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.
.

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.

.

Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law

.
FOXNews.com - June 24, 2010

Two federal agencies have joined the "boycott Arizona" trend and nixed conferences there out of concern over the state's immigration law, a Democratic Arizona congresswoman said, calling the development "very troubling."

The cancellations by the Department of Education and the U.S. Border Patrol may have been more out of a desire to steer clear of controversy than outright protest of the law. But Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who has written to dozens of cities and groups in a campaign to persuade them to end their boycotts, said it was disturbing to learn that the federal government would withdraw from the state over the issue.

"It is very troubling when the federal government becomes involved in a boycott against our state," Giffords said in a written statement. "Although I personally disagree with the immigration law, it came about because of growing frustration over the federal government's unwillingness to secure the border. The federal government's participation in this boycott only adds to that frustration."

FoxNews.com is awaiting response from both agencies. Giffords' office said the cancellations were confirmed by the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association.

According to Giffords, the Education Department canceled a convention set for October at a Tucson resort after the Mexican government said it would not send any representatives to the meeting. The department then moved the event to Minnesota.

Further, her office said the Border Patrol "verbally" canceled a conference set for May at a resort in Prescott after an official asked that it be moved out of concern over the immigration law debate. The Border Patrol -- which has more than 4,000 agents in Arizona, representing nearly a quarter of its force -- had booked 40 rooms for the event before canceling, though there was no contract signed for the event, according to Giffords' office.

Giffords is among a number of Arizona officials who argue that the boycotts imposed by cities across the country do nothing to change the law and only punish workers and businesses there. The boycotts would hit the hospitality industry, which is made up in large part of Hispanic workers, particularly hard.

In the letter she has been sending to cities and groups that have imposed boycotts, Giffords wrote that the punitive measures have "unfairly targeted" her state's businesses.

The Obama administration is planning to file suit against the Arizona law, citing its sustained concern about the move to subject some residents to routine checks on their immigration status.

So far, a couple of cities have written Giffords back defending their actions against her state.

El Paso Mayor John Cook wrote in a letter to the congresswoman June 10 that his city was not "condoning" illegal immigration by passing a resolution that prohibits city officials from attending conferences in Arizona. He said his city's measure, though not a full-fledged boycott, emphasizes the importance of passing a comprehensive immigration overhaul and "expresses our concerns with the possibility of law enforcement racially profiling people."

Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell also wrote this month that its ban on employee travel to the state -- and a reconsideration of city contracts there -- was imposed out of concern for racial profiling.
.

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns'

.
Unbelievable - Don't the states (we the people) have a right to make our own laws??? If the federal law is constitutional - which no one has claimed it is not - why isn't this law constitutional?  It is only mandating that the federal law be enforced!

FOXNews.com - June 23, 2010

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

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.

Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state.

"Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention," the brief said.

It will be up to a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations.

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 late Tuesday, 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.

Mexican officials previously had voiced opposition to the Arizona law, with Calderon saying June 8 that the law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity" by promoting racial profiling and potentially leading to an authoritarian society

U.S. officials have said the Obama administration has serious concerns about the law and may challenge it in court. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently went further by saying a lawsuit is planned.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Arizona AG withdraws from Legal Challenge to SB 1070

.
- Associated Press, June 18, 2010


Arizona Attorney General Says He Won't Defend State's Immigration Law

The Republican governor and Democratic attorney general, both are gubernatorial candidates, were in a dispute over whether the attorney general should defend the state.

PHOENIX -- Attorney General Terry Goddard says Friday that his office plans to withdraw as the state's lawyers in legal challenges to Arizona's new immigration law.

That leaves Gov. Jan Brewer's attorneys to defend the law on the state's behalf.

The Republican governor and Democratic attorney general were in a dispute over whether Goddard should defend the state. Both are gubernatorial candidates.

Brewer complained that Goddard's criticism of the law raised doubts about his ability to defend it.

Goddard says his office has defended state laws in court during the past, even when he disagreed with the law. Goddard says Brewer's threat to have him removed would be an expensive fight for the state.

Brewer predicts the law will be upheld.
.

Texas GOP Passes Immigration Plank Similar to Arizona Law

.
Quoted from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/13/convention-texas-gop-passes-immigration-plank-similar-arizona-law/

FOXNews.com - At Convention, Texas GOP Passes Immigration Plank Similar to Arizona Law


- Associated Press, June 13, 2010

Republican delegates at the state party convention bucked Gov. Rick Perry's opposition to Arizona's immigration law and voted Saturday for a platform plank advocating a law that would bar illegal immigrants from living in Texas and allows local police to verify U.S. residency.

Fired-up Republican activists in no mood for compromises threw out their party chairwoman Saturday, then bucked Texas Gov. Rick Perry by pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration similar to Arizona's new law.

Some delegates at the Republican state convention also called for a nonbinding resolution calling on House Republicans to oust their own speaker, Rep. Joe Straus of San Antonio, considered too moderate for many of the bedrock conservatives meeting in Dallas this weekend. Convention organizers ruled the Straus resolution out of order.

While the convention began Friday with scripted unity and Democrat-bashing speeches, its final hours were marked by division and heated debates over GOP policy priorities.

In a sometimes chaotic and raucous roll-call vote, delegates overwhelmingly decided to ditch their firebrand leader, conservative activist Cathie Adams, in favor of Houston businessman Steve Munisteri. Munisteri had focused his campaign on the party's $500,000 debt, saying Republicans should be in better financial shape since they control both houses of the Legislature and all statewide offices.

The immigration proposal, a hard-line approach that Perry has said isn't right for Texas, was one of several initiatives debated as delegates wrapped up the two-day convention. The Republican Party platform is a blueprint of the policies that GOP activists want elected officials to pursue.

Delegates voted to include a plank advocating for a state law that would bar illegal immigrants from "intentionally or knowingly" living in Texas. Similar to Arizona's strict law that has sparked nationwide debate, the proposal would require local police to verify U.S. residency when making arrests.

Perry has said the Arizona law, if adopted in Texas, would unduly burden police.

Another potentially controversial plank advocates an "open carry" law, which would allow residents to openly carry firearms in public without a concealed weapons permit.

The convention brought more than 8,000 delegates to Dallas to debate the party platform, select party leaders, train volunteers and adopt rules to guide the nomination process.

Held every other year, it's mostly designed as a giant pep rally to fire up Republicans ahead of the November elections. The choreographed convention began with prayers, video tributes and speeches by top Republican leaders, including Perry.

On Saturday, the main guest speaker, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, told delegates that the stakes in the 2010 elections were "higher than any midterm election in my lifetime." Barbour urged activists to focus their ire not on each other but on the Democrats who had engineered the "biggest lurch to the left in American history."

Barbour warned the delegates not to engage in divisive internal battles or demand a "purity" test of Republican leaders who may not agree with them on every single issue.

"We cannot forget unity because some people will let purity be the enemy of unity," Barbour said. "It's a big party and we need everybody who is on our side."

That didn't stop conservatives from criticizing their moderate speaker.

A resolution circulating on the floor of the Dallas Convention Center called for Republicans to "remove and replace" Straus, who came to power in 2009 with the help of House Democrats. Straus spokeswoman Tracy Young said the speaker remained focused on increasing the House Republican majority. He had no comment on the resolution, she said.

.

ACLU Files Challenge to Arizona Law

.
New Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/05/new-challenge-to-arizona-immigration-law/ In Border Security

The timetable for federal court action on Arizona's controversial new immigration law picked up considerably Friday as opponents of the measure are now asking a federal judge to issue an injunction stopping the law from taking effect as scheduled.

Arizona officials are supposed to begin enforcing the law July 29 but the new court filing argues the law's start date should be delayed until the underlying legal challenge attacking the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is resolved.

The injunction request comes from the ACLU and a handful of civil rights groups who are also challenging the law. Their filing means a federal judge will be required to make a legal assessment on the controversial law this summer.

In their 44 page filing [1], the plaintiffs call the law an "unprecedented attempt by a single state to regulate immigration" and "a brazen and improper usurpation of the federal government's constitutional role in immigration regulation." Of greater importance to their injunction request, the groups argue the law, if it takes effect on July 29, will cause irreparable harm and will immediately cause their members to change their lives "out of fear that they will be subject to unlawful questioning, arrest, or detention."

The judge will have to determine the veracity of these claims and conclude that the law will cause immediate and irrevocable harm. An injunction order, rare but not unprecedented, would also likely include analysis that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their underlying lawsuit.

There was no immediate response from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's office to the new legal action.

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

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


URL to article: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/05/new-challenge-to-arizona-immigration-law/

Huge Rally in Pheonix Supports Arizona Law

.
Hundreds rally in Phoenix heat to support new illegal immigration law
June 05, 2010 20:44 EDT

PHOENIX (AP) -- Hundreds of people who support Arizona's new immigration law have been rallying near the state Capitol, where the heat may have put a damper on turnout.

Demonstrators sweated in temperatures reaching as high as 107 degrees. Some shaded themselves with umbrellas and clamored to buy cold water and ice cream from vendors.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio , perhaps best known for his efforts targeting illegal immigrants, drew loud chants of "Joe, Joe, Joe!" from the crowd.

Arpaio praised lawmakers for passing the law and reiterated that he'll lock up as many illegal immigrants as his deputies can arrest. He told the crowd: "We'll put tents from here to Mexico."

The law goes into effect July 29 unless blocked by a court. Critics have said the law will invite racial profiling, while supporters have said it will help fight illegal immigration.

_____________________________________

Hundreds rally in Phoenix heat to support Arizona's new illegal immigration law

By MICHELLE PRICE , Associated Press

Last update: June 5, 2010 - 9:31 PM

PHOENIX - Hundreds of people supporting Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigration rallied near the state Capitol on Saturday afternoon in soaring temperatures.

Hundreds of motorcycle riders kicked off the downtown Phoenix rally by riding in a procession around the Capitol. Supporters waved American flags and some carried signs that read "What part of illegal don't they
understand?"

The rally's turnout fell far short of the march organized by opponents of the law last weekend, when an estimated 20,000 people gathered.

Demonstrators on Saturday sweated as temperatures reached 105 degrees. Some shaded themselves with umbrellas and clamored to buy cold water and ice cream from vendors.

"For them to come here when it's over 100 degrees and stand in the heat — it's awesome," said 32-year-old Stephanie Colbert of Glendale.

Colbert, who works in a restaurant, said those who disagree with the law and boycott Arizona are misguided because they hurt the immigrant community they aim to support.

"The hospitality industry has a very large population of immigrants, legal and illegal," she said. "It's those people's jobs that are in jeopardy."

Colbert and her mother, 53-year-old Pattie Sheahan of Phoenix, said they strongly support the new law, which requires police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations to ask about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

"Everybody needs to obey the same laws," Sheahan said. "If you want to come here, there's ways to do it. Do it the right way."

The law, which goes into effect July 29, will also make it a state crime to be in the country illegally or to impede traffic while hiring day laborers, regardless of the worker's immigration status. It would become a crime
________________________________________

Arizona immigration law supporters gather for rally

by Connie Sexton, Ofelia Madrid and Dustin Gardiner - Jun. 5, 2010 04:50 PM
The Arizona Republic

Saturday's rally in support of Arizona's new immigration law is looking much like a pre-Independence Day celebration. The "Phoenix Rising" event is off to an early start at Wesley Bolin Plaza, with hundreds already gathering before the expected 3 to 6 p.m. slate of speakers.

The dress for the day seems to be red, white and blue with accessories being the American flag. It was what Rita Bonilla had chosen. The Las Vegas retiree was cheerfully chatting with other early birds a little before
noon as people milled around booths selling buttons, T-shirts, bags and other items, many carrying words in support of Senate Bill 1070.

Today's rally at the plaza, 1700 W. Washington St., kicked off on time with a group of motorcycle riders taking a lap around the Capitol complex. Arizona Capitol Police say no street closures are planned.

Today's speakers are to include immigration-bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., was one of the first to speak and said he could tell the value of the new anti-immigration law by the amount of hysteria from opponents.

"Judging by that, this is the best damn bill that's been passed in the United States of America,'' Tancredo said. "I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart because it got America to pay attention to this issue.''

Another speaker, Al Garza, is president of the Patriot's Coalition in Arizona, a group whose mission is to "challenge the government's ambiguity on open border policies.'' He said he moved to Arizona from
California seven years ago but said he found the rule of law not important here.

"We're all Americans of all colors,'' he said. "We salute the flag. Mexico, you know what? Go back if you don't like it here.''

For Bonilla, it's a controversial issue that has divided her family. "I'm of Mexican nationality," she said "I support SB 1070 because it's gotten to the point that it's not immigration anymore, it's invasion."

She was born in the United States and said other family members are against the bill and the division has led to a break down in communication.

"But I am not anti-Hispanic," she said. "I am Hispanic. I speak fluent Spanish and I'm proud to be in this country."

Fellow Las Vegas residents Sue and Rodney Heiselman came to the rally, knowing that the day would be toasty. "It's a sacrifice we're willing to make to support our country," Sue said. "And we're willing to spend money."

And that's an extra effort, the Heiselmans said because Rodney has been out of work in construction for a year. "We'll spend what we have left," he said and smiled.

Today's rally may draw 10,000 to 15,000 participants, including people from outside the state, said  organizer Daniel Smeriglio, head of the Pennsylvania-based Voice of the People USA, which opposes illegal
immigration.

But the day's heat could keep some people at home. The high today is expected to be 107 degrees. At about 3 p.m., it was 105. Phoenix Fire officials said they had responded to at least one heat-related call at the plaza, so far.

He said the rally will call for enforcement of immigration laws and support for Arizona businesses, as well as attempt to get the attention of politicians.

About 500 or so people who were there by 3 p.m. represented several states, including Texas, Kentucky, Ohio and Utah.

Smeriglio said the rally will call for enforcement of immigration laws and support for Arizona businesses, as well as attempt to get the attention of politicians.

"The elected officials work for us," he said. "We have to make them hear our voices. These mass demonstrations are a way to do so."

Arizona's immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when
reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Republic reporter Glen Creno contributed to this article.
.

Gov. Brewer to Sen Schumer, June 3, 2010 -

.
Brewer to Senator Schumer: Secure the Border First

While in Washington this week, Governor Jan Brewer responded to Senator Charles Schumer’s letter calling for a delay in implementation of Arizona’s new immigration law. Brewer rejected the lip-service paid to “comprehensive immigration reform” and reiterated her demand to secure the border.

Washington lacks credibility on immigration issues and the only way to build credibility is for the government to do something immediately to address border security and restore interior enforcement. To that point, Governor Brewer proposed a four point federal Border “Surge” strategy.

Governor Brewer responds to Senator Schumer's letter
June 3, 2010

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Chairman
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Correspondence on Border Security

Dear Senator Schumer:

I appreciate your interest in helping us secure our border and recognizing my duty as Governor to address the public security concerns of Arizonans.

Arizona's border regions, extending into metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson, have become increasingly lawless because the federal government has not effectively controlled our international border and enforced its immigration laws. The federal government's policy of securing the border in the El Paso and San Diego areas has turned Arizona into the superhighway of illegal drug and human smuggling activity. The City of Phoenix has earned the dubious distinction of being the kidnapping capital of the United States, ranking only second behind Mexico City in the world. Busts of drop houses, where illegal immigrants are often held for ransom and otherwise severely abused, are not uncommon occurrences in some Arizona neighborhoods.

Given these circumstances, I am sure you can understand that waiting a year or more based on another federal promise of getting serious this time is not an option for Arizona. As has been said here, calling for comprehensive immigration reform before securing the border is like asking for comprehensive energy policy reform before stopping the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

Here is my diagnosis of the problem and the way forward. Congress and successive Administrations (both Republican and Democrat) have lost all credibility with the American people, and Arizonans in particular, regarding border security and interior enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Unfortunately, I understand that the consensus in Washington D.C. is that nothing will be done legislatively on immigration this year and any promises of action for the rest of the year are part of some national political strategy. Neither side of the immigration debate will be fooled by that strategy. This non-action will only build the sense of alienation that Americans feel toward a federal government that won’t solve problems that affect their everyday lives. It will be more of the same “promise something, do nothing, blame someone” political spin from Washington.

How do you build credibility on immigration issues? You need to show that the federal government can do something immediately to address border security and restore interior enforcement. We do not need new federal laws, but rather action by President Obama and sufficient funding from the Congress to secure the border and enforce our current laws.

The action taken must also be significant. To that end, I would propose that the federal government adopt a “surge” strategy. The Border Surge would continue until the border is secured as demonstrated by facts on the ground and integrity is restored to our interior immigration enforcement. Thereafter, the federal government would need to keep the resources necessary on the ground to maintain a secure border and enforce its immigration laws.

What would the federal Border Surge consist of? A good place to start would be the Border Security Plan that I announced in April and the multiple requests I have sent to President Obama and his administration regarding specific, immediate actions that should be taken. I have attached those for your review.

In addition, I ask you to give another look at the ten-point border security proposal by Senators McCain and Kyl. It is based, in part, on the border security plan of the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association developed in reaction to their everyday experiences of living and working on the border and in tribute to their fellow member, the late Robert Krentz, who was killed on his ranch earlier this year.

In summary, I would highlight the following four categories of actions that would prove very helpful to the State of Arizona in the proposed Border Surge:

1. Send the National Guard troops back to the border and increase the number of Border Patrol agents. The bi-partisan group of border governors requested the redeployment of the National Guard over a year ago. Then-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano believed the National Guard was very helpful on the border under Operation Jump Start and unsuccessfully fought the Bush Administration when they were removed. Border governors renewed their joint request in April of this year. A particular need that has been identified is for more aerial support. My border security plan announced last month has redeployed Arizona’s very limited aerial resources to the border regions, and I have asked for additional support. I am happy to hear the President recently recognize that our border challenges require a National Guard response. However, I am not satisfied with the lack of specifics in his proposal. I hope to hear more when I meet with him today.

2. Complete a real border fence. The President's proposed budget provides no funds for completion of the border fence. Arizona's problem was caused in large part by the federal strategy of building a border fence only in the El Paso and San Diego areas in the 1990s. The construction and continual repair of a secure, and complete, border fence has to be part of the solution. The State of Arizona stands ready to assist in this effort. We have state prisons near the border and will supply inmate labor to build these fences in a cost-effective manner.

3. Fund federal agencies to be able to enforce current immigration laws. The McCain-Kyl Plan has a whole series of proposals to increase resources to under-manned and under-coordinated federal agencies. These proposals include funding additional Border Patrol stations in the Tucson Sector, increasing aerial assets along the border, and improving real-time radio/electronic communications capability among the different federal agencies and with state and local law enforcement agencies. Congress should also ensure adequate funding is appropriated to meet detention, processing, prosecution and other costs that result from a legitimate commitment to securing the border and enforcing federal immigration laws.

4. Reimburse Border States for costs related to the federal government’s failure to secure the border. For example, Congress has failed to reimburse the States and localities for their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens under the existing State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The State of Arizona and localities spend upwards of $150 million per year for criminal aliens in our prisons and jails. Another example is the burden on our county sheriffs dealing with all this drug and human smuggling activity. The federal government should fully fund the existing Operation Stonegarden, a program that provides funding to border law enforcement agencies. Senators McCain and Kyl have proposed increasing federal funding by $40 million for a total of $100 million.

As you know, problems do not wait for when it is politically convenient to address them. When I assumed office over a year ago, Arizona faced the worst budget deficit in the nation on a per capita basis. I proposed, and the Arizona Legislature passed, a budget that made many painful cuts. The State of Arizona has reduced its workforce by over 10 percent and cut over $2 billion out of roughly a $10 billion budget. State employees, including myself, are taking a 5% pay cut to balance the state budget. And on May 18, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved increasing the state sales tax by 1% for three years to support education, public safety and heath needs.

Arizonans, and I believe all Americans, expect their leaders to make the tough calls whether on the budget or on securing our border. If the federal government won’t secure the border, the State of Arizona will step in to complement federal efforts in a constitutional manner and protect the security of its citizens.

I believe the Border Surge strategy is the only way forward. Everyone agrees that our border is broken. Let’s do something. I sincerely desire to work with the Arizona delegation, you and your colleagues in Congress and the Obama administration on this strategy.

Sincerely,

Janice K. Brewer
Governor

Enclosures

cc: Arizona Congressional Delegation
.

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
,

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/
.

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

Obama Blames Congress for Borders, but sat on it like Bush/Clinton

.
Obama, in yet another speech last Friday, failed to apologize for not having been any better than his predecessors in taking action to protect the border, and blamed Congress - who he had forced into a year long pre-occupation with health care - for failing to enact 'comprehensive reform.' He then made another 'promise' that if Congress continues to waste its time (pandering to his agenda) "We will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

In Fact, it was Obama himself that said on April 28, 2010, that he didn't want to force an immigration bill through Congress at this time. "We've gone though a very tough year and I've been working Congress very hard, so I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue," the president told reporters, although that sentiment hadn't stopped him from pushing additional stimulus packages and sneaky legislation concerning student loans ...and even Puerto Rican statehood.
He ended his blame of Congress by insulting the people of Arizona yet again, saying that the absence of a federal resolution opens the door to irresponsibility by "others," ie "the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

TODAY - in continued oblivion toward the thoughts, feelings and needs of his countrymen, President Obama stood with Mexican President Felipe Calderon to chastise Arizona for its new immigration law, insinuating that the Arizona police Force is racist, mean-spirited, ...and not very bright.

Obama said the immigration law - which is simply an enforcement of Federal law and makes it a State crime to be in the U.S. illegally - is a "misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system." He failed again to mention why his White House has made no effort to address and fix the system.

However, he DID say,

"We're examining any implications especially for civil rights because in the United States of America, no law abiding person -- be they an American citizen, illegal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico -- should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like."

So I guess you could say he's doing something, although there is nothing in the law that says it has anything to do with what a person looks like.

You see, believe it or not, (bearing in mind there are always going to be loose cannons in any group) the Arizona police force is professional. Most have lived in Arizona for a long time, lived with Latino neighbors all their lives, and some - hold on to your chairs - are even Latino themselves. Further, they, like everyone else, knows that an act of terrorism can come at the hand of anyone - any size, shape, gender or color. They have been trained to watch everyone. White people rob convenience stores, too. They aren't looking for illegals. They are looking for crime, and when they find it, they are supposed to check the person's ID. This is something they do at every traffic stop with every person already. Plain and simple. They all know that there are harsh ramifications if they mess with people without cause. They all know the whole world is watching. Does our President think they are idiots?

...Well, we already know he didn't think too highly of the Cambridge police force.

Calderon, claiming that the Arizona law forces "our people to face discrimination," doesn't seem to think very highly of the Arizona police force, either. He asked that the two countries work together to design an immigration policy that is more to his liking. I'm sure Obama will accommodate him.

Calderon waxed poetic, saying;

"We can do so if we create a safer border -- a border that will unite us instead of dividing us....We can do so with a community that will promote a dignified life in an orderly way for both our countries, who are some of them still living here in the shadows...If we are divided we cannot overcome these problems. We can only do this if we actually face our mutual problems."

Calderon also waxed Self-Righteous, saying,

"My government cannot and will not remain indifferent when these kinds of policies go against human rights."

Who is he kidding? Did Obama think to ask the President of Mexico if he planned on doing the same thing with HIS southern border? I wonder how the people of Panama and Guatemala feel about all this?

Right - this from Mexico. Up until 2008, illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico. Anyone arrested in violation of Immigration law could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Which country has the record for going against Human Rights, Mr. President? Officials in Mexico have been known to take bribes to keep suspects out of jail.

The law against illegal immigration in Mexico today is a civil violation, but just like Arizona, Police are "required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

The law requires the same - but the behavior of Law Enforcement is not the same. Mexico has been cited repeatedly by human rights groups for abusing or ignoring the abuse of migrants from Central America. Just a few weeks ago, Amnesty International issued a report stating illegal immigrants in Mexico are abused, raped and kidnapped. Mexican police don't do much to stop it. Is this why President Calderón thinks Arizona police are crooked? That may be his excuse, but what is our President Obama's? And why are Americans supposed to stomach hypocrisy from President Calderón?

Well, why has Obama expected us to swallow any of the hypocrisy that he's dished out?

"Illegal immigration is down, not up," Obama asserted, "And we will continue to do whatever is necessary to secure our shared border...Today I want every American to know my administration has devoted unprecedented resources in personnel and technology to securing our border."

When did he do that? Yesterday?

By the way, the U.S. has given Mexico about $1.3 billion to fight the drug war. This includes special equipment meant to help capture drug runners as well as protect Mexican police and judges. According to Washington Post Reporter, William Booth, the equipment included "Black Hawk helicopters, night-vision goggles and armored cars and trains." Obama wants to give Mexico 310 million more in 2011.

On a more impressive note; Congressman Lamar Smith (TX-R) sent a letter to Secretary Hillary Clinton Wednesday urging her to ask Mexican officials not to interfere in U.S. immigration policy. Smith said in his statement:

"President Calderon and other officials of the Mexican government have crossed the line," "It is well recognized in international law that immigration controls are an internal matter, and not subject to international scrutiny. Yet, President Calderon has opposed the recently enacted Arizona immigration law, which in fact mirrors federal law."

Writings by Conservative Tribal Members: The Independent Indian Press
.

Boycotting Agencies and Organizations

.
Various Agencies and Organizations have chosen to Boycott Arizona.  If you have a membership in or have been donating to one of these organizations, you might want to consider talking to them about it.

They have been alphabetized:

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity(410) 554.0040
admin@apa1906.net

American Educational Research Association(202) 238-3200
flevine@aera.net 

American Immigration Lawyers Association
Crystal L. Williams, Esq., Executive Director
(202) 507-7600
executive@aila.org

Asian American Justice Center
(202) 296-2300
knarasaki@advancingequality.org

Center for Community Change(202) 339-9300
DBhargava@communitychange.org

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Wade Henderson, President and CEO
1629 K Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
(202) 466-3311

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Rosa Rosales LULAC National President
000 L Street NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036
Phone:(202) 833-6130
TF: (877) LULAC-01
Fax: (202) 833-6135

Major League Baseball Players AssociationMichael Weiner, Executive Director
(212) 826-0808
feedback@mlbpa.org

The National Council of La Raza(202) 785-1670
comments@nclr.org

National Urban LeagueMarc H. Morial, President and CEO
(212) 558-5300
Contact Us

National Puerto Rican Coalition (NPRC)

Miguel D. Lausell - Chair
1100 G. Street, NW, Suite 805
Washington, DC 20005
ph: 202-223-3915
fax: 202-429-2223
nprc@nprcinc.org

Sociologists Without Borders(919) 962-5603
jrblau@email.unc.edu

L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

.
Judson Berger - FOXNews.com
- May 19, 2010

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.

Spokesman David Beltran told Fox News that the message didn't even warrant a response.

"We're not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights," Beltran said.

That was after Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Villaraigosa slamming his City Council's decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.

"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

Pierce told FoxNews.com that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona -- a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he's "supportive" of the state's efforts to control the border.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.

Fox News' Ron Ralston contributed to this report.
.

Salvadoran children rescued from Phoenix smuggling ring

.
From the Website Secure The Border.org
May 16, 2010

The Arizona Republic, by Allison Hurtado
May 11, 2010

Federal agents rescued three children Tuesday morning from suspected human smugglers in Phoenix after their parents apparently had paid to have the children smuggled in the United States, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The parents of the children, who were from Salvador but were living in Washington, D.C., paid $13,000 to have their children smuggled into the United States last month, according to a statement by ICE.

After the children arrived in Phoenix in April, the smugglers refused to release them unless their parents paid an additional $6,500. Once the parents paid the extra $6,500, they were asked to produce another $7,000.

The parents became worried and contacted authorities on Monday.

By Tuesday morning, ICE investigators had found the children's location. The smugglers apparently dropped off the children at a local business in west Phoenix, and authorities picked them up.

The three children, ages 11 to 15, were scared but otherwise unharmed and appeared to be in good health, the statement said. Federal authorities didn't release any more details about why the children were dropped off at the business.

ICE was coordinating with its Office of Investigations and the Salvadoran Embassy in Washington, D.C., to reunite the children with their parents.

The investigation into those smugglers was continuing, but as agents searched for the children Monday night, they were led to a drophouse in Phoenix, said Vincent Picard, spokesman for ICE.

Sixteen immigrants were found inside the house on 71st Avenue. The immigrants came from many different countries and were all turned over to ICE.
.
http://www.securetheborder.org/article/salvadoran-children-rescued-from-phoenix-smuggling-ring

Mexican President's hypocrisy re Arizona Immigration Law

.
Well, we all knew what he thought of it.  After all, a lot of money from undocumented workers flows south into the Mexican economy.

In April, after Arizona's new immigration law passed, Mexico's foreign relations department issued a travel advisory telling Mexicans living or shopping in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."

I would hope so!  What kind of advisory is that?  - "People, obey the laws." 
Well ...on further thought, I suppose we should just be grateful that someone in authority said it.

The 'advisory' went on, "It should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment."

Well, that was just an outright lie.  The law very clearly states that this isn't to happen and outlines specific disciplines if it should.  Almost every Arizona Latino, at this point, knows that - and knows what his/her rights to complain are, and knows what is supposed to happen if they are mistreated.  Of this I am sure, despite continued rhetoric and angry, hate-filled protests. 

Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico, also made a huge point of condemning the law prior to his Wednesday, May 19th, visit to the White House to discuss the War on Drugs. Calderón told Reuters he would 'personally' protest the law to Obama and Congress.  He was reported to have even rewritten his drug speech to Congress to include his protest.  

(What would the changes have been? "My, my, drug traffickers are bad... but how dare you racists try to arrest them?")   Apparently, we're supposed to fight drug crime without hurting any one's feelings.

In his interview with Reuters, he said,

"[the law] contains elements that are frankly discriminatory, terribly backward. The fact the law has introduced, regardless of all the nuances being used, the possibility of detaining, arresting somebody on the grounds of their physical appearance implies one of the most serious reversals that I remember."

Right, right. We should do things much more fairly - like they do in Mexico, where who ever is able to pay the policeman more goes free. (And that's not about race. While I am sure that there are honest cops south of us, there is a known culture of pay offs. It's just the way things are handled. I've waited in a car in Mexico, on more than one occasion, while the person escorting us 'handled' border guards and once 'handled' the police.) (The police were about a traffic accident. I wasn't driving, a Mexican friend was. And I didn't make  the decisions to handle anyone - our Mexican escorts did.  I wasn't even aware at first that this is what was happening.)

On the other hand, while people can be paid off in any institution, I have had less reason to fear the north side of the border. Further, I think the US border patrol and Arizona state police are experienced enough to know that while most people crossing the border illegally have darker skin, not all do.  It's their job to be aware of that and watch the behavior of ALL colors of people - especially with terrorists trying to come in to hurt Americans.  Do the critics think our men in blue are not only racists and red-necks, but idiots, too?  It's pretty insulting to assume that all Arizona police and border guards are crooked, racist, thugs. Again, from my own experiences on both sides of the border, I'll take the team on the north side anytime. And by the way, many of the Arizona police and border patrol ARE Latino.

Today, Calderon's visit to DC was supposed to be about the war on drugs, but he and Obama made sure that the 'War on Arizona' was included. Thanks President Obama, for sticking up for your own people.

Calderon self-righteously said in his speech, "My government cannot and will not remain indifferent when these kinds of policies go against human rights." He added that the law discriminated against Mexicans and called for an immigration policy that did not force people to live in the shadows "with such laws as the Arizona law, which is forcing our people to face discrimination."

Right - this from Mexico, the country that greets 'immigrants' on it's own southern border with gracious hospitality. Up until 2008, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense. Anyone arrested in violation of Immigration law two years ago in Mexico could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Going against Human Rights, Mr. President?  Officials were known to seek bribes to keep suspects out of jail.

Today illegal immigration in Mexico is a civil violation, but their law is no different than Arizona's!  It says that police are "required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."


The law is the same - but the behavior of Law Enforcement is not the same. Mexico has been cited repeatedly by human rights groups for abusing or ignoring the abuse of migrants from Central America. Just a few weeks ago, Amnesty International issued a report stating illegal immigrants in Mexico are frequently abused, raped and kidnapped. Mexican police do little to stop it.  Is this why President Calderón thinks Arizona police are crooked?  That may be his excuse, but why is our President Obama expecting Arizona police to be corrupt, and why are Americans supposed to stomach hypocrisy from President Calderón?

Activist Al Sharpton, who purports to be reverend and represent civil rights - but misses them both by a wide margin - has also chimed in with a threat to organize big protests if a lawsuit fails. Not at all concerned about the treatment of illegal immigrants in Mexico, he said,

"We're going to bring people into the state of Arizona and refuse to show our IDs and openly walk the streets with people that appear Mexican."

Bravo, good and righteous soul, who has a comfortable home out east - far from the border. Go out of your way to make the situation harder on everyone.  And again, never mind the human rights of those that have family homes near the border, let alone the lives of Mexican citizens living in Mexico or the people from Central America.

By the way,  the U.S. has given Mexico about $1.3 billion to fight the drug war.  This includes several pieces of special equipment meant to help root out drug runners as well as protect Mexican police and judges. According to Washington Post Reporter, William Booth, this includes "Black Hawk helicopters, night-vision goggles and armored cars and trains." Obama wants to give them 310 million more in 2011.  We sure are nasty toward people that appear Mexican.

Enough of attacking Arizona, President Calderón.  YOU have a personal responsibility to keep the borders secure and Mexicans safe.  This isn't about just Arizona.  Juarez has become a war zone, over run with violence, and El Paso is feeling the violence on their side now.  Recently, friends of ours were forced to leave their home in Juarez and move to El Paso (legally) because their children had been threatened. Her father is a Mexican businessman.  Still, they don't feel entirely safe because cartel members are known to find their way across the bridge, so they are keeping their address private.

Kidnappings happen all the time! People need those armored vehicles we send south just to protect their children. Heads are being cut off!! And yet President Calderon thinks the Arizona law is DRASTIC? Calderon has taken some steps to fight drug cartels and that is admirable - but has he failed? Maybe he needs to do something much more drastic than Arizona's traffic stop law.

Obama, in yet another speech last Friday, failed to apologize for not having been any better than his predecessors in taking action to protect the border, and blamed Congress, (who he had forced into a year long pre-occupation with health care) for failing to enact 'comprehensive reform.'  He then made another 'promise' that if Congress continues to waste its time pandering to his agenda, "We will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

He ended his blame of Congress by insulting the people of Arizona yet again, saying that the absence of a federal resolution opens the door to irresponsibility by others," citing "the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

By the way, Calderón has also been scheduled to attend a lavish state dinner at the White House - unlike the Israeli Prime Minister, whose country is not smuggling drugs and crime into ours, and who, to the best of my knowledge, has never condemned one of our states - essentially calling Arizona's police force and legislature racist. Calderon was also given the blessed opportunity to address both houses of Congress.

There seems to be a theme here; Neither Israel or Arizona have permission to do what is necessary to defend their citizens against attack.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100517/wl_ynews/ynews_wl2102
.

Napolitano admits, just like Holder, She hasn't Read New Arizona Law, but Condemns it Anyway

.
On Monday, May 18, a Senate Committee hearing was held in Washington DC concerning the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, Sen. John McCain, (AZ-R) was present and took the opportunity to stray from the subject and ask Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, what she plans to do about border security.

In particular, McCain wanted to know the status of his past request that the Coast Guard be sent to help secure the Arizona / Mexico border.  Napolitano, a former Arizona Governor, was aware McCain had made this request.

"I want to know about whether you're going to send the Guard to the border or not," McCain asked

Napolitano answered that the question was still being considered by her department, Homeland Security, as well as the Defense Department and the White House.  She said she hoped a decision would be made "as soon as possible, but I cannot give you a date certain."

McCain responded;

"Well, meanwhile, people's homes are being violated, and their families can't take kids to the bus stop ...So I don't know what it takes for us to get a decision on it. At least the people in my state have the right to know whether ...they're going to be sent or not."

McCain also asked Napolitano, who has criticized Arizona's controversial new immigration law on television, if she'd had a chance to review the law.
"I have not reviewed it in detail," Napolitano answered, "I certainly know of it, senator."

He then asked if that meant she was not prepared to make a judgment on it.

Napolitano answered; 

"Let me just say this: As you know, and are well aware, that's not the kind of law I would have signed...I believe that it's a bad law-enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in. When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement organizations in Arizona, at that time, were opposed to such legislation."

McCain responded that he'd "be pleased maybe in writing to hear what specific aspect of the law would impede or harm law enforcement, since the majority of law enforcement in Arizona strongly supports this legislation."  He went on;

"And, unfortunately, ... the president of the United States portrayed it as a -- that someone can't even go out for ice cream without being harassed, which is one of the more outrageous statements I've ever heard, and now our own attorney general has, after condemning the law, said that he hadn't even read it....This is an important issue not just in Arizona, but around this country."

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has warned that the law can lead to racial profiling, had told the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday that he'd "glanced" at Arizona's new law, SB 1070, but hadn't actually read it.  This admission drew criticism from many conservatives, including Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's campaign. Holder said he plans to read it before determining whether it's constitutional. (Well, we sure hope so!)

On Tuesday, May 18, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he hadn't read the bill either, even though he had defended a diplomat for comparing it to Chinese human rights violations.

President Barack Obama has also drawn lots of criticism for making jokes about Arizona and the law.  More than likely, he hasn't read it either.  But not wanting to lose potential Latino votes, Obama has requested that the Justice Department and Homeland Security examine SB 1070 for any civil-rights violations.





See Video of Napolitano Statement

.