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.

.

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/
.

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

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

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

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


DOJ Lawyers Draft Challenge to AZ Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holder echoed that sentiment when he was on Capitol Hill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment for this article.


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

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

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

Obama 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
.

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
.