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

.
Tell L.A. That You Support Arizona

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

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

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

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

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

(213) 978-0721

mayor@lacity.org

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

Leave Arizona Alone; by a Mexican-American

.
By Jim Price at American Thinker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Mayor Villaraigosa; Who are the Racists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lisa blogs at the Independent Indian Press
,

Look What Latin Dictators are Saying:

.

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

Published May 26, 2010
| FOXNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They chose with their feet," he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

CATO Legal Analysis of SB 1070!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama and Congress, pass comprehensive immigration reform now!

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

Update on the Arizona Immigration Issue
Posted by Ilya Shapiro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DOJ Lawyers Draft Challenge to AZ Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holder echoed that sentiment when he was on Capitol Hill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment for this article.


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

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

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

Obama sending Troops to sit at desks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But will his "surge" do any good?

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

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

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

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

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

But the CATO Institute had no trouble summing it up;

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

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

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

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

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

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

AZ border militia to offer armed patrols in Cochise County

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

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

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

Rather, they would volunteer their efforts to local landowners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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