Court Denies Arizona Speedy Appeal Process

.

Well, what can we expect from the 9th Circuit Court. Not expecting much from their eventual ruling, either. Might as well sit back, endure the 9th Circuit, and wait for the rulng that will matter; the USSC...

- Associated Press, July 30, 2010  

Arizona Appeal of Immigration Ruling Set For November

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court says it will hold a hearing in November on Arizona's challenge to a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration law on hold.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a two-page order Friday denying Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request for an earlier hearing date.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a ruling Wednesday putting much of the law on hold. Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13.

State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of "significant importance" -- the state's right to implement a law to address "irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration."
.

Arizona Sheriff: I Won't Be Stopped, Intimidated

.
- FoxNews.com, July 30, 2010

Arizona Sheriff Not Relenting After Court Ruling 

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing aggressive crackdowns on illegal immigration for years. And despite Wednesday's ruling by a federal judge to temporarily block portions of Arizona's new law, the former federal drug agent will continue to carry out sweeps in the country's busiest human and drug trafficking corridor.

Arpaio's tactics have made him the undisputed poster boy for local immigration enforcement, sometimes instructing his deputies to carry out sweeps in Hispanic neighbors to arrest illegal immigrants. His latest sweep was launched Thursday afternoon, when roughly 200 sheriff's deputies and trained volunteers searched metropolitan Phoenix for traffic violators who may be in the country illegally.

"It's my job," said Arpaio, standing beside a sheriff's truck that has a number for an immigration hotline written on its side. "I have two state (immigration) laws that I am enforcing. It's not federal, it's state."

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement statistics, Arpaio's efforts are not misguided, as a total of 55,699 individuals have been deported from the Phoenix field office in fiscal year 2010, easily besting the second-most deportations during that time -- 38,569 -- in the San Antonio area. A total of 268,910 illegal immigrants have been deported as of July 13, 2010, compared to 387,790 for the entire fiscal year 2009.

Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway during Thursday's sweep. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993.

Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed.

Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo.

"It's a Mexican truck so I don't know if they saw that and said, 'I wonder if he has papers or not,"' Salas said. "If that's the case, it kind of gets me upset."

Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Thursday's dragnet led to four arrests, but it wasn't clear if any of them were illegal immigrants.

A ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday put on hold parts of S.B. 1070 that would have required officers to dig deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. Arizona says it was forced to act because the federal government isn't doing its job to fight immigration.

The issue led to demonstrations across the country Thursday, including one directed at Arpaio in Phoenix in which protesters beat on the metal door of a jail and changed "Sheriff Joe, we are here. We will not live in fear."

Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers went to court to overturn the judge's ruling so they can fight back against what the Republican calls an "invasion" of illegal immigrants.

Ever since the main flow of illegal immigrants into the country shifted to Arizona a decade ago, state politicians and local police have been feeling pressure to confront the state's border woes.

In addition to Arpaio's crackdowns, other efforts include a steady stream of busts by the state and local police of stash houses where smugglers hide illegal immigrants. The state attorney general has taken a money-wiring company to civil court on allegations that smugglers used their service to move money to Mexico. And a county south of Phoenix has its sheriff's deputies patrol dangerous smuggling corridors.

The Arizona Legislature have enacted a series of tough-on-immigration measures in recent years that culminated with the controversial new law signed by Brewer in April, catapulting the Republican to the national political stage.

Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics. Arpaio says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause.

"Sheriff Joe Arpaio and some other folks there decided they can make a name for themselves in terms of the intensity of the efforts they're using," said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center. "There's no way to deny that. There are a lot of people getting caught up in these efforts."

The Justice Department launched an investigation of his office nearly 17 months ago over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the department has declined to detail its investigation, Arpaio believes it centers on his sweeps.

Arpaio feels no reservations about continuing to push the sweeps, even after the federal government stripped his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests.

Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling. He has also raided 37 businesses in enforcing a state law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

"I'm not going to brag," Arpaio said. "Just look at the record. I'm doing what I feel is right for the people of Maricopa County."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Law Takes Effect, Ariz. Heads Back to Court

.
- FoxNews.com, July 29, 2010

Arizona's Altered Immigration Law Takes Effect, State Heads Back to Court

Arizona's court-altered illegal immigration law went into effect just after midnight Wednesday, hours after a federal judge blocked its most controversial provisions -- including on-the-spot police checks of suspected illegal immigrants.

Soon after Judge Susan Bolton's decision was announced, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday, asking the appellate court for a swift decision to lift the injunction and allow the blocked provisions to take effect.

Brewer vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary," in a legal process that could take years to unravel, leaving other states considering similar laws in a legislative limbo.

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory after Wednesday's ruling, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," he said

Pearce said that part of Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws. He predicted the battle over the law would eventually end up in the Supreme Court, with Arizona prevailing.

"We will appeal this immediately and we will win on appeal," he told the Arizona Republic. "This will be to the Supreme Court eventually, and I expect a 5-4 decision in our favor, perhaps even 6-3."

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, took effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
..

Gov. Brewer to Supporters, July 28, 9:45pm

.

To Supporters of Arizona :    

The United States District Court of Arizona ruled against significant parts of Arizona’s immigration law hours ago. This decision is being hailed by those who do not want to enforce our laws.

While the decision is disappointing, it is not the end. We plan to appeal the court’s ruling, and I remain confident we will ultimately prevail.

In order to best continue the fight for our immigration law, we must step up and expand our efforts.

That’s why I’m asking you to make a secure, online contribution to the Republican Governors Association right now by CLICKING HERE.  (https://www.rga.org/arizona/)

The RGA is the only organization exclusively dedicated to electing governors like me who are not afraid to do what it takes to protect our citizens and make our borders safe.

The RGA has stood by my side and has my complete confidence - I hope they will have yours too. We know liberals in Washington, D.C., the East Coast media, and people like Al Sharpton will continue to do everything possible to distort what our law does and smear anyone who endorses it, which is why it is vital you support the RGA.

The RGA helps governors like me who are willing to tell the federal government “enough is enough.” Simply put, the RGA is a key partner and with me on the frontlines.

Please support the RGA by contributing $100, $50, $25, $10 or whatever you can afford today. I know times are tough, but every dollar makes a tremendous difference. Please CLICK HERE to donate right now.

With your support, I am confident we will prevail.

Sincerely,

Gov. Jan Brewer

P.S. Our appeal will occur very soon. Please give to the RGA immediately: https://www.rga.org/arizona/

Corporate Contributions are accepted.

Contributions to the RGA are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions will not be used in connection with any federal election activity. Contributions to the RGA may be used in one of the RGA's affiliated state PACs. Contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited.

Paid for by Republican Governors Association
.

Arizona Immigration Law Still a 'Powerful Deterrent'

.

- FoxNews.com, July 28, 2010 

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory in a federal ruling Wednesday that blocked most of the crackdown hours before its enactment, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," Pearce said.

Pearce said that part of Judge Susan Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws.

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

She has vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Illegals Running before Law takes Effect

.
Reuter's sympathetic view uses the term "Migrant" rather than "Illegal Immigrant" and focuses on self-righteous slants rather than the true reason many are leaving; ie, they have family members that are involved in crime and they know they might easily be picked up. Being "cornered" as one person puts it, can only happen if one is doing things they shouldn't. 

Migrants sell up and flee Arizona ahead of crackdown 
By Tim Gaynor

PHOENIX | Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:43pm EDT

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/

"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."

LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE

Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.

The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.

Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.

Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.

A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.

The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.

While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.

Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.

"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to the shops."

Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.

"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
.

No Ruling Yet After AZ Immigration Hearings

.

Printed from: http://www.kfiam640.com   

Two federal court hearings in Phoenix have ended without a ruling on whether the state's new immigration law should take effect amid a flurry of legal challenges.

The second of two hearings Thursday concluded without U.S. Judge Susan Bolton issuing a ruling.

The afternoon hearing focused on whether state law is trumped by the federal government's constitutional authority to set immigration policy.

During the morning hearing, Bolton said she's required to consider blocking only parts of the law, not the entire statute as some plaintiffs had requested.

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was in the packed courtroom in Phoenix fpr the afternoon sesion. Steve Gregory reports most of the protesters in front of the courthouse Thursday morning have gone by the afternoon.


.

Arizona Fights Obama's Immigration Suit, Blames Feds for 'Crushing Burden'

.
- FoxNews.com, July 21, 2010

Arizona urged a federal judge Tuesday to reject the Obama administration's challenge to its tough new immigration law, arguing the border state is acting within its powers.

Gov. Jan Brewer said President Obama is trying to prevent Arizona from protecting its citizens with the Justice Department suit, one of seven seeking to have the new law blocked before it goes into effect July 29.

The Tuesday filing said illegal immigration and a lack of comprehensive enforcement by the federal government has caused "crushing personal, environmental, criminal, and financial burdens" on Arizona.

"Arizona merely seeks to assist with the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws in a constitutional manner," lawyers for Brewer said. "It is [the Obama administration] that is attempting to impose immigration policies and priorities that contravene and conflict with federal law and unambiguous congressional intent."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

In a statement, Brewer said she was "confident that the court will reject President Obama's attempt to prevent our state from protecting its citizens as a result of his failure to enforce federal immigration laws."

"My filing today makes clear that the federal government will suffer no harm if [the law] is implemented because the act requires only that Arizona's law enforcement officers act in accordance with their constitutional authority and congressionally established federal policy," she said.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will hear oral arguments on Thursday and could issue a preliminary injunction if she finds that ultimately the Obama administration would succeed in its quest to have the law struck down.

The stakes are incredibly high. If Bolton rules in Arizona's favor, it opens the door to states taking on issues that have long been the responsibility of the federal government.

Bolton has ruled in two cases unrelated to immigration that federal law trumps state law.

In 2008, Bolton threw out a claim by a woman who alleged her employer broke a federal law on overtime pay. The woman made the claim under federal law but sought more generous damages under a state law dictating when an employee is to be paid. The judge threw out her claim under state law.

Three years earlier, in a lawsuit from a woman who claimed she was harmed by taking a cold medicine, Bolton ruled that a state law immunizing drug makers from most punitive damages in product liability cases was superseded by federal law.

Bolton has declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press about the Arizona law.

Bolton was born in 1951 and raised in Philadelphia, earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Iowa and clerked for a state appeals court judge in Arizona. During her 11 years as an attorney in private practice, she co-authored a book that provides legal and clinical perspectives on violence in families.

She was appointed to the state bench in 1989 by Democratic Gov. Rose Mofford. When she was considered for a state Supreme Court post several years later, she was listed as an Independent. Her current voter registration records have been sealed.

Many lawyers who pressed cases in her court praised Bolton's meticulous reading of their filings. She asks tough questions, they said, and can handle the mountain of paper that's coming from the seven challenges to the law.

"I always felt like I got a fair shake out of her, even if she didn't rule my way," said Ed Novak, the former president of the State Bar of Arizona.

But Bolton's decisions haven't always been popular. In 2000, she struck from the ballot a land-preservation proposal advanced by the Arizona Legislature. The measure was a bid to counter a similar proposal by environmentalists that remained on the ballot.

Bolton said the Legislature's proposal violated a state constitutional requirement that ballot measures cannot cover more than one subject.

Critics called Bolton an activist judge, and accused her of working with the environmentalists to torpedo the Legislature's option.

"It seemed to me that it was more of a political decision than a decision based on fact," said Rusty Bowers, then the Senate majority leader.

Bolton's decision was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, and the measure appeared on the ballot and was defeated.

Paul Charlton, Arizona's top federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2007, said the criticism was unfair.

"It would be a mistake to put any kind of label on her," Charlton said. "This is someone who is not concerned with external political issues."

In any case, the lawyers in her courtroom shouldn't count on Bolton cutting them slack.

When government attorneys asked earlier this month for a last-minute hearing on whether to block Arizona's immigration law, Bolton called it laughable.

Under their timetable, Bolton would've had just 60 hours before the law took effect to decide whether to block it.

"That is completely unrealistic," Bolton said, instead setting the hearing for this week.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Brewer Sends Stimulus Money to Border for Illegal Immigration Fight

.

- FoxNews.com, July 20, 2010  

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, claiming to "reject" the Obama administration's assertion that the border is more secure than ever, announced Monday that she's directing $10 million in federal stimulus dollars to tackle smuggling and illegal immigration.

On the same day the administration announced its plan to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwestern states, Brewer said she's sending the pot of stimulus money to more than a dozen border cities and counties -- as well as several tribes and the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

She said the grant money would be targeted toward fighting drug trafficking, illegal immigration and human smuggling.

"Since the federal government continues to announce inadequate plans and place new warning signs on federal lands in Arizona, we are forced to do what we can locally to act on safety and security until the Congress and the administration act," she said in a statement. Brewer has said the National Guard deployment, which is directing more than 500 troops to her state alone, is not enough to handle the problem.

The border security stimulus money comes out of the stimulus package's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Though most of that money is intended to go toward education, states are allowed to use a small percentage toward public safety and "other government services." Brewer claimed in her statement that she was using her "discretionary" money pile to fight illegal immigration.

The grant money in Arizona will be active until September 2011. The money is primarily meant for paying law enforcement training costs and overtime, as well as travel costs and other expenses, and for bringing on new police officers and part-time personnel. The grant also can be used to buy certain equipment, like vehicles built for the "harsh environment" along the border and communications equipment.

The recipients include Yuma County, Santa Cruz County, Pima County, Cochise County, as well as the cities and towns of Benson, Bisbee, Yuma, Douglas, Nogales, Patagonia, Sahuarita, San Luis and Somerton.
.

Arizona Latino Group Criticizes DoJ Lawsuit

Published : Friday, 09 Jul 2010, 4:12 PM MDT

PHOENIX - An Arizona Latino group has some harsh words for the Obama administration. The Arizona Latino Republican Association, a conservative Latino group, says the Department of Justice lawsuit is "frivolous."

In a statement, ALRA Chairman Jesse Hernandez said, "The original premise for the U.S. Justice Departments lawsuit against Arizona was that SB 1070 violated civil rights and encouraged racial profiling. When that no longer remained applicable, the Administration changed course and now alleges that Arizona's law is unconstitutional, barring the state its right to enforce federal law and crack down on illegal immigration."

Hernandez continued to add that the administration's lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars and that the government should spend the money securing the border and enforcing its own immigration laws.

"The U.S. Department of Justice maintains that it is the federal government and the federal government alone, that has the responsibility to address immigration, secure the nations borders, and enforce immigration laws. If that is true, then what is a state to do when the federal government refuses to do its job?

"Moreover, the courts have repeatedly held that states may enforce federal laws, so their legal argument is hollow. Finally, numerous cities and states already have in place laws like SB1070, yet the Obama Administration has never challenged any of them. This is a political stunt, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, although the ultimate price will likely be paid by President Obama and his allies in November," said State Representative Steve Montenegro, a Hispanic community leader.

The ALRA says the United States' immigration system is "dysfunctional" and supports the right for Arizona to defend its border from unlawful entry.

Obama Pushes for National Standard on Immigration, Urges GOP to Back Overhaul

.

- FoxNews.com, July 01, 2010  

Prodding Republicans to get onboard, President Obama on Thursday called on Congress to tackle a comprehensive immigration overhaul and warned that a failure to do so could trigger a harmful "patchwork" of local laws similar to the one recently passed in Arizona.

While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

"I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward, and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward," Obama said.

The president blamed Republicans for exacerbating the problem. He suggested places like Arizona are unilaterally taking up the issue because GOP senators backed away from immigration reform following the debate several years ago led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Obama blamed political posturing and "demagoguery" for Washington's inability to deal with the problem, pressing Republicans to step up.

"The fact is without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem," Obama said at American University in Washington, D.C.

One of those senators, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told Fox News he wasn't basing his resistance on "demagoguery." He said he's pressing for better border security first because that's what his constituents want.

"It was very political," Kyl said of the speech.

But Obama cast his legislative pitch as an attempt to find middle ground between the two "poles" of the debate. He criticized the idea of granting "blanket amnesty" as well as the idea of deporting all illegal immigrants. Rather, he called for a "pathway to legal status" that would have illegal immigrants get in line and pay a fine.

"The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children," he said.

Obama called for reforms to the legal immigration system and defended the attempts his administration has made so far to improve border security -- though Kyl said it's not enough.

Amid cries for tougher enforcement on one side and leniency on the other, Obama said he hears the "frustration" Americans have expressed about a "system that seems fundamentally broken."

He said that system would be "no exception" to the national challenges he's committed to tackling.

The call to action is a heavy lift for the president, who is keeping Congress' plate overflowing. As he tries pulling a financial regulation package over the finish line and begins implementing provisions of the health care bill, he's also pushing anew for action on a climate package. The speech on immigration follows back-to-back meetings Obama had with advocates and lawmakers at the White House this week.

The controversial Arizona immigration law may have served as the impetus for a stepped-up federal push -- but it also highlighted how critical border-state lawmakers view the enforcement end of the debate.

Republicans have cautioned the president not to push ahead with a comprehensive immigration package until he does more to physically secure the border. And as Obama said, the political reality is that to get a bill he needs Republican support, mostly in the Senate, where Democrats fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP stalling tactics.

Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants, among other things, to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.

Obama's administration has acted to improve border security, including increasing personnel and equipment along the border. Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those troops are to be sent to Arizona.

The Arizona law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person's immigration status if there's reason to believe the individual is in the U.S. illegally. Several states and communities are considering similar legislation, which Obama says is an understandable byproduct of the public's frustration over the federal government's inability to tighten the immigration system.

But Obama also has criticized the law as "misguided" and said it is potentially discriminatory. He has asked the Justice Department to review its legality and immigrant advocates are hoping the government will sue Arizona to block the law from taking effect later this month.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Supporters Donate $500G to Defend Arizona Law

.

- Associated Press, July 08, 2010  

PHOENIX -- Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thusday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and nearly 2,000 came from within Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.

The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.

Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.

Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.

Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.

"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."

Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.

"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.

With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.

Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.

It's unclear what the state's legal costs will be in defending the law. Snell & Wilmer, the Phoenix-based law firm representing the state in the pending challenges, told a federal judge Wednesday that its lawyers were working late into the evening to respond to all the filings in the cases.

Citing the crush of filings in the case, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on the size of so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups in support or opposition to the law.

Brewer hired the private lawyers to represent the state even before the Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, agreed to Brewer's demand to withdraw from the state's defense. He had opposed the legislation but said he was willing to do his duty to defend the state law.
.

Opponents of Arizona's Immigration Law Take Their Protests to the Ballpark

.

- FoxNews.com, July 01, 2010  

Opponents of Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants are trying to put pressure on baseball commissioner Bud Selig to move next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix, and they're doing it by protesting the state's Major League team, the Diamondbacks.

The protesters are following the Diamondbacks from ballpark to ballpark, from Dodger Stadium to Fenway Park, accusing the team's management of supporting the Arizona Republican Party, which is responsible for the bill.

"The Diamondbacks represent Arizona, and Arizona is our key target," Favianna Rodriguez, a lead organizer with the activist group Presente.org, told FoxNews.com. "When we deliver an economic blow to Arizona, it really sends a message that Americans will not tolerate laws like this."

Arizona's law, which empowers police to determine immigration status when investigating other potential crimes and violations, takes effect July 29, prompting a wave of lawsuits and boycotts from opponents who say the law promotes racial profiling and is unconstitutional.

The D-backs have denied supporting the law, saying that while the team's managing general partner Ken Kendrick has donated to Republican political candidates in the past, Kendrick personally opposes the law.

"The team also explained that Kendrick is one of nearly 75 owners of the D-backs and none of his, nor do the other owners', personal contributions reflect organizational preferences," team spokesman Shaun Rachua said in a written statement provided to FoxNews.com, adding that the team has never supported the law and have never taken political stances.

"The D-backs represent all of our employees, players, owners and fans who all have different political affiliations," he said. "It would be unfair and unjust for the D-backs to take a position because it can't be reflective upon everybody's views."

Since April, there have been six ballpark protests in Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, New York and Boston, typically drawing about 100 protesters, waving signs and yelling outside the main gates. At one game in Dodger Stadium, about a dozen protesters reportedly unfurled a banner that read, "Don't Play With Hate," prompting security guards to escort them out.

Rodriguez said the group has collected 100,000 petitions asking for the 2011 All-Star game to be moved and added that they will protest this year's All-Star Game, which takes place this month in Anaheim, Calif.

"We're going to continue the pressure until Bud Selig moves the game," she said.

This week, protesters at Busch Stadium were met by dozens of St. Louis Tea Party members who were demonstrating support for Arizona's law. St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony La Russa said he supports the law and welcomed the Tea Partiers inside the stadium.

"I'm actually a supporter of what Arizona's doing. … The national government doesn’t fix your problem, and you've got a problem, they've got to take care of it themselves," La Russa said.

Rodriguez said Tea Party members have not appeared anywhere else except Arizona.

But Selig is feeling internal pressure to bow to the protester's demands.

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen has said he wouldn't participate in next year's All-Star Game if it remains in Arizona. The Major League Baseball Players Association condemned the law. And Rep. Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat whose district includes Yankee Stadium, has sent a letter asking Selig to move the game.

But leaders of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and 10 other groups have asked Selig not to take a position against the state by moving the game.

In a letter to Selig released in May, the group said a relocation would cost jobs for "innocent citizens, including our Hispanic community," and it says baseball shouldn't become "a pawn in a political debate."

So far, Selig has ignored the protesters. In May, he responded to questions about the pleas by defending baseball's minority hiring record.

"Apparently all the people around and in minority communities think we're doing OK," Selig said at a news conference. "That's the issue, and that's the answer. I told the clubs today: 'Be proud of what we've done.' They are. We should. And that's our answer. We control our own fate, and we've done very well."

Major League Baseball spokesman Pat Courtney told FoxNews.com that the league has no further comment.

But Rodriguez said that's not good enough, saying in a statement that "the commissioner is clearly out of touch with the 'minority communities' he says MLB is so in tune with."

She told FoxNews.com: "We need Bud Selig to speak out. He can't be silent on this issue.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

.

Arizona's Closed Federal Parkland is a No-Man's Land

.

- FoxNews.com, July 02, 2010 
Joshua Rhett Miller

EXCLUSIVE: Arizona's Closed Federal Parkland is a No-Man's Land

The number of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers crossing through Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona has "decreased significantly," but there's a dark cloud to this silver lining. To make it happen, this public land had to be closed to public.


BUENOS AIRES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Arizona – The number of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers crossing through this magnificent national parkland in southern Arizona has "decreased significantly" in the last four years, park officials say.

But there's a dark cloud to this silver lining: To make it happen, the refuge had to close a sliver of this slice of heaven to the quarter-billion American taxpayers who own it -- essentially creating a no-man's-land on which only drug smugglers, gun-runners, human traffickers and the Border Patrol agents who track them down dare to tread.

And with rival Mexican drug gangs gunning each other down less than 50 miles away, the chance that the closed portion of the wildlife refuge will reopen in the foreseeable future appears to be between slim and none. For the time being, officials say, this public land will be closed to the public.

In 2006, the refuge manager at the time, Mitch Ellis, saw that the smugglers and drug-runners were winning, and his solution was to close 3,500 acres of this 118,000-acre natural habitat. He cited increased violence in the area due to “border-related” activities, including assaults on law enforcement officers and migrants, as the reason for the closure.

Back then, says Sally Gall, the park's acting refuge manager, it was estimated that as many as 4,000 people a day were crossing illegally into the U.S. from Mexico, tramping across public land that's home to nearly 330 species of animals and hosts up to 40,000 visitors annually.

“We had probably the most ever immigration traffic in this area,” Gall told FoxNews.com during an exclusive tour of the refuge on Thursday. “It was incredible. There was a lot of concern for public safety.”

The signs went up on Oct. 3, 2006. A year later, construction of an 18-foot-tall pedestrian fence was completed, replacing the porous vehicle barriers and barbed-wire fences that had stood there before. This public area was officially closed to the public. The result, says Gall, is that the number of border-crossers has been reduced to a “couple hundred” a day -- or roughly 1/20th of what it was.

But the 3,500 acres will remain off-limits for the foreseeable future, she said – despite what she calls an “incredible response” of negative feedback that followed recent reports surrounding the closure. The 3,500-acre parcel is only 3 percent of the entire refuge, Gall said, so she prefers to err on the side of caution.

“It doesn’t have a great impact to visitor use on the refuge,” she said. “Is it something worth opening? We don’t feel like it is right now.” “There isn’t a timeline,” she said. “With the fluctuations of border activity, with immigrants coming through, as well as Border Patrol activity and now the proposed National Guard, it makes sense to wait this out and see what happens.”

That doesn't sit well with Zack Taylor, a retired U.S. Border Patrol agent with more than 26 years on the job, who said he considered the closure a concession of U.S. land to Mexican drug cartels and human smuggling operations. If you're going to close down 3,500 acres inside America, he said, you might as well close down the entire border.

“They’ve known for years that this was an escalating problem and that it was going to grow and become a larger problem,” Taylor, a member of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, told FoxNews.com. “The anger is that [federal authorities] have intentionally made it more dangerous by not putting enough people down there to do the job.”

He said U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials were essentially creating an “ad hoc amnesty” by not closing the entire U.S.-Mexico border, including the 3,500-acre parcel on the Buenos Aires refuge.

“The United States government is giving it away,” he said. “They’re intentionally not doing their job and not enforcing the law. It becomes a crime.”

Another retired U.S. Border Patrol agent who asked not to be identified due to consulting work he does in the area, questioned the accuracy of the sharp decline in immigrant activity in the area.

“They’re painting a picture that the border is under control,” said the former agent, who retired in 2007 after 30 years along the border. “And it’s not ... not at all.”

During a tour of the closed area, roughly one mile north of the Mexican border, FoxNews.com spotted evidence of illegal immigrant activity in the form of roughly a dozen large water containers just across the fence on Mexican soil, adjacent to a drainage pipe on the U.S. land.

Wayne Lackner, special operations supervisor for the U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, confirmed that the water containers appeared to be evidence of recent border-crossings.

“It comes in cycles,” Lackner said. “Sometimes it could be broad daylight you can have activity there, or it could be during hours of darkness.”

Still, Lackner said, activity has decreased to a level where his agency could “probably have some input” into whether the 3,500 acres should be reopened to the public. He said citizens should feel safe near the area now.

"From a public standpoint, I would see no problem if people recreated down there,” he said. “I think it’s safe. The majority of [illegal immigrants], you know, they’re not going to bother you. If you see ‘em, just make sure to call somebody and watch where you’re at. It’s really no different than anywhere else.”

But that's not necessarily so, say nearby ranchers who painted an entirely different picture of the activity in the region. Tom Kay, 68, whose Jarillas Ranch features more than four miles of border fence and shares its western boundary line with the Buenos Aires refuge, estimated that up to 400 illegal immigrants walk onto his 15,000-acre land every day.

“The ones that get to Tucson probably came through here,” Kay told FoxNews.com. “This is where it all begins.” He said he's seeing fewer border-crossers than in previous years, due in part to surveillance towers that were built near his property.

But after years of never locking his door or removing keys from vehicles, Kay has found it necessary to change his ways.

“I gotta lock the barn up now,” he said. “If I don’t, I wake up and find people in the hay."

.

Obama Administration Sues Arizona Over SB 1070

.

Fox Business, Tuesday, July 06, 2010 

WASHINGTON--The Obama administration Tuesday sued Arizona over the state's strict new immigration law in a move that drew fire from Republicans who said the border needed more security.

The Arizona law requires state and local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant, provoking criticism that it is unconstitutional and would sap law enforcement resources.

The Republican-controlled Arizona legislature passed the law to try to stem the flood of thousands of illegal immigrants who cross its border from Mexico each month and to cut down on drug trafficking and other crimes in the area.

The lawsuit, filed while Congress was on a week-long break, is part of a broader approach by President Barack Obama to deal with the 10.8 million illegal immigrants believed to be in the country, arguing that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government not each state.

The legal action is a political gamble by the administration as a Pew Research Center poll showed 59 percent of people approve of the Arizona crackdown.

The Arizona law would "interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States' relationship with Mexico and other countries," the Justice Department said in the 25-page lawsuit.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in federal court in Arizona and asked for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the controversial law, which is slated to take effect on July 29.

The legal fight also comes at a critical juncture, four months ahead of the mid-term congressional elections and the Hispanic community has been a major voting bloc that typically has sided with Democrats but Republicans have tried to woo.

Republicans condemned the lawsuit, saying the law had not yet taken effect therefore any challenge was premature and that the new was needed because the federal government had failed to deal with the issue.

"The Obama administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state," the two Republican senators from Arizona, John McCain and Jon Kyl, said in a statement.

RAISING QUESTIONS

Administration officials and critics have condemned the law, raising questions about whether it was constitutional and could lead to racial profiling and broaden a rift with Hispanics, a rapidly growing population in the United States.

Obama has warned that the Arizona law could lead to a patchwork of different laws passed by the various U.S. states and said that the matter should be resolved at the federal level by Congress.

Last week he gave his first major speech on immigration reform since taking office, calling for both political sides to join together to pass a comprehensive measure, but it has largely been overshadowed by the economic crisis and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality," Obama said.

Obama has backed allowing undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and become citizens. He also has supported tightening border security and clamping down on employers that hire undocumented workers.

But opposing Republicans have said that border security must be significantly improved before dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants, many of them Hispanics, in the country.

Mexico and several civil liberties groups have opposed the Arizona measure, and several other legal challenges are pending in federal court in the state.

Obama has pledged to spend an extra $600 million and send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border to tighten security, however the initial steps to do so have been criticized as too little to address the problem.

The case is United States of America v. State of Arizona et al; Case No. 10-cv-1413 in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

.

Ariz. Sheriff Gets Death Threats Over New Law

.

- FoxNews.com, July 06, 2010 

A high-profile Arizona law-enforcement officer who has been outspoken about his support for the state's controversial new immigration law is receiving death threats, myFOXphoenix.com reported late Monday.

Some of the threats against Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu were from the Mexican mafia and drug cartel members.

Outside law enforcement teams brought in to investigate the threats found them credible.

Babeu was very outspoken about the need to secure the state's border with Mexico -- a known entry point to the U.S. for drug smugglers and illegal immigrant traffickers -- and supports law SB1070, which makes illegal immigration a state crime.

Despite the threats, Babeu declined a personal security detail because the county resources were already stretched.

"I understand this threat, yet I will not run in fear or change my support for SB1070 and my demands for President Obama to secure our border with 3,000 armed soldiers in Arizona and start building the fence again," he said.

"I'm always armed, and as every law enforcement member knows, we always have to be aware of our surroundings and possible threats."

Pinal County is nearly 5,400 square miles and much of the desert is known as a drug and human trafficking corridor.
.

Brewer to Supporters, re: Federal Lawsuit July 6, 2010 5:08pm

.

Arizona needs your help to defend against Obama lawsuit


Today, we received official notice of the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona. 


I am sure you will agree with me that the Administration’s lawsuit is an outrageous use of taxpayer money and a sure sign that the President is more interested in politics than securing our southern border.

This lawsuit follows the President’s immigration speech in which he called for comprehensive immigration reform that – not surprisingly – includes a path to citizenship for those who entered our country illegally.

Let me be clear, I will defend the rule of law all the way to the Supreme Court of this land if necessary. I will continue to demand that the Federal government live up to its responsibility to control our Southern border and to protect our homeland. And, I will oppose the President’s amnesty plan.

But I need your immediate help today.

In order to respond to President Obama’s lawsuit I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the legal fees that Arizona has been forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.

I urge all Americans who want a secure border to contribute to this fund immediately.

This is not just an Arizona issue, this is an American issue. Are we or are we not going to enforce the rule of law in America? The burden alone should not be shouldered by Arizonans. Arizona needs you to answer the call today, right now.

Click here to contribute now.

Make no mistake; Arizona’s immigration law affects the safety and well-being of every U.S. citizen. The federal government has failed to enforce the rule of law.

As long as the Federal Government refuses to do its job, I will ensure that Arizona continues to live by a rule of law.

Your immediate donation of $250, $125, $75 or whatever you can afford you can afford will go directly into fighting President Obama’s lawsuit. I do ask that you make this very important commitment today so we can immediately begin to defend against the President’s actions.

Arizona is the front line of our nation’s illegal immigration crisis. The federal government is broken and our border is not secure. That is why Arizona had to act.

I will not stop fighting to protect our country. I will defend us in federal court and we will continue to do the job President Obama refuses to do.

Join me today by clicking here now.

Sincerely,

Governor Jan Brewer
.

News Poll: Secure the Border First

.

- FoxNews.com, July 02, 2010
Dana Blanton

A majority of American voters think the federal government should secure the country’s borders first, before Congress works on new immigration legislation.

The Obama administration wants comprehensive immigration overhaul to come first, while Republican leaders are pushing for improved border security as the top priority. A Fox News poll released Friday asked American voters what should happen first: 59 percent think the government should secure the border first, while 30 percent think the priority should be new legislation.

Large numbers of Republicans (72 percent) and independents (65 percent) support securing the border first. Views are fairly evenly split among Democrats, with a slim plurality putting border security (44 percent) before Congressional action (41 percent).

The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from June 29 to June 30. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Some 19 percent of voters think the country’s borders are more secure today than they were five years ago, while 26 percent say they are less secure. Nearly half -- 47 percent -- say things haven’t changed in five years.

Just over half of voters -- 52 percent -- favor Arizona’s new immigration law. That’s almost twice as many as the 27 percent who oppose it. Another 21 percent have no opinion.

There’s a huge partisan divide on the new state law, which goes into effect at the end of July.

Fully 73 percent of Republicans support the law, 43 percentage points more than the 30 percent of Democrats who do. Among independents, a 57 percent majority favors the legislation.

Those living in the West (55 percent) and Midwest (54 percent) are a bit more likely to favor the law than those in the South (50 percent) and Northeast (49 percent).

Few voters, however, see immigration as the country’s top issue: Only 4 percent cite it as the most important issue for President Obama to be working on right now. That’s far fewer than the number who say the priority should be the economy/jobs (32 percent), the Gulf oil spill (14 percent), the deficit (12 percent), health care (6 percent), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (6 percent).

Click here to see the raw data

.

Nicaragua getting its own Arizona SB 1070?

.
Posted By Greta Van Susteren On June 30, 2010, 8:39 pm In International News, immigration  

Check this out!  

Nicaragua proposes similar law to Arizona’s 1070
June 30 Kimberly Dvorak - San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner

According to the El Nuevo Diario newspaper an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s 1070 is being reviewed for final approval by the National Assembly in Managua, Nicaragua. The proposed law has sparked controversy and is seen by many as “drastic.” The article from El Nuevo Diario, claims the new immigration law would be dehumanizing leading to the opposition’s argument that illegal migrants would be treated “unjustly” in the poor Central American country.

If the Nicaragua Immigration Law was approved in its current form, Articles 153 to 158 would require every hotel, inn and motel, as well as all modes of public transportation operators would be required to ask for identification from those who request service or they could face prosecution and/or pay a fine.

The coordinator of the Nicaraguan Network of the Migration Civil Society, Heydi Gonzalez pointed out that a person cannot be criminalized for being a migrant without legal documentation. She went on to say that a fine being levied on those without identification is a violation of human rights.

The new Nicaragua immigration law has been approved and will now undergo a study of its details and make sure the portion of the law that imposes fines and possible criminal proceedings against those who provide the service to a migrant without legal papers will not cause undue stress upon the countries legal system.

Included in the law is article 153 which “prohibits the hiring of undocumented workers, or those who, though in legal status, are not authorized to perform work activities.”

Gonzalez explained that “every State has its regulations, and that similar or more stringent criteria of control than those mentioned in the recently approved law exist in the entire Central American region; nevertheless, in Nicaragua, sanctions or fines ought to be imposed only on those who house, transport or hire undocumented aliens when this takes place within the violation of migrant or people trafficking.”

The Migrants Network said the new law “would be a dehumanizing law. Let us imagine that a South American, Asian or African victim of people traffickers was abandoned out in the elements, but no one can provide him humanitarian assistance because it’s prohibited by the law. That’s the risk incurred in this type of regulation. It’s obvious that every country has the right to regulate migratory traffic and to establish requirements, but strict migratory policies and expensive procedures compel people to travel without documentation.”

The Nicaragua Immigration and Alien Law has been pending since 2007 however, CLICK HERE FOR REST OF ARTICLE [1]


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

Article printed from Gretawire: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/

URL to article: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/nicaragua-getting-its-own-arizona-sb-1070/

URLs in this post:

[1] CLICK HERE FOR REST OF ARTICLE: http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d30-Nicaragua-proposes-similar-law-to-Arizonas-1070
.

Judge Lets Mexico Have Voice in Court Case Against U.S. Immigration Law

.

- FoxNews.com, July 01, 2010  

Mexico gets its a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico's request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens' rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued last week, Brewer said she was "very disappointed" to learn of Mexico's filing and reiterated that "Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional."

"I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional," Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

The law's provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.

Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

Amnesty International recently issued a report claiming illegal immigrants in Mexico -- typically from Central America -- face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.

But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.

.

21 killed in shootout between drug, migrant trafficking gangs near Arizona border

.

- Associated Press, July 01, 2010


HERMOSILLO, Mexico (AP) — A massive gun battle between rival drug and migrant trafficking gangs near the U.S. border Thursday left 21 people dead and at least six others wounded, prosecutors said.

The fire fight occurred in a sparsely populated area about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the Arizona border, near the city of Nogales, that is considered a prime corridor for immigrant and drug smuggling.

The Sonora state Attorney General's Office said in a statement that nine people were captured by police at the scene of the shootings, six of whom had been wounded in the confrontation. Eight vehicles and seven weapons were also seized.

All of the victims were believed to be members of the gangs.

The shootings occurred near a dirt road between the hamlets of Tubutama and Saric, in an area often used by traffickers.

Gangs often fight for control of trafficking routes and sometimes steal "shipments" of undocumented migrants from each other, but seldom have they staged such mass gun battles.

Gang violence near the Arizona border has led to calls from officials in the U.S. state for greater control of the border and is one reason given for a controversial law passed in April requiring Arizona police to ask people about their immigration status in certain situations.

In a city on another part of the U.S. border, gunmen killed an assistant attorney general for Chihuahua state and one of her bodyguards.

After being chased by armed assailants through the darkened streets of Ciudad Juarez, the vehicle carrying Sandra Salas Garcia and two bodyguards was riddled with bullets Wednesday night.

Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said the second bodyguard was seriously wounded.

Salas was responsible for evaluating the work of prosecutors and special investigations units in Chihuahua.

Drug violence has killed more than 4,300 people in recent years in Ciudad Juarez, which borders El Paso, Texas.

More than 23,000 people have been killed by drug violence since late 2006, when President Felipe Calderon began deploying thousands of troops and federal police to drug hot spots.
.

Happy Birthday to an Exceptional Man

Roland John Morris, Sr.
July 1, 1945 – June 9, 2004

Roland Morris, Sr., 58, ascended to heaven on Wednesday, June 9th after a four year fight with cancer. Roland, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, was born July 1, 1945, in Cass Lake, MN. Ojibwe was his first language, and he grew up fishing, hunting, and gathering wild rice with family and friends. He also played intramural basketball, worked hard in the woods, spent time in a foster home and various jails, drank, smoked, and played guitar with friends at various bars.

Roland went to college in Kansas and was a draftsman for a short time before becoming an upholsterer. While he struggled with many difficulties in his early years, he was a perfectionist with upholstery and throughout his life performed his craft well.

After a life changing spiritual experience with Jesus in 1988, Roland moved his second family to Ronan, Montana to be near his cousin and Christian evangelist, Frank (Scotty) Butterfly. There, in 1992, Roland and his wife, Elizabeth, created Montana’s first patient transportation service, Mission Valley Medicab. They also helped instigate the Montana Passenger Carriers Association and the charitable organization, Valley Missions, Inc., all without tribal assistance.

Roland taught his children about wild ricing, hunting, fishing, and a little of the Ojibwe language. But the biggest, strongest desire of his heart was that his children, grandchildren, and entire extended family come to the saving knowledge and acceptance of Jesus Christ. Having watched many friends and relatives die physically, spiritually, and emotionally from alcoholism, violence, and suicide, Roland could no longer stand aside and do nothing. He was concerned for the children and felt distress at the attitudes of many adults within his community. He wanted the self-destruction to stop.

Roland’s relationship with Jesus coupled with his conviction that much of the reservation system was harmful led him to some amazing life experiences. Actively opposing much of federal Indian policy, Roland served as President of the Western Montana organization All Citizens Equal, was a board member and Vice-Chairman of the national organization; Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, was the Secretary of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation.

He also ran as a Republican candidate for the Montana House of Representatives in the 1996 and testified before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in April,1998, the Minnesota Attorney General in 2000, and numerous Mont. State committees. With his family, he also had a private meeting with a member of the President’s Domestic Policy Council May, 2002 in Washington DC.

As time progressed, Roland became more convinced of the importance of Jesus in his life. So in 2000 he attended a year of training at the Living Faith Bible College, Canada. Over the last three years, he and/or his family went on mission trips in Canada and Mexico. During a 2003 trip to a children’s home in Juarez, Mexico, he fixed most of their dining hall chairs, taught 6 boys how to upholster, donated materials, and preached a Sunday street service.

Through the years, he has appeared in numerous newspaper articles across the country. The last article he appeared in was on Friday, May 14th, in the Washington Times. Reporter Jennifer Lehner wrote, “the ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] protects the interests of others over [Mr. Morris'] grandchildren,” and “Mr. Morris said that once children are relocated to the reservations, they are subject to the corrupt law of the tribal government. Instead of preserving culture, he said, the tribal leadership uses the ICWA to acquire funds provided through the legislation.” Ms. Lehner quoted Mr. Morris as saying that the law is “supposed to help children, but instead it helps tribal governments.”

Finally, in February, 2004, he and his wife founded the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare. The purpose of this was to encourage preaching, teaching and fostering of the growth of the Christian Faith in all places, encourage accountability of governments to families with Indian heritage, and educate the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues.

Roland praised God to the very end. When his final struggle began, several of his friends and family were praying with him. When those present sang old-time hymns, he raised his hand in the air for as long as he could. When “I Surrender” was sung, he sang the echo. While Pastor Kingery sat next to Roland, holding his hand, Roland looked him straight in the eyes and pointed his other hand up to heaven. When he passed on to greater life, his good friend Marvin Bauer was softly playing Gospel songs for him on his accordion.

Roland is survived by his wife, nine children, twelve grandchildren and a great grandson. Also important to his heart was his “special” son, Jesus Garcia, in Juarez, Mexico. Surviving brothers include Harry Morris and Steven Jones; and sisters include Clara Smith, Bernice Hurd, Sharon Goose, and Christine Jones, as well as numerous nephews and nieces and his great cousin, Scotty Butterfly.

Roland was preceded in death by his parents, Jacob and Susan Jones; siblings Thomas and Wallace Morris, Robert, Martin, Caroline, Frances, Barbara and Alvina Jones, Loretta Smith, and grandson Brandon Kier.

Roland’s loving friend, Jim Ball, crafted a beautiful casket for him as a gift. Funeral services were at the CMA Church in Ronan, MT, on Sunday, June 13, 2004 and the CMA Church in Cass Lake, MN, Tuesday, June 15. Internment was at Prince of Peace Cemetery. He is strongly remembered for his strength, character, and love for the Lord Jesus.

Roland, our husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, cousin, and friend; We Love you and Miss you so very much. You are with God now.

Gi gi wah ba min me na wah

Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
Independent Indian Press
.