to defend the law, according to Gov. Jan Brewer’s office. Money has come in from all 50 states, in donations as little as $1.Obama administration officials declined to reveal the basis for the suit. But legal experts say the challenge is likely to include the argument that in passing the law, Arizona violated the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.To date, the state has been hit with five lawsuits. The law, SB 1070, was signed in April and is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

By confronting Arizona, the Obama administration would be making a political statement as much as a legal one. Obama has already criticized the Arizona law as “misdirected.” Criminal action against illegal immigrants is not, by itself, a satisfactory solution to the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system, the White House says.Obama has said that part of the remedy must include a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally. But with mid-term elections approaching, the president has not made the politically explosive issue a legislative priority for 2010.

Brewer and other Republican officials have recoiled at the prospect of a federal suit.”Perhaps the administration should focus on getting the assets they promised to the border region rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars on suing the state of Arizona,” said Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The Obama administration tipped its hand on its plans earlier this month when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an Ecuadoran television interview that a lawsuit was coming. Outraged, Brewer said the administration should “inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

The Arizona law empowers police, after making a lawful stop, to verify the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally.

Opponents warn that the law could be easily abused — enforced in a fashion that unfairly targets Latinos.Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and an attorney who is part of a group of civil rights organizations contesting the law, said: “A legal challenge by the Justice Department would help ensure that Arizona’s renegade state law, which will cause racial profiling and undermine effective law enforcement, does not actually go into effect.”

Arizona to be Sued by US Government

Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 Text 2010 Update  Arizona to be Sued by US Government. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been quoted as saying that the Department of Justice could be planning to sue the state government over their controversial immigration law, citing that it is unconstitutional.Arizona’s law makes it a criminal offense to be present in the state without proper immigration or resident status.  It requires law enforcement to inquire about immigration status if probable cause to believe that someone is in the country illegally exists.

It also requires that everyone – citizens and immigrants alike, have proof of their status on their person at all times.  This can be accomplished with something as simple as a driver’s license.Many fear that the law will cause racial profiling at massive levels. Even the President has hinted that the law could cause issues for some immigrants.

Governor Jan Brewer plans on fighting hard against any lawsuit.  She found out about a potential lawsuit through a June 8 interview between Clinton and a TV station in Ecuador.  Brewer was outraged, and the AP reports that the governor said “If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.Whether or not a lawsuit will be successful is something that will likely take months – if not a year or more – to determine.  This fight would go all the way to the Supreme Court and set important precedent over what will happen with immigration law.  This is definitely an issue that will polarize natural born citizens and immigrants alike. (AP)

All Star Game boycott sought to protest Arizona law

The only Latino in the Senate urged Major League Baseball players on Monday to boycott the 2011 All-Star game in Arizona to protest the state’s tough new immigration law.”The Arizona law is offensive to Hispanics and all Americans because it codifies racial profiling into law by requiring police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally,” New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez wrote Michael Weiner, executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association.

Menendez, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is the only Latino in the 100-member chamber. In his letter, he noted more than 1 in 4 players are Latinos.Signed into law last month by Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer, the law requires state and local police, after making “lawful contact,” to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally.The measure has prompted a number of calls for boycotts of businesses in the state, amid charges that it is unconstitutional and a mandate for racial profiling.

Representative Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat, and some Latino organizations have called upon MLB Commissioner Bud Selig to move the All-Star game, which is scheduled to be played in July 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona’s state capital. A Major League Baseball spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment.Calls for a sporting boycott of Arizona began soon after Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23. A group of protesters turned out to picket the Diamondbacks, the state’s Major League baseball team, at a game in Chicago.

The new law has reignited calls for Congress to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, and Menendez joined two fellow Senate Democrats last month in unveiling a “draft” plan.But lawmakers from both parties appear reluctant to tackle the emotional issue months before November’s congressional elections.

‘HUMILIATION AND HARASSMENT’

Almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and a majority of voters nationwide support the law, which backers say is needed to curb violence and crime stemming from illegal immigration in the Mexico border state.

In late April, Brewer signed changes to the law that she said made it “crystal clear” racial profiling was illegal. However, a recent poll of Hispanic voters in Arizona found that 85 percent felt that Latinos who are legal immigrants or U.S. citizens were likely to be stopped or questioned by police.In his letter, Menendez wrote that Latino players come to the United States legally “and should not be subjected to the humiliation and harassment that (the new law) would inflict” on them during their visit to the state for the All-Star game.”Imagine if your players and their families were subjected to interrogation by law enforcement, simply because they look a certain way,” the senator added.

Menendez said, “the Arizona law is an embarrassment to our country and a call to action to our communities to stand up against injustice.””For these reasons, I ask that you consider boycotting the All-Star Game in Arizona until SB1070 (the new law) is repealed, or the League decides to move the game to an alternate location,” Menendez wrote.(Reuters)

Mexican forensic experts examine the body of 14 year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereca

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico A spokeswoman for the FBI tells The Associated Press that Mexican soldiers pointed their rifles and chased away U.S. Border Patrol agents investigating the shooting of a 15-year-old Mexican.The boy was shot by a Border Patrol agent who says he was defending himself from rock throwers along the nearly dry Rio Grande that divides Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, from El Paso, Texas.

FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons said Wednesday that Border Patrol investigators were forced to leave the scene Monday night after soldiers aimed guns at them from across the river.Mexicans are seething over the second death of a countryman at the hands of U.S. Border Patrol agents in two weeks, a shooting near downtown El Paso that is threatening to escalate tensions over migrant issues.U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old as officers came under a barrage of big stones while trying to detain illegal immigrants on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.

About 30 relatives and friends gathered late Tuesday to mourn Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka, who died Monday on the Mexican side of the river border with Texas.”Damn them! Damn them!” sobbed Rosario Hernandez, sister of the dead teenager, at a wake in the family’s two-room adobe house on the outskirts of Ciudad Juarez.

Preliminary reports on the incident indicated that U.S. officers on bicycle patrol “were assaulted with rocks by an unknown number of people,” Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Ramiro Cordero said Tuesday.”During the assault at least one agent discharged his firearm,” he said. “The agent is currently on administrative leave. A thorough, multi-agency investigation is currently ongoing.”

The shooting happened beneath a railroad bridge linking the two nations, and late Tuesday night a banner appeared on the bridge that said in English: “U.S. Border Patrol we worry about the violence in Mex and murders and now you. Viva Mexico!”Less than two weeks ago, Mexican migrant Anastasio Hernandez, 32, died after a Customs and Border Protection officer shocked him with a stun gun at the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. The San Diego medical examiner’s office ruled that death a homicide.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said Tuesday that his government “will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants.”The government “reiterates its rejection to the disproportionate use of force on the part on U.S. authorities on the border with Mexico,” the president added in a statement.

On an unpaved street, gathered around Hernandez’s gray metal casket, the teen’s family called for justice.”There is a God, so why would I want vengeance if no one will return him to me. They killed my little boy and the only thing I ask is for the law” to be applied, said the boy’s father, Jesus Hernandez.

His mother was less hopeful. “May God forgive them because I know nothing will happen” to them, Maria Guadalupe Huereka said.Above the casket was a photo of the youth wearing his soccer uniform and his junior high school grade cards, which showed A’s and B’s.

His mother said he was a good student who never got in trouble. He was the youngest of five children, played on two soccer teams and had just finished junior high school, she said.Amnesty International condemned the shooting and urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to conduct an urgent review of the use of force by Border Patrol agents.

“This shooting across the border appears to have been a grossly disproportionate response and flies in the face of international standards which compel police to use firearms only as a last resort,” said Susan Lee, Americas director of the London-based human rights organization.Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state Attorney General’s office, said a spent .40-caliber shell casing was found near the body – raising the question of whether the fatal shot was fired inside Mexico, although he did not explicitly make that allegation.

That would violate the rules for Border Patrol agents, who are supposed to stay on the U.S. side of the border – and it also could open the agent to a Mexican homicide prosecution.A U.S. official said video shows the Border Patrol agent did not enter Mexico.

The official, who agreed to discuss the matter only if not quoted by name, said the video also shows what seem to be four Mexican law enforcement officers driving to the edge of the dry but muddy bed of the Rio Grande, walking across to the U.S. side, picking up an undetermined object and returning to Mexico near the area where the boy’s body was. Like their U.S. counterparts, Mexican law officers are not authorized to cross the border without permission.

According to the FBI, Border Patrol agents were responding to a group of suspected illegal immigrants being smuggled into the U.S. near the Paso Del Norte bridge, across from Ciudad Juarez around 6:30 p.m. Monday.One suspected illegal immigrant was detained on the levee on the U.S. side, the FBI said in a statement. Another Border Patrol agent arrived on the concrete bank where the now-dry, 33-foot (10-meter) wide Rio Grande is, and detained a second person. Other suspects ran back into Mexico and began throwing rocks, the FBI said.

At least one rock came from behind the agent, who was kneeling beside a suspected illegal immigrant whom he had prone on the ground, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons said.The agent told the rock throwers to stop and back off, but they continued. The agent fired his weapon several times, hitting one person who later died, said the FBI, which is leading the investigation because it involved an assault on a federal officer. The agent was not injured, Simmons said.

The boy was shot once near the eye, Sandoval said. Authorities were still investigating the bullet’s trajectory, he said.Sandoval said he couldn’t comment on the video reported by the U.S. official because he didn’t know anything about it. “I am unaware about those hypotheses,” he said.

Sandoval said Mexican investigators were questioning three teenagers who were with the victim at the time of the shooting.The boy’s sister, Rosario, told Associated Press Television News that her brother was playing with several friends and did not plan to cross the border.

“They say that they started firing from over there and suddenly hit him in the head,” she said.The boy’s mother said he had gone to eat with his brother, who handles luggage at a border customs office. While there, he met up with a group of friends and they decided to hang out by the river, she said.

“That was his mistake, to have gone to the river,” she said in an interview with Mexico’s Milenio TV. “That’s why they killed him.”Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department said its records indicate the number of Mexicans killed or wounded by U.S. immigration authorities rose from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009 to 17 so far this year, which is not half over.

T.J. Bonner, president of the union representing Border Patrol agents, said rock throwing aimed at Border Patrol agents is common and capable of causing serious injury.”It is a deadly force encounter, one that justifies the use of deadly force,” Bonner said. (AP)