Letter from Gov. Brewer to Supporters, May 27, 2010:

.
Tell L.A. That You Support Arizona

A supporter sent me some words of encouragement today from Albert Einstein, “Nothing happens unless something moves.” When it comes to the fight against illegal immigration, my signing of Arizona’s immigration law has clearly ignited the talk of action in Washington for the people of Arizona and other border states.

The question is – how serious is Washington about securing the border? Success will be determined by facts on the ground, not on the size of unfulfilled promises or rhetorical flurries.

In his rush to finally place troops on the border, President Obama also failed to stand up and oppose the boycott of Arizona. Cities like Los Angeles continue to pursue their misguided and potentially illegal actions against Arizona. That is why I need your help to stand up and support Arizona.

Contact the Mayor of Los Angeles and tell him that you support Arizona and you oppose his boycott!

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

(213) 978-0721

mayor@lacity.org

You can make a difference. Make something move by clicking here to contact the others on this list and tell them you support Arizona. Thank you for your help!
.

Leave Arizona Alone; by a Mexican-American

.
By Jim Price at American Thinker

Exactly when is our wealthy neighbor to the south going to quit meddling in our immigration policy and begin caring for her own people?
As a Southern Arizona Mexican-American, I’m sick of politicians calling for boycotts and intruders demanding that my tax dollars pay for their freebies. It’s all about votes and money — not human compassion, as they would have you believe!

For the record, I am a lifelong Democrat and danged proud of my Mexican heritage. In fact, I served on Governor Janet Napolitano’s first-term Latino Advisory Committee. I was nevertheless raised during World War II, when we apologized to no one for being Americans. At that same time, my mom taught me by example to never apologize for being a Mexican.

My complete ethnic profile reveals a half-Mexican, Roman Catholic grandson of an Orthodox Rabbi. I’m keenly aware of Jewish perceptions that potential Gestapo-like abuses will be a result of SB 1070 here in Arizona. I can’t believe, however, that our law enforcement entities have been dumbed down by passage of this law. Those who already use any excuse to harass a suspected illegal entrant will continue to do so, while those who perform their duties with professional demeanor and common sense will also continue to do so. Sadly, this new law does permit a potential avalanche of frivolous lawsuits. That should be corrected, and those for whom the badge and gun weigh heavy should be retrained or dismissed.

Throughout my tenure as a Charter Member of the Citizens Advisory Board to the U.S. Border Patrol Nogales Station, I’ve heard many of the same accusations, such as racism and racial profiling, emanating from those opposed to enforcement of our immigration laws. This is laughable because so many of the local agents are dark-skinned Hispanics, some with noticeable accents. There are also agents of Afro-Hispanic origin. The last local agent to die in the line of duty was a swarthy Russian Jew who had gained citizenship shortly before being ruthlessly slain by an illegal entrant.

As a nation of immigrants, we are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigration. We have as much right as any other land to control our own borders and to expel anyone who comes here in a less than legal manner. If you want in, get in line with the rest of the law-abiding people, pay your fees, and don’t come here demanding what your own homeland won’t provide for you. Those fees, by the way, are usually less than you’d pay one of the coyotes who prey on those willing to risk life and limb to reach the United States.

In 2004, it was with the support of legally immigrated and naturalized citizens that Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which requires proof of eligibility in order to receive benefits paid for with our tax dollars. Unfortunately, the quest for a better life is no more than a glittering generality. While some do come here for “the dream,” others come to do harm.

In his 1945 dystopian allegory Animal Farm, George Orwell wrote that “all animals are equal, only pigs are more equal.” A similar observation in Mexico is that “it’s okay to be a pig, but not a hog.” Both philosophies are being tested in today’s United States, but it’s largely a smokescreen masking the real goal: another amnesty and potential votes for the incumbents.

While “protesters” ranging from elected officials to rabble-rousers call for boycotting Arizona over a basically innocuous law, immigration reform is being used as the code phrase for another amnesty. How can Arizona’s new immigration law be anything but innocuous? It simply empowers law enforcement to do what they’ve already been doing. Meanwhile, “racial profiling” and “racism” are conscience-tweaking cover-up catchphrases.

With a 2010 estimated nominal GDP of $10,211 per capita, Mexico ranks 46th in the world. Mexico’s estimated GDP is clouded, however, because a select few Mexicans control most of the wealth. World Bank data estimate Mexico’s GDP in 2010 at $1.085 trillion, but millions of Mexicans choose to live in the United States, where they may lead a better life.

Consequently, by sending the poorest of its inhabitants north, Mexico keeps her money in the hands of the wealthiest while relieving the national economy of having to support the masses. Health care, schooling, and basic infrastructure are kept at a minimum when a nation of an estimated 112,000,000 has from 15%-20% of her citizens living as wards of United States. Those expatriates also send home billions of dollars per year. ..


READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE: Leave Arizona Alone;#8211; by a Mexican-American

Mayor Villaraigosa; Who are the Racists?

.
Dear Sir;
While I respect the concern you have regarding racial profiling, I believe that the Law Enforcement Officers of Arizona are professionals.

Many of us in the north are appalled that our southern neighbors have been forced by the federal government to live with violent drug runners racing through their property. I can't imagine how frightening that must be. The fact that a rancher was murdered last month while minding his business, driving on his own land, doesn't seem to bother the White House at all.

What is our federal government there for, if not to organize and protect our borders?

Sir, the only ones that I see making this a racial issue are the ones that are calling Arizonans racist. Yes, the law was written because Latinos from Mexico - impoverished families as well as gang members and drug runners - have been illegally crossing the border in greater and greater numbers and with that, much hurt has come to Arizona.

But Arizona law enforcement personnel are not idiots. They aren't the racist rednecks various mayors and pandering politicians from the left have accused them of being. They are, believe it or not, trained professionals. I suspect that most have arrested criminals of every persuasion in the past and they expect to do so in the future. While jerks exist in any and every group, (including among White House Staffers) I doubt Arizona policemen intend to eyeball only Latinos for suspicious activity and arrest, and let everyone else go on about their crimes.

The first job of the Police officer, according to SB 1070, is to be about fighting crime and catching law breakers. That is the number one thing that the Police are supposed to be looking for. Illegal presence in the United States is a secondary factor, and deporting law breakers because they are here illegally is simply common sense.

If a neighbor kid comes into my house and steals something off my dresser...no matter what his heritage is, I'm gonna kick him out and tell him not to come back. (I've done the "forgive - let's talk about this" route before. Forget it.)

Further, it is extremely short sighted to act as if the need for a secure border and strict laws is only about Latinos.

An alert went out this week for someone from Somalia - not a Latino - that is/was attempting to cross the southern Border to commit terrorism. It has also been known for quite awhile that Al-Qaeda has been recruiting caucasians in Britain to commit terrorist acts. In 2008, a Scotland paper wrote,

"As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK."

In Israel, terrorists are now coming in every shape, size, gender, and color.

So let's get real. The War on Drugs isn't our only border concern; there is also a War on Terror. We can't play games with our border, no matter who feels offended and pouts. This is about crime, not race. Any time anyone crosses the border to stay in the United States without permission, it is a crime.

Every state needs to adopt an Arizona type law. Why should I be afraid of it? The police already always ask for my ID every time they stop me for speeding. I also already carry the kids' birth certificates in a binder because we go to Canada frequently. I even keep their shot records, our car's registration, and other documents in it because it's so convenient. When we were students there, I kept the visas in the same binder. And I have NEVER been offended when a Canadian officer has asked to see my documents at the border - it's their right.

The only ones that should be upset by it are those that are here illegally. (So, Obama, why are you upset?)

Arizona has every right to protect its citizens. Everyone that has seriously read SB 1070 has been forced to realize that it is definitely constitutional. Even Eric Holder and his crew have been unable to justify a reason to fight it. That's why they are sitting on it, claiming that they are going to go slowly in order to mull it over. As near as many of us can tell, they are sitting on it until the law takes effect in the hopes of catching an Arizona police officer attempting to use it to commit a crime.

I don't understand how they think that will help their argument against the SB 1070, though. People commit crimes. That's why we have laws. Laws that are thought out and well written don't cause crime, they address them. And SB 1070 is a law written - apparently very well - to address and deal with crime being committed by people of every heritage, size, and contortion, even if the impetus was about Mexican citizens.

I certainly pray that the federal government, in their present silliness, doesn't attempt to set up an entrapment, and that Arizona is left alone to work out the law as they need to.

Now, Honorable Mayor Villaraigosa, as far as your boycott is concerned, according to the CATO institute,

"Preventing such interstate discrimination was, of course, one of the original purposes of the Constitution and, specifically, its Commerce Clause (which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce)."

It's one thing for an entity to suggest individual citizens boycott an offending entity. It's another thing when a government passes a law forcing a Boycott of interstate commerce. Your boycott, sir, is what is unconstitutional.

So - as much as I love driving Highway 1, visiting the Pier, Universal Studios, relatives in Santa Monica, the Sequoia forest to the north, and much more...I will NOT visit LA or California at all until California officials grow up and cease their foolish attack on Arizona.

By the way - at one point, the Canadian government turned down out request to extend our visas. We had apparently filled out our paperwork wrong. Although we disagreed with that assertion, We did not protest or demand an imagined right to stay. We left, as we were told. We camped in Glacier Park and returned to the border to do the paperwork again. This time the visas were granted. Yes, it cost me another $1200, but we did it and it was legal. Although we are a multi-racial family, we never accused Canadian officials of racism. Canada has the right to govern its borders, and so do "we" in the US.

Please remember, Mayor Villaraigosa, as well as President Obama; it's "We the People" that run this country. Not a political party, and not a self-important person.

Lisa blogs at the Independent Indian Press
,

Look What Latin Dictators are Saying:

.

Cuba, Venezuela Join Bashfest of Arizona Immigration Law
By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published May 26, 2010
| FOXNews.com

On the heels of Mexican President Felipe Calderon's speech slamming Arizona's immigration law, Cuban leaders and Venezuela's president are adding to the chorus and calling the law 'racist and xenophobic" – but they're carrying their own human rights baggage.

Cuban parliamentarians passed a resolution last week denouncing Arizona's new law as "racist and xenophobic," as well as a "brutal violation of human rights." Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, reportedly blasted the law through his minister of foreign affairs, demanding that it be "repealed" and that America move away from its "old habits of racism."

Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said immigrants in the U.S. are treated in a manner that's "inconsistent with human rights … a perennial violation against our fellow Latin Americans," CNSNews.com reported.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said those criticisms are misguided given the state of human rights in both Cuba and Venezuela.

"They're not fair and they are obviously politically motivated," Mehlman said. "Obviously, [Chavez and Cuban lawmakers] do not have the best interests of the United States at heart. They have appalling human rights records and their criticisms ought not to be taken seriously."

Cuba, the communist-run island of roughly 11 million, has long been condemned for its human rights record, including the jailing of roughly 200 political prisoners, the banning of a free press and the outlawing of opposition political parties. Cuban citizens also are mandated to carry identification at all times and can be stopped by authorities and sent home if they are found in a part of the island where they don't belong, the Associated Press reports.

"It's hypocritical of the worst dictatorship in the Western hemisphere to criticize Arizona's immigration law," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based conservative think tank. "Cuba's human rights record dealing with Hispanics is significantly worse than the United States in general, so perhaps they should clean up their own ship before they criticize others."

Nowrasteh said many Hispanics fled Fidel and Raul Castro's socialist state for the "supposedly racist and xenophobic" United States.

"They chose with their feet," he said.

Recent statements by Cuban politicians and Chavez are an attempt to connect with a "very small segment" of the American political scene that listens to what they have to say. He noted Chavez's usage of a Twitter account to reach the masses much easier.

"With modern technology, it's so much easier," Nowrasteh said.

But in a move characterized as optimistic, the Cuban government has agreed to move many of the country's political prisoners to jails closer to their homes and will provide medical care to some ailing prisoners, Cuba's Cardinal Jaime Ortega told the Associated Press on Sunday. It was unclear if all of the prisoners would be moved or how many would receive treatment.

One hunger-striking dissident, Guillermo Farinas, has refused food for at least 89 days, though he receives nutrients via a tube and has appeared strong and alert in recent phone conversations with the Associated Press. Another dissident, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, died in February after a lengthy hunger strike in jail.

Farinas, who began his hunger strike to protest Tamayo's death, has since said his main demand is better treatment for 26 political prisoners said to be in poor health, the Associated Press reports.

Meanwhile, in Venezuela, Chavez's human rights record has been criticized by watchdog groups in several areas, including political discrimination, lack of freedom of expression and freedom of association. The U.S. Department of State's 2009 Human Rights Report on Venezuela also identified other human rights problems in the country of roughly 27 million, including summary executions of criminal suspects, widespread criminal kidnappings for ransom, political prisoners and selective prosecution for political purposes, "considerable corruption" in all levels of government and many others.

The report also notes that Venezuelan law makes "insulting" the president a crime punishable by up to 30 months in prison without bail, with lesser penalties for insulting lower-ranking officials.

And while Venezuelan law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the nation's combination of laws and regulations regarding libel and media content -- in addition to legal harassment and intimidation -- results in "practical limitations on these freedoms and a climate of self-censorship," according to the report.

Human Rights Watch, a New York-based watchdog group, detailed Chavez's first decade as president in 2008 in its 230-page report, "A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela."

"President Chavez has actively sought to project himself as a champion of democracy, not only in Venezuela, but throughout Latin America," the report read. "Yet his professed commitment to this cause is belied by his government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible. Venezuela will not achieve real and sustained progress toward strengthening its democracy -- nor will it serve as a useful model for other countries in the region -- so long as its government continues to flout the human rights principles enshrined in its own constitution."

Jonah Goldberg, a visiting fellow at American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based conservative think tank, said the recent comments are "standard operating procedure" for politicians in Cuba, as well as Chavez.

"The denunciation of the United States' human rights record comes from the people who have had the most brutal human rights record," he said. "It's the playbook they always go back to. Taking denunciations seriously from places like Cuba and Venezuela is just a colossal waste of time."

Goldberg accused Cuban lawmakers and Castro of making the most out of the United States' heated immigration debate following the signing of Arizona's law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23.

"The Arizona law feeds into a longstanding and long-simmering anti-American sentiment in certain parts of South and Latin America," he said. "Do [Chavez's and Castro's comments] get bigger play because of the climate? Sure, but that's sort of the larger point -- these guys are opportunists. They are going to try and seize the limelight and shape the agenda whenever they can."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

CATO Legal Analysis of SB 1070!

.
A Legal Analysis of the New Arizona Immigration Law
Posted by Ilya Shapiro

I’m a bit late to the immigration party — in part because I’ve been traveling on my Obamacare debate tour and in part because the Kagan Supreme Court nomination and end-of-term Supreme Court decisions have sucked away all my time. Still, I do have a few things to add beyond Dan Griswold’s excellent points about what real immigration reform would look like and why Arizona’s new law, love it or hate it, at least has the benefit of raising the need for such fundamental reform into the national political discussion. (Jeffrey Miron also offers some sensible suggestions, and Roger Pilon points out that doing nothing is simply not tenable as a matter of policy or politics.)

First, the Arizona law — which I’ve actually read, unlike the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security – is carefully crafted so as not to go beyond the scope of federal law and so, as Dan alludes in his thoughtful podcast (drawing on discussions with Roger), is probably constitutional. Here are the key things it does:

1.Creates the new state crime of “trespassing by illegal aliens,” which essentially consists of being in the state in violation of federal immigration laws as determined by an officer or agency authorized by the federal government to verify immigration status;
2.Sets out that no official or agency of the state or its political subdivisions (county, city, etc.) ”may adopt a policy that limits the enforcement of federal laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law;”
3.State (and local) law enforcement officials shall make a “reasonable attempt . . . when practicable, to determine the immigration status” of any person with whom they have made “lawful contact . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the [detained] person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States;”
4.If an alien who is unlawfully in the United States is convicted of violating any state or local law [including the new "trespassing by illegal aliens"], the alien “shall be transferred immediately [on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of fine for the offense] to the custody of the [federal immigration authorities];”
5.A police officer “may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle of the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and [the the pre-existing law against human smuggling];”
6.Makes it illegal to stop to hire or pick up passengers for work if the vehicle “blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic;”
7.Makes it illegal for an illegal alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor;
8.Makes it illegal for anyone violating the law (including the new illegal hiring law, as well as pre-existing prohibitions on hiring illegal aliens) to transport, move, conceal, or harbor persons who the alleged violator knows to be illegally in the United States, as well as to encourage or induce aliens to come to Arizona illegally;
9.Provides an entrapment defense to the pre-existing crime of employing illegal aliens (whether knowingly or intentionally); and
10.Authorizes the immobilization or impoundment of vehicles used to committ various vehicle-related offenses relating to illegal aliens.

None of these provisions, on their face, appear to be unconstitutional, in the sense of Arizona intruding on federal authority over immigration policy. Indeed, as reported last week by the Washington Post, this conclusion is backed by a 2002 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel — the Department of Justice unit that acts as the executive branch’s “outside counsel.” This memo concludes: first, that states have “inherent power” to make arrests for violating federal law and, second, ”federal statutes should be presumed not to preempt this arrest authority.” OLC memos are not law themselves but they are the DOJ’s official position on various legal issue. Having said that, an OLC memo can at any time be withdrawn or replaced — as indeed the 2002 memo replaced an earlier 1996 memo on the subject (or, more famously, Jack Goldsmith withdrew the so-called “torture memos”).
And, of course, Congress could pass a law saying states shall not enforce federal immigration laws.

Second, notwithstanding the new law’s facial constitutionality, state or local law enforcement officials could use it to behave in a way that intrudes on federal prerogatives or violates constitutionally protected individual rights. That circumstance could give rise to an “as-applied” legal challenge. If police officers stop Hispanic motorists on pretextual grounds just to ask for their papers, for example, that would constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. Notably, however, the sections relating to state enforcement of federal immigration laws contains a provision specifying: “This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.”

Third, just because the law is constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good policy (just like not everything that some people say is good policy — like Obamacare, or torture during interrogations – is necessarily constitutional). There are many arguments against the Arizona law unrelated to civil liberties or racial profiling concerns, including that it misdirects state and local resources away from more pressing priorities (such as violent crime); that it’s driven by misguided fears of crime (when crime has actually been dropping in Arizona, and nationally the foreign-born commit crimes at lesser rates than the native-born); and that an “enforcement-first” mentality gets things backwards in that we should first reform and expand the ways people can come here legally and then take action against those who still come illegally. Similarly, there are many arguments in favor of the Arizona law not based in racism, or political opportunism, or misapplied economics.

Fourth, the boycotts of Arizona adopted by city councils around the country — at last count, Berkeley, Boston, El Paso, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, St. Paul, and West Hollywood have all passed resolutions restricting official travel, investment, and/or contracts with the Grand Canyon State – are likely themselves unconstitutional. That is, unlike private individuals, organizations, and businesses, states (and their political subdivisions) cannot erect barriers to trade against other states. Preventing such interstate discrimination was, of course, one of the original purposes of the Constitution and, specifically, its Commerce Clause (which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce). We often discuss the Commerce Clause in terms of Congress incorrectly invoking it to justify legislation not having anything to do with either commerce or interstate activities — such as, again, the individual health care mandate — but just the same it protects economic liberty by forestalling trade wars. (Technically, the issue here is the “dormant” Commerce Clause in that cities are intruding on the boycott-less regime Congress has established by not passing boycott laws.) Lo and behold, Gary Pierce of the Arizona Corporation Commission sent a letter to L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa threatening to cut-off the 25 percent of its electricity that the City of Angels gets from its eastern neighbor. “I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands,” the commissioner says. Stopping this sort of tit-for-tat silliness — along with being able to better muster national armies — is why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

In short, the Arizona immigration law presents a tremendously complex issue, as the Arizona Republic has recognized, that does not lend itself to easy calls or soundbites. I myself am not certain how I would have voted if I didn’t have the third option (as Arizona doesn’t) of imminent federal reform — to the disconsolation of state legislators around the country who have asked me what they can do to placate a (legitimately) aggrieved public besides enactiong Arizona-style laws.

President Obama and Congress, pass comprehensive immigration reform now!

Ilya Shapiro • May 24, 2010 @ 7:48 am
Filed under: Government and Politics; Law and Civil Liberties; Trade and Immigration
Tags: Arizona, bill 1070, immigration, Office of Legal Counsel, preemption

Update on the Arizona Immigration Issue
Posted by Ilya Shapiro

Since I provided my legal analysis of the new Arizona immigration law, I’ve become aware of a few interesting developments in that regard.

First, it seems that I wasn’t working off the latest version of the bill — which I should add is awfully hard to find. Indeed, perhaps we should excuse Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano for not having read it; both the Arizona Senate’s website for SB 1070, and the Arizona House’s website for the amending legislation, HB 2162, list several different versions under their “Bill Versions” tabs that do not match the bills in the other. As someone who typically plays in the federal sandbox, if someone can direct me to a verified true copy of the final operative bill, as signed and amended, my colleagues and I – indeed the entire policy community – would be grateful.

In any case, I’m please to announce that the (seemingly) final amended version I’m now working from has improved an already constitutional bill by further safeguarding civil liberties. Most notably, the ”may I see your papers?” provision was changed to read that law enforcement officials shall make a “reasonable attempt . . . when practicable, to determine the immigration status” only after having made a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance . . . where suspicion exists that the [detained] person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States” (amended text in bold). This establishes a higher predicate standard for police to initiate contact with any person to whom this law will be applied. In other words, there has to be an independent reason for the stop or detention before the police can ask to see proof of immigration status.

The amended bill also prohibits any consideration of “race, color or national origin” in enforcing the new law in any manner that runs afoul of either the U.S. or Arizona constitutions. Moreover, the legislature clarified that the determination of an alien’s immigration status would only be performed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Border Patrol, or a “law enforcement officer who is authorized [to do so] by the federal government.”

All of these changes unquestionably improved the civil rights provisions of the law and should further protect it from successful legal challenge — again without saying anything about the law’s policy wisdom.

Second, while some analysts have argued that Arizona’s law might be preempted by federal law — although the leading case, De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, which is 34 years old and predates more recent immigration reforms, is not favorable to that position — Roger Pilon alerted me to a 2005 case (unanimous in the judgment, less so in the reasoning), Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that shows that Arizona’s law doesn’t go as far as the Constitution might allow. In Mena, the police detained the inhabitants of a house whice they were searching pursuant to a lawful search warrant. While most of the officers performed the search, others questioned one detainee about her immigration status without any reasonable suspicious that she committed any crime — and certainly without having any reasonable suspicion that she was an illegal alien. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, upheld this line of questioning. Part of the reasoning was that the “may I see your papers?” bit did not prolong the detention in any way — the search was still ongoing — but this is at least some indication that the Constitution allows immigration-related questioning without even the reasonable suspicion required by Arizona.

Third, apparently the head of ICE, John Morton, said his agency will not process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. Morton apparently doesn’t think that laws like Arizona’s “are the solution.” Well, we at Cato certainly agree that Arizona’s law will not solve a problem that demands a comprehensive federal solution, but that doesn’t mean federal officials can simply decline to perform their duties under the law as it exists. What Morton proposes is akin to state “nullification” of duly enacted federal law — except worse, because his agency’s job is to enforce that very law. If Morton feels that strongly about our immigration laws, he should either resign or, while complying with his duties, testify before Congress about the law’s defects and lobby his boss, President Obama, to push reform.

Fourth and finally, President Obama is deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and requesting $500 million more for border security. With due respect to Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who want even more troops and money, this approach is neither here nor there. (And it echoes Obama’s split-the-baby decision on Afghanistan, not willing to go for a whole-hog escalation but also not willing to rethink the overall policy.) Half-measures won’t do it here, Mr. President (and Congress). If you lack the heart (or have too much of a brain) for a full wall-and-militarization of our southern border — and perhaps mass rounding up and deportation of 12 million people — it’s time for a fundamental reorganization of the immigration system.

U.S. immigration (non-)policy is nonsensical and unworkable. We’re beyond the point of perestroika; it’s time for regime change.

Ilya Shapiro • May 26, 2010 @ 8:51 am
Filed under: Law and Civil Liberties; Trade and Immigration
Tags: amended bill, Arizona, HB 2162, ICE, immigration, SB 1070
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/05/24/a-legal-analysis-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/
.

DOJ Claims it can Challenge AZ Law - but is actually blowing Smoke...

.
If one actually reads what they are saying here; it becomes clear that they already know that they CAN'T challenge the Arizona law. Their Draft says that the Arizona law is illegal because it "impedes" federal law.  Only - they haven't figured out yet how it impedes it, because the fact is - it doesn't.  They just can't figure out anything else to say. 

So they but they are blowing smoke to make it appear that they know what they are talking about, and that they are TOUGH guys. But what they are really doing is waiting for the law to take effect and hope that a law enforcment officer blows it right away. Then they will jump.  I would be very warry as a law enforcement officer, making sure I didn't get entrapped.

The Obama administration gets more and more comical all the time...


DOJ Lawyers Draft Challenge to AZ Law

A team of Justice Department attorneys reviewing the new immigration law in Arizona has recommended that the U.S. government challenge the state law in federal court, but the recommendation faces an uncertain future and tough scrutiny from others in the Justice Department, sources with knowledge of the process tell Fox News.

Staff attorneys within the Justice Department recently sent higher-ups the recommendation. At the same time, the Justice Department's Civil Division, which oversees the majority of immigration enforcement issues for the department, has drafted a "civil complaint" that would be filed in federal court in Arizona, sources said.

The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.

Two weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers such an issue was being considered by Justice Department lawyers reviewing the new law, which outlines and possibly broadens the authority of police to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally.

"We are examining the [Arizona] law and trying to determine if it contravenes the federal responsibility [toward] immigration, whether or not what the Arizona legislature has tried to do is actually preempted by federal law, by federal statutes." he told the House Judiciary Committee on May 13. "The regulation of our borders and the immigration that occurs by crossing our borders is something that is inherently something I believe for the national government to take responsibility for."

He also said it would not be "an extended period of time" before his department decides whether to take action on "preemption" grounds, adding that the Justice Department's "view of the law will be expressed relatively soon."

Two sources with knowledge of the review said the draft complaint, which is now receiving input from the attorney general's office and other Justice Department offices, is not an indication that the Justice Department will ultimately file a lawsuit.

One source said the Arizona law has sparked a "huge battle" with national implications, and the Justice Department is therefore conducting a "slow analysis of all of the options." [this, despite Holder's assertions to Congress that the decision would be made quickly]

If Justice Department higher-ups decide to move forward with the civil complaint, concrete action likely would not take place for some time, according to the source, who predicted it will be "a while before anything would be filed."

"This is going to be slow going," the source said.

Holder echoed that sentiment when he was on Capitol Hill.

"There's a wide variety of things that go into the determination that ultimately we will have to make, and I want to make sure that we take as comprehensive a look as we can before we make what I think is going to be a very consequential decision," he said.

If the Justice Department's Civil Division decides against filing the complaint, others within the Justice Department could step in. In fact, the attorney general's office, the deputy attorney general's office and the Civil Rights Division are all reviewing options.

Holder told lawmakers that the Civil Rights Division will be monitoring the application of the Arizona law, set to go into effect in late July, and could take subsequent action.

"We are concerned about the potential impact that it has and whether it contravenes federal civil rights laws, potentially leading to racial profiling," he said. "We would constantly be monitoring it to see if there are civil rights violations, civil rights concerns, that are generated by the implementation of the law."

He said such monitoring would occur in any case.  [in other words, they will look as hard as they can to find the police making a mistake, and then they will jump.  They are going to play 'gotcha', because they can;'t find any wrong with the actual law.]

Kris Kobach, a Republican law professor who helped author the Arizona law, said the legislation "expressly prohibits racial profiling." As for the issue of preemption, he said the law was "drafted extremely carefully to avoid any preemption problems at all."

Holder said the Justice Department will also be looking at other issues, including "the history that is involved in all of this" and memos or opinions from other offices within the Justice Department. [because they can't find anything wrong in the actual law.]

Holder himself has raised concerns that the Arizona law could push a "wedge" between police officers and the communities they serve, something he's expected to discuss during a meeting with police chiefs, including three from Arizona, at the Justice Department on Wednesday morning.

"Arizona police chiefs are concerned that the new ... law in Arizona will drive a wedge between the community and the police, and will damage the trust that police agencies have worked to establish over many years with members of all their communities," a statement from the police chiefs said.

Others have raised concerns that a 2002 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel could complicate federal challenges to the Arizona law, especially preemption-related challenges. The 2002 memo said state and local police can arrest illegall immigrants for violating federal law.

But after reviewing the Arizona law and options for challenging it, at least some Justice Department lawyers have concluded that the 2002 memo would not pose a problem because, in their view, it is narrow enough in scope to permit a challenge. ["let's find a loohole around this ruling!"]

As for whether the U.S. government will end up challenging the Arizona law in any form, Holder recently insisted that's still up in the air.

"I don't know exactly ... what we are ultimately going to do with regard to our review of the law," he told lawmakers.

But, he said, there is "certainly an illegal immigration problem that this country needs to face," and he understands the "frustration" of Arizona citizens.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment for this article.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Liveshots: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/

URL to article: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/25/doj-lawyers-draft-challenge-to-az-law/
,

Obama sending Troops to sit at desks?

.
So...after again behaving with arrogance during a private meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday, and giving them the impression that he wasn't interested in sending troops to help secure our southern border, President Obama waltzed out of the room and immediately announced that he's sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border as well and $500 million for "enhanced border protection and law enforcement."

He hadn't said a word to the Republicans, even though they had been discussing this very thing with him. In fact, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that he and Sen, McCain (R-AZ) had told Obama that McCain was introducing an amendment that very day that would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border and would be paid for with unspent stimulus money.

 "Sen. McCain spoke to it...and then I stood up. One of the things I said was we were going to the floor in a few minutes to request additional money for sending troops to the border. But that was the end of the conversation."

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who described the meeting as "testy," said the president

"wasn't embracing" the call to secure the borders before pressing forward with a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) put it a little more bluntly:

"The more he talked, the more he got upset. He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

What?  What is wrong with Obama?  Maybe the Republicans weren't questioning his motives, but I sure am. Why doesn't he seem able to sit at a table with his opponents and behave with any kind of openness and sincerity?

The last time he has a real meeting with Republicans, he did the same thing.  He goes in, puts on an anemic show of bipartisanship, all the while arrogantly keeping Republicans at arms length - and making sure he doesn't do anything that will give them any credit.  So insecure in his authority, he is loathe to give any appearance that he's not totally in control. So he leaves the meeting intending to do only that which will prove to Americans that he's the one on top.  

Last time, after the health care meeting, he continued on with his own plans despite every good idea and point made by his opposition.  This time, it was "get to the people and announce a border guard surge before McCain gets to the Senate floor."

His announcement came just as several Republican border security amendments, including McCain's, were being introduced on the Senate floor. Amazing...

McCain, whose re-election depends on appearing firmly conservative, said from the floor that he appreciates Obama's decision ...but there needs to be more.

"I think it is a recognition of the violence on the border which has been really beyond description in some respects," McCain said. "But it's simply not enough."

But will his "surge" do any good?

A White House official, who claimed Obama's announcement was "part of his comprehensive plan to secure the southwest border," has confirmed that the National Guard will "provide intelligence, surveillance," "training capacity" and support for "reconnaissance" and "counter narcotics enforcement" until more Border Patrol officers can be hired. The additional funds are to improve security technology and increase the number of agents, investigators and prosecutors for the area.

Essentially, according to Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-AZ),

..."the 1,200 border patrol troops are, in effect, desk jobs...They aren't boots on the ground at the border, they were not intended to be deployed to the border.  Rather they'll be investigating, administrative support, maybe training. Now that's all fine...but the real value of the National Guard is to be seen."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer gave a response that we hope Obama can learn from; she spoke with courtesy  regarding the deployment, even though he is an opponent and has mocked her, and even though it's obvious the deployment is simply a political gesture. She applauded his plan as a "very significant and important shift in the president's immigration and border security policy."

"I am pleased that President Obama has now, apparently, agreed that our nation must secure the border to address rampant border violence and illegal immigration without other pre-conditions, such as passage of 'comprehensive immigration reform...I am anxious to hear of the details that have not yet been disclosed of where, how, and for how long additional forces will be deployed.  With the accountability of this election year, I am pleased and grateful that at long last there has been a partial response from the Obama administration to my demands that Washington do its job."

But the CATO Institute had no trouble summing it up;

President Obama is deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and requesting $500 million more for border security. With due respect to Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who want even more troops and money, this approach is neither here nor there. (And it echoes Obama’s split-the-baby decision on Afghanistan, not willing to go for a whole-hog escalation but also not willing to rethink the overall policy.) Half-measures won’t do it here, Mr. President (and Congress). If you lack the heart (or have too much of a brain) for a full wall-and-militarization of our southern border — and perhaps mass rounding up and deportation of 12 million people — it’s time for a fundamental reorganization of the immigration system.

U.S. immigration (non-)policy is nonsensical and unworkable. We’re beyond the point of perestroika; it’s time for regime change.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-AZ), who, with others, had requested more border security after a rancher, Robert Krentz, was murdered in March by an illegal immigrant, kept her party face on and praised Obama for the deployment. She said that Arizona resident,

"... know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message."

Apparently no one told her that those boots won't actually be on the ground.

Quotes from FOXNews.com - May 25, 2010 - Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to that report.
.

AZ border militia to offer armed patrols in Cochise County

.
By Tim Steller Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:36 pm

A longstanding local border-militia group is trying to form a paramilitary squad with permission to confront smugglers or other suspected wrongdoers.

Cochise County Militia founder Bill Davis put out the word Monday that the group is planning to form a “private military company.” Although that category normally refers to contractors such as the company formerly known as Blackwater, the militia’s paramilitary squad would not work for money, Davis said.

Rather, they would volunteer their efforts to local landowners

His call came amid a resurgence in passions over border issues. When southeast Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was killed March 27, legislation was already in consideration that would broaden police officers’ powers to check people’s immigration status.

Investigators and ranchers tracked someone about 20 miles south from the homicide scene into Mexico, firing suspicions — as yet unconfirmed — that the murderer was a smuggler from Mexico.

Now Davis and his colleagues are planning to offer “commercial military services” to border-area property holders. The volunteer militia’s paramilitary squad would work at the landowner’s request “providing security & trespasser interdiction” and would not shy from a confrontation, he wrote in an e-mail.

“We comply with any law possible and then some. But we’re not about to step aside anymore and let them through. We’re going to turn them around and send them back scared,” Davis said.

The squad would consist largely of U.S. military combat veterans, already a significant contingent of the group Davis formed in 2001, he said.

“They all have confirmed kills, from Vietnam or later on. They’re not wannabes who go out and buy a set of camos and go out in the woods with a rifle,” Davis said.

The potential for problems worried immigrant-rights activist Jennifer Allen, who noted that Border Patrol agents go through significant training and have a long chain of supervisors but still sometimes get in trouble for their on-duty acts. A volunteer paramilitary squad wouldn’t have that level of training or oversight, she said.

“People would run the risk on the lighter end of being illegally detained. On a more extreme end, what’s to stop and prevent these individuals from using violence and force unnecessarily?”

Davis, who temporarily stepped aside from the group in November last year, said in all the years of the militia’s existence, no member has ever fired a shot or been in trouble for their activities. But they’ve grown tired of the ineffectiveness of calling authorities, who often respond too late, he said.

“It disillusions my guys,” he said. “They’re out there breaking their ass, sleeping with the snakes. They want more of a backup.”
.

Arizona BUY-Cott is now on FaceBook!

.
ARIZONA BUY-COTT

Facebook Page says:

Support Arizona businesses!

Description.Starting May 5th, we are officially kicking off an on-going ARIZONA BUY-cott to support Arizona bases corporations, local businesses, on-line retailers, and tourism. The following list is just a sampling of the great companies you can support...and there is something for everyone. PLEASE SHARE!!

Be sure to check back at our website regularly...we will add more companies as soon as possible!
http://www.socaltaxrevoltcoalition.org/

ARIZONA BUY-COTT

-------------------------------------------------

PLAN A TRIP TO ARIZONA

http://www.arizonaguide.com/
http://www.nps.gov/applications/parksearch/state.cfm?st=AZ
http://azstateparks.com/
http://www.camparizona.com/
http://www.arizona-bed-breakfast.com/
http://www.verdecanyonrr.com/
http://www.thetrain.com/
http://www.arizonawine.org/

-----------------------------------------------

SUPPORT ARIZONA COMPANIES:


“LOCAL FIRST” BUSINESS DIRECTORY for ARIZONA
http://www.localfirstaz.com/


AIR TRAVEL

US Airways
http://www.usairways.com/

America West Airlines
http://www.usairways.com/

Mesa Air Group (Mesa Airlines, Go!, Freedom Airlines)
http://www.mesa-air.com/

Grand Canyon Airlines
http://www.grandcanyonairlines.com/


AUTO

CSK Auto (Checker Auto Parts, Schucks Auto Supply, Kragen Auto Parts, Murray's Discount Auto Stores)
http://www.cskauto.com/

Discount Tire Company
http://www.discounttire.com/dtcs/home.do


BEAUTY & SKIN CARE

Philosophy (skin care)
http://www.philosophy.com/

Dial
http://www.dialsoap.com/


BOOKS

Bookmans (largest used book seller in AZ)
http://www.bookmans.com/

Arizona Highways (magazine)
http://www.arizonahighways.com/

Usborne Books & More
http://www.usbornesouthwest.com/


EDUCATION

University of Phoenix
http://www.phoenix.edu/


ENTERTAINMENT

Harkins Theatres
http://www.harkinstheatres.com/


FIREARMS, AMMO &ACCESSORIES

Robar (firearms & accessories)
http://www.robarguns.com/

Taser International
http://www.taser.com/pages/default.aspx

American Spirit Arms (Manufacturer of precision firearms)
http://www.americanspiritarms.com/pages/about_asa.html

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
http://www.ruger.com/

Patriot Ordinance Factory
http://www.pof-usa.com/main.htm

Vltor Weapon Systems
http://www.vltor.com/

AWC Systems Technology
http://www.awcsystech.com//

Sun Devil Mfg.
http://www.sundevilmfg.com/

Quentin Defense
http://www.quentindefense.com/

Double Diamond Law Enforcement Supply
http://www.shop.doublediamondsupply.com/

Black weapons Armory
http://www.blackweaponsarmory.com/




FOOD

Poore Brothers Potato Chips
http://www.inventuregroup.net/Poore-Brothers.asp

Seven Sisters Sweet Shop and Chocolate
http://www.7sisterssweetshopandchocolate.com/

McClendon's Select (mail order organic fruit and honey)
http://www.mcclendonsselect.com/

Fairytale Brownies
http://www.brownies.com/default.aspx

Eleanor Joseph Confections (truffles & more!)
http://www.eleanorjosephconfections.com/

Cerreta Fine Chocolates
http://www.cerreta.com/index.cfm

Candy's Apples (gourmet candied apples)
http://www.gourmetcandyapples.com/


GIFTS

Art Fire
http://www.artfire.com/

Sky Mall
http://www.skymall.co/

Navajo Fine Jewelry & Collectibles
http://www.gonavajo.com/navajoart/default.asp

M. R. Designs & Gifts (Gift Baskets)
http://www.mrdesignsandgifts.com/

Hopi Market
http://www.hopimarket.com/

Hollycake (Letterpress Stationery)
http://www.hollycakepress.com/

Arizona Artists
http://www.arizonaartists.net/

Kokopelli Winery
http://www.kokopelliwinery.net/wine/

Crossroads Photography
http://crossroadsphotography.smugmug.com/


HEALTH & FITNESS

Protégé Sports
http://www.protegesportsinc.com/

New Vision (vitamins & wellness)
http://newvision.com/

Massage Envy
http://www.massageenvy.com/

Mountain Waves Healing Arts
http://mwhealingarts.com/


HOME & GARDEN

American Flag & Pole Co.
http://www.americanflagandpole.com/

Arizona Cactus Sales
http://arizonacactussales.com/

Gold Canyon (Candles, Body, & Home)
http://www.goldcanyon.com/

Bedmart
http://www.azbedmart.com/


HOTELS

Ramada Hotels
http://www.ramada.com/

Best Western
http://www.bestwestern.com/


MISC.

Walker Administrative Solutions (on-line bookkeeping)
http://www.walkeradminsolution.com/

Circle K (Convenience Store)
http://www.circlek.com/

Allied Waste Industries
http://sd.disposal.com/

Lifelock
http://www.lifelock.com/

GreenNurture.com (green corporate consulting)
http://www.greennurture.com/

Clear Channel Outdoor
http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/

Meritage Homes
http://www.meritagehomes.com/


MUSIC

Fender Music Instruments
http://www.fender.com/#/american-deluxe


PETS

PetSmart
http://www.petsmart.com/


RESTAURANTS

Cold Stone Creamery
http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/

Surf City Squeeze
http://www.surfcitysqueeze.com/

PF Changs
http://www.pfchangs.com/

Kona Grill
http://www.konagrill.com/

Peter Piper Pizza
http://www.peterpiperpizza.com/



SPORTING GOODS

Ping (Golf)
http://www.ping.com/welcome.aspx

Coaster Break Customs (custom bikes)
http://coasterbrakecustoms.com/

Tuscon Trophy Co.
http://www.tucsontrophy.com/

Ra Lights
http://www.ralights.com/

ARC Flashlight
http://www.arcflashlight.com/

Peak LED
http://www.peakledsolutions.net/


SPORTS TEAMS

Phoenix Coyotes (NHL Hockey)
http://coyotes.nhl.com/

Arizona Cardinals (Football)
http://www.azcardinals.com/

Arizona Diamondbacks (MLB Baseball)
http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=ari


TECHNOLOGY

GoDaddy
http://www.godaddy.com/

My Computer Works (Scottsdale. Online computer repair)
http://www.mycomputerworks.com/


TOYS

Set Enterprises (board games & brain puzzles)
http://www.setgame.com/

Flight Miniatures (model aircraft)
http://www.flightminiatures.com/


TRANSPORTATION

The Urban Commuter (Gas and Electric Scooters and Bikes)
http://www.theurbancommuter.com/

Knight Transportation
http://www.knighttrans.com/

U-Haul
http://www.uhaul.com/


TRAVEL & TOURISM

http://www.arizonaguide.com/
http://www.nps.gov/applications/parksearch/state.cfm?st=AZ
http://azstateparks.com/
http://www.camparizona.com/
http://www.arizona-bed-breakfast.com/
http://www.verdecanyonrr.com/
http://www.thetrain.com/
http://www.arizonawine.org/

Greyhound Corp.
http://www.greyhound.com/home/

.
Visit  ARIZONA BUY-COTT on FaceBook for more information!

A Nation Divided?? - Boycott Hollywood..

From the Sacramento Patriot Movement:

"The polls from Arizona on the SB1070, Immigration Law passed last month report that 70% of Arizona agrees with that law. Other polls report that over 60% of the remainder of America agrees with SB1070.

"Now we hear we are “A Nation Divided“?? This comes from NBC whose parent company is GE. The favorites of Obama.

"...We have GE running a full day of propaganda, we have Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego threatening boycotts of laws the majority of Americans want and agree with. Laws that all other countries are very strict about.

"It is time for us to stand up. We have to draw a line somewhere. Please let it be here. I am asking every American to consider a boycott against GE and all its affiliates. I am asking all Americans to boycott anything Hollywood. Imagine if all of quit going to the movies for one month. Perhaps they would learn who really is in control here. Please, help me, to show these people this is our country and we still can make the decisions of who is successful and who is not. That dirty ol’ capitalism. Lets show them how undivided we are."

Read More: A Nation Divided???
.

Blitzer - Calderon Interview: Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Situation Room

.
THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview with Mexican President Felipe Calderon; Analysis of Special Election Results

Aired May 19, 2010 - 17:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Thanks very much, guys.

Happening now, the presidents of the United States and New Mexico standing together against Arizona's controversial immigration law.

But is Mexico just as tough -- or even tougher -- on illegal immigrants?

Stand by for my exclusive interview with the president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon...

I'm Wolf Blitzer.


You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

President Obama today ratcheted up his criticism of Arizona's immigration law -- one of the darkest clouds over his relationship with the visiting president of Mexico. And it may just have been just what Felipe Calderon wanted to hear. Mr. Obama explained why his administration may, in fact, go ahead and challenge the Arizona law in court -- a law that he calls a misdirected expression of frustration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Now, after it was initially passed, the Arizona legislature amended it and said that this should not be carried out in a discriminatory way. But I think a fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are being suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested. And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.

What I have directed my Justice Department to do is to look very carefully at the language of this law to see whether it comports both with our core values and existing legal standards, as well as the fact that the federal government is ultimately the one charged with immigration policy. And I expect to get a final report back from the Justice Department soon, at which point, we'll make some decisions in terms of how we are going to address that law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: After president Calderon's visit to the White House, he came right here to THE SITUATION ROOM for an exclusive interview. This is his only television interview during his state visit to Washington.

I asked him, what's wrong with the folks in Arizona wanting to protect their border?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRES. FELIPE CALDERON, MEXICO: That is not exactly the problem. I fully respect the right of any nation to establish the legislation that that nation wants -- or their people -- and, of course, the right of any nation to enforce the law and protect their own borders.

But the problem is first that we need to -- to face this challenge in a comprehensive way as President Obama says. And that implies to recognize the rights and the contribution of the people to the growth of this great nation.

But, on the other hand, and in particular, in Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it is against any sense of human rights and, of course, is provoking a very disappointing things -- or a very disappointing opinion in Mexico and around the world, even here, in America.

BLITZER: Because the governor of Arizona says there is no racial profiling, that they're not going to simply stop someone who looks Mexican. They're going to have to have -- the police are going to have to a reason for stopping someone. And if that reason then asks -- results in them asking for papers, that's a different matter.

CALDERON: It could be. And I fully respect the opinion of the governor. But from the point of view of not only Mexican people, but also Mexican-American people and specialists and analyzed the new law precisely had this kind of risk.

BLITZER: Even the amendments that were made -- the changes that were made in this law in Arizona?

CALDERON: Even with that, because what is -- the reason is we need to clarify -- and, in particular, it would be fine if the judicial authorities are able to clarify how dangerous or how bad is the law. If the authorities say it is good, we will respect.

But, anyway, I think that we need to focus in a different way the solution of my -- of immigration here in the States.

BLITZER: You heard the president of the United States say that he doesn't have the votes in the Senate, maybe not in the House of Representatives, to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would include a pathway to citizenship -- U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants.

So what -- in the meantime, is there anything wrong with states trying to tighten up their security?

CALDERON: The point is to introduce these kinds of elements, especially racial profiling aspects that are attempting against what we consider human rights. It's the principle of discrimination, which is against the values of this great nation.

BLITZER: Has your foreign ministry issued a travel advisory to Mexicans not to visit Arizona?

CALDERON: Yes, because according with this law, it's -- there is some risk for Mexican people, especially because...

BLITZER: And so if a tourist goes to Mex -- to Arizona and has the proper visas, the proper papers, what's the risk?

CALDERON: The risk is that it -- well, they looks like Mexicans. And, exactly, they are Mexican, even they are visiting and buying things in Arizona.

Let me tell you what the Mexican -- Mexican consumption in Arizona implied like $3 billion a year. So the tourism and other activities of Mexican people in Arizona works a lot for Arizona's economy.

BLITZER: So you think Arizona will pay a price for this -- this new law?

CALDERON: I don't want that. I only want an -- a mutual understanding. And, in particular, I don't want to move these controversial feelings. I don't want to exacerbate bad feelings between Mexicans and Americans. We need to find out a solution.

What is clear for me is that that law is not a solution at all.

BLITZER: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Mexico's laws. I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals."

Is that true?

CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a -- is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America...

BLITZER: So if...

CALDERON: -- (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?

And if they explain...

BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.

CALDERON: Yes.

BLITZER: But once they're in...

CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.

BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?

CALDERON: It's not a crime.

BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...

CALDERON: No, no.

BLITZER: They can work.

CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.

BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?

CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.

BLITZER: I ask the questions because there's an argument that people in Arizona and New Mexico and -- and Texas, they say they're only trying to do in their states what Mexico itself does in the southern part of Mexico.

CALDERON: I know. And that is a very powerful argument. But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy.

And let me be frank, Wolf. In the past, Mexican authorities were in a -- in a -- in an unfortunate way in the treatment for immigrants. But now we are changing the policy. We changed already the law. And that is different today. We are trying to write a new story, talking about immigrants, especially coming from Central American countries.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

BLITZER: We're going to have a lot more of my exclusive interview with the president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon. I'll ask him about the almost 23,000 Mexicans who've died in the Mexican drug war on his watch and whether the illegal cartels are winning. That's coming up later this hour here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Here's a snapshot of where Americans stand on immigration. Our most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll asked if the United States should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. One third of those questioned said yes; two-thirds said no.


BLITZER: ... The presidents of the United States and Mexico confronting drug violence at the border.

Are the cartels, though, winning?

Stand by for more of my exclusive interview with the president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon....


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)


BLITZER: ...I'm Wolf Blitzer.


You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

The Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, is set to arrive at the White House just about a half hour or so from now for this evening's state dinner.

But first, more of my exclusive conversation earlier today with Felipe Calderon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: This drug war is -- is getting out of control. I know you've tried, since becoming president, to do something. But in "The Wall Street Journal," they just did a story the other day and -- and CNN has similar information. Nearly 23,000 people have been killed in Mexico since you launched your war on these drug cartels -- these drug gangs.

Is that right?

CALDERON: There are several things that I need to clarify. First, it is not exactly a war on drugs, in the sense that my object is not only and not mainly drugs, or narcotrafficking itself. It's not a war on drugs in the old sense of Mr. Nixon established here in the States.

My focus is to guarantee the safety for Mexican families, which are under threat of the organized crime in Mexico.

BLITZER: Because the murders and -- and the kidnappings, it seems to me, from afar, as if it's almost out of control.

CALDERON: It is not out of control. It is part of the process that we are stopping. Fortunately, we started to take action on time. Before, previous to me, the authority was not enough strong, was not -- was not applying the low in the right sense. That that is the reason why the organized crime started to grow in Mexico. Part link with narcotrafficking in the old sense and part linked with the new markets in order to develop the distribution of drugs in Mexico...

BLITZER: All right...

CALDERON: But after that...

BLITZER: Because I -- I'm wondering, are the drug gangs, the cartels, are they winning this war right now?

When I hear a number like 23,000 people killed since you launched your initiative...

CALDERON: No. They -- they are not winning.

Let me clarify that the other part of my answer. Most of that -- 90 percent of those casualties are of -- are casualties of criminals themselves that are fighting each other. It's very clear for us according -- with our records, that it's possible to understand, for instance, in one particular homicide, what could be the probable reasons for that, and 90 percent of that are criminals linked in one way or another to the gangs. Now, the Mexican gangs are passing through a very unstable process, splitting themselves and fighting each other. That explains most of those casualties. They are not --

BLITZER: These are not innocent civilians among the 23,000?

CALDERON: Some of them.

BLITZER: You're saying that many of them are gang members themselves?

CALDERON: 90 percent.

BLITZER: 90 percent?

CALDERON: 90 percent, yes. 90 percent out of all of the homicides that we are able to understand or explain the causes of that. 2 percent of that, less than 2 percent are innocent civilians, yes, more of less killed by the criminals. That's the worst part of that.

BLITZER: I'd like you to turn around and look at that picture of Diego Fernandez. You know him?

CALDERON: Very well. He's my friend.

BLITZER: He's your friend. He was once a presidential candidate.

CALDERSON: Yes.

BLITZER: What has happened to him?

CALDERON: We don't know, not yet. There's no evidence until now that this kidnap is related with organized crime. That's the truth.

BLITZER: He's been kidnapped? You can confirm that?

CALDERON: It could be, this one (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: Because there's some suggestion he was kidnapped to send you a message.

CALDERON: No, the criminals used to send me a very clear message in another way. I think it's a very sensitive case. It's very tough for me, of course, because Diego is a very good friend of mine, a very good friend, a member of my party. But there is not evidence that this situation is related with organized crime. There's no evidence of it's clearly a kidnap case because -- well, according with the investigation and courts.

BLITZER: Have there been anything demanding anything? Ransom?

CALDERON: Not one. No one.

BLITZER: You've had nothing like that?

CALDERON: Nothing. It's a mystery now. Of course, for me, it's very important to preserve. the confidence on the privacy of this investigation. We will find Diego and, of course, we are working with all the resources we have to find him.

BLITZER: How worried are you about your personal safety?

CALDERON: Well, you know, there are risks, of course, with the job I have. Let me be honest in this. Beyond the risks, beyond the dreadness (ph), to be president is the highest honor that any one Mexican could have. I am really happy with that. I learn from when I was a child that it is an honor to serve your country. I serve my country. I am the highest rank. I don't remember these risks that, of course, there are according to with the job I am doing.

BLITZER: Mr. President thanks so much. Welcome to Washington. You have a huge, huge challenge ahead of you. We wish you only the best.

CALDERON: Thank you very much. Thank you, Wolf.
.

Politicians to Call:

.
There were only four entries on the list prepared by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on her website, SecuretheBorder.org/.  Certainly there are more, but these were the ones that Govenor Brewer seemed to find the most urgent:


Congressman Raul Grijalva (D- AZ)
(520) 622-6788

Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY)
(718) 620-0084
Contact Form

National Black Caucus of State Legislators
(202) 624-5457

National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators
(202) 434-8070

ICE Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona

.
- FOXNews.com - May 21, 2010


A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.

The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.

The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.

In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.  (In response to his comments??  I thought Obama said that he ordered DOJ to do that weeks ago...)

"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.

Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.

Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.

"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."

Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.

"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."

.

More States Gearing Up to Follow Arizona's Lead on Immigration

,
- FOXNews.com - May 21, 2010

While Arizona faces the scorn of the White House and local governments across the country for its immigration law, lawmakers in several states are looking to follow the Grand Canyon State's lead.

Lawmakers and politicians in Texas, Rhode Island, Utah and Georgia are among those who, in the month since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law, have announced plans to introduce similar legislation.

The officials say states need to take matters into their own hands to tackle illegal immigration and in turn reduce the taxpayer cost associated with large undocumented populations in their hospitals, schools and prisons. They draw inspiration directly from the Arizona law, bucking the trend of local and state officials who have protested Arizona and called for boycotts against the state.

Rhode Island state Rep. Peter Palumbo has filed a bill that looks nearly identical to Arizona's. It requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally -- provided they don't stop someone on that basis alone. The proposal empowers police to turn over illegal immigrants to federal custody and also bars local jurisdictions from limiting immigration enforcement. Several other provisions in the bill are based on Arizona's law.

Palumbo, a Democrat, told Fox News that Arizona residents were "merely trying to protect themselves" and that the Rhode Island bill could help the state save millions every year.

"You don't need to be a ... border state to have problems with illegals," he said, estimating the number of undocumented residents in Rhode Island at 40,000.

Palumbo acknowledged that his state might not be as receptive as Arizona to such a bill. He said he's got about a half-dozen co-sponsors but hopes media coverage can build support.

"It's difficult. We have a lot of progressives in Rhode Island," he said.

The copycat bills and proposals are generating the same kind of opposition in other states as they did in Arizona. The Providence Journal reported that about 100 protesters demonstrated against the bill inside the Rhode Island House chamber Thursday.

Arizona's neighbor to the west, California, has taken a lead role in slamming the state for its immigration policy. Los Angeles is among the California cities that have instituted a ban on Arizona travel and businesses. But Arizona's neighbor to the north could take a different approach.

Utah Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, a Republican, told the Deseret News, after the Arizona law was signed, that he's already drafting a bill based on the Arizona law for next year's session. He said Arizona's action makes similar action in Utah all the more necessary, because, "when we've seen tougher legislation in Arizona a lot of illegal immigrants just move here."

A Texas representative is looking to do the same in her state. And in Georgia, a Republican candidate for governor is pledging to work toward signing "similar legislation" if he's elected.

"I agree with the Arizona governor and Legislature that the federal government has failed miserably at protecting our borders and enacting sensible solutions that would protect our states, counties and cities from bearing the enormous costs associated with illegal immigration, from emergency room visits to public schools to the criminal justice system," said Nathan Deal.

The White House warned last month that one of the side effects of the Arizona law could be that other states try to fashion their own separate immigration policies, arguing that a comprehensive federal overhaul is the better, more sensible route.

President Obama, who joined Mexican President Felipe Calderon this week in condemning the Arizona policy, said Wednesday that Congress must commit to passing a national bill.

"Comprehensive reform means accountability for everybody -- a government that is accountable for securing the border, businesses being held accountable when they exploit workers, people who break the law by breaching our borders being held accountable by paying taxes and a penalty and getting right with the law before they can earn their citizenship," Obama said.

.