(05.23.10): OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD: SB1070/AZ Immigration Law/Undocumented Immigrants

[Laura Cereta]

Okay, we have a lot of articles concerning the AZ law and the immigration situation in general. From now on, please post additional articles on these subjects in this thread. Thanks.

[Valin]

Arizona Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

[foxyladi]

good idea keep it all in one place:thumbsup:

[Spang]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/lk0521d-500.jpg

[Jim744]

Editorial: Editorial: No place for ‘Reconquista’
Comments Apr 20, 2006 5:00 AM (1494 days ago) by The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper


It received little coverage in the mainstream news dailies, but many bloggers highlighted the significant influence of “Reconquista” advocates and concepts in the recent pro-immigration marches across the country. Reconquista aims must be honestly confronted by all sides if the immigration debate is to be honestly conducted and credibly resolved.

The first thing to understand about Reconquista is that while it is perhaps not the official policy of Mexico, it might as well be. Current and former top Mexican government officials and advisers, for example, along with leaders of U.S. groups like the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, routinely co-host seminars of the Foundation for Solidarity of Mexico and America, according to Hector Carreon of the Aztlan Communications Network. The basic aim of FSMA, which is a key convergence point of open-borders advocacy in both countries, is uninterrupted immigration from Mexico to the U.S.

“Aztlan” is the ancient Aztec word for the lands of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, which more radical Hispanic activists have long claimed were stolen by “gringos” from Europe and that are now to be retaken via massive immigration that eventually produces Hispanic majorities at all levels of governance. But whether expressed more moderately by groups such as FSMA or more radically by explicitly separatist voices like MEChA, Aztlan is the animating spirit of the Reconquista movement. That spirit is reflected in remarks like this by a former California state secretary of health, education and welfare: “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.”
Behind such calls looms the dismal Mexican economy, which, as author and historian Victor Davis Hanson notes in the latest Claremont Review of Books, desperately needs the flow of workers to the U.S. because they send an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion back home annually. Plus, there are the immense costs shifted from Mexico to our education, health care and law enforcement systems that must serve the needs of the waves of immigrants, legal and illegal. Those of us living north of the border are thus subsidizing corruption south of the border that enables Mexican politicians and their wealthy friends and family members to live the good life without being held accountable for the millions of Mexicans who suffer grinding poverty and hopelessness

[Jim744]

Corruption is part of the Mexican culture and one of the big reasons illegals come here and behave the same way (their being illegal in the first place is one example). They do almost anything they need to to get by. Accept low wages and when they find that is barely enough to live on, they often begin to lie, steal and take bribes to keep silent about various things.

There is nothing the US can do to change the culture in Mexico, especially when Obama stands there agreeing with Calderon.

So the only way to prevent our country from suffering all the impact of illegal immigration is to enforce the laws and make them go back (the newly entering illegals). We can't solve many of our own problems much less theirs. It's a sad truth and reality on both sides of the border.

Corrupt Mexico cause of migrant problem

Feb. 11, 2005 12:00 AM

An annoying ploy used by Proposition 200 opponents is to condemn it as hurting poor people who come here illegally because they can't find jobs in their own country.

Their ludicrous assertion is that these illegal immigrants, who are overwhelmingly from Mexico, have the right to come here because the U.S. is a rich country and Mexico is economically poor.

Mexico is a Resource Rich Country

This specious argument falls flat because Mexico is a resource-rich country. Mexico is an oil exporter and has so much natural gas that it wastes this resource by flaring (burning) it off at the wellheads. Mexico has copper, tin, precious metals, vast agricultural areas, timber, a large landmass and enormous ocean resources.


It has been a nation for about as long as the U.S., yet remains an economic basket case. How then can anyone dare conceive that Mexico has the right to export its economic failings to this country?

Contrast Mexico's plight to Japan, a small, densely populated, island nation that is virtually bereft of natural resources. The only usable natural resource the Japanese ever had was a modest amount of coal. Even Japan's trees are soft wood, good only for making cheap matches. The Japanese have to import every drop of oil and any other natural resource they need. Despite these facts, Japan is an economic powerhouse.

The Japanese are successful because what they do have is a solid regard for the rule of law, a strong culture of education, the economic realities of childbearing, and a sense of free enterprise.

The point here is that Mexico has no reasonable excuse for its people being poverty stricken.

If illegal immigration advocates were really concerned about the Mexican people, they would accept this fact, admit why Mexico is mired in poverty, and interact with the Mexican government and Mexican society for internal change.

These advocates would concede that Mexico is poor because it is socialist and paternalistic; has a dismal regard for the rule of law; has rampant corruption; has a weak culture of education; and has a culture that promotes large families without regard for economic realities.

After conceding the above facts, illegal immigration advocates would quickly see that the only solution to Mexico's misery is for the ruling oligarchy to share the country's resources with its citizens. They would insist on things like quality compulsory education through Grade 12, family planning, and free enterprise.

Enabling the oligarchs to export their leadership failures to the U.S. via illegal immigration hurts both countries. Mexican illegal immigrants get stuck in dead-end jobs while depressing entry-level wages for American citizens.

As a result, American taxpayers get mugged by soaring public assistance costs. While all this is going on, the oligarchs, comprising about 2 percent of Mexico's population, are padding their bank accounts and ripping off their citizens.

Prop. 200 opponents aren't benefiting anyone by providing a venue for Mexico's leaders to abuse the Mexican people and American taxpayers.

http://www.azcentral.com/gilbert/columns/articles/0211gr-pinkney11.html

[Spang]

Corruption is part of the Mexican culture...

Yay! More xenophobia!

[Suzan]

Corruption is part of the Mexican culture and one of the big reasons illegals come here and behave the same way (their being illegal in the first place is one example). They do almost anything they need to to get by. Accept low wages and when they find that is barely enough to live on, they often begin to lie, steal and take bribes to keep silent about various things.

There is nothing the US can do to change the culture in Mexico, especially when Obama stands there agreeing with Calderon.

So the only way to prevent our country from suffering all the impact of illegal immigration is to enforce the laws and make them go back. We can't solve many of our own problems much less theirs. It's a sad truth and reality on both sides of the border.

http://www.azcentral.com/gilbert/columns/articles/0211gr-pinkney11.html

Make them ALL go back? Deport all 12 to 20 million of them? What about the children born here who are now legal? Do we deport them too? What about those who are ill or dying? Them, too? Everyone, regardless of the urgency of their circumstances, just load them into vans like cattle and ship them all back?

What about the impact on our small businesses that are reliant on that labor force? Shut them down?

I don't even know why I'm having this conversation. I give up.

[Jim744]

Make them ALL go back? Deport all 12 to 20 million of them? What about the children born here who are now legal? Do we deport them too? What about those who are ill or dying? Them, too? Everyone, regardless of the urgency of their circumstances, just load them into vans like cattle and ship them all back?

What about the impact on our small businesses that are reliant on that labor force? Shut them down?

I don't even know why I'm having this conversation. I give up.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to newly entering illegal aliens.

I posted a while back (and I know everyone misses a lot of posts) where I said I agreed with Charles' Karuthammer's suggestions for amnesty for those already here. Please stop assuming what I'm saying is completely draconian!

YouTube- Charles Krauthammer on illegal imigration

[Jim744]

Yay! More xenophobia!

I'm sure you don't even read any of the articles that say this and even if you did, you would still spout the same name calling stuff! I know it's how you get your "jollies" which must be severly lacking in your real life, whatever that is. (:|

[Spang]

Poll: Immigration Hatin' Hurts GOP Chances

Right-wing retrogressives in the American West have been so preoccupied with illegal brown people, that they forgot to worry about the legal ones. So says a new analysis by Public Policy Polling, anyway: Since the passage of Arizona's draconian "Papers, Please" law, likely voters in Arizona and Colorado have shifted their support to the Democratic candidates in a "very substantive way," bucking the alleged national mood of Obama-hatin'. That shift is largely due to energized (and probably angry) Latino voters. According to Tom Jensen, PPP's director:

When we polled Colorado in early March Michael Bennet and Jane Norton were tied. Last week we found Bennet with a 3 point lead. One of the biggest reasons for that shift? Bennet went from leading Norton by 12 points with Hispanic voters to a 21 point advantage. That large shift in a Democratic direction among Hispanics mirrors what we saw in our Arizona Senate polling last month- Rodney Glassman went from trailing John McCain by 17 points with them in September to now holding a 17 point lead.

Hispanics in the Mountain West are leaning much more strongly toward the Democrats since the Arizona law was passed. The big question then becomes whether there are white voters who are going to go Republican this fall who wouldn't have if that bill hadn't been passed. We don't see any evidence of that happening yet- Bennet and Glassman are both doing better with white voters than they were before as well, although not to the same degree that they've improved with Hispanics.

I called up Jensen to shed some more light on these developments. He said that yes, indeed, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet is leading in Colorado, and in Arizona, challenger Rodney Glassman (who's still a longshot), who once trailed John McCain by 30 points, has cut that margin in half. (McCain's popularity, the poll says, has "plummeted" in Arizona.) Has Jensen ever seen anything like this? At this stage in an election cycle, he says, "Most movement in races don't have that much to do with the candidates, they have to do with a change in the national political climate." What's weird, though, is that "there hasn't been a movement in that political climate towards Democrats. They're not doing better; they've largely stayed where they are."

The takeaway, according to Jensen: At least in these races—and perhaps later on in Nevada and New Mexico—"If the immigration bill is having any effect, it's to shift Latino voters in large numbers to the Democratic candidates"—but there's no concurrent migration of more white voters to other side.

In short, nativists and neo-Know-Nothing candidates may succeed in squeezing past fellow retrogressives in primary races, but come November, they may taste the pain, courtesy of the minority voters threatened by their policies. That is, of course, unless the right succeeds in rounding up or scaring off all those voters before election day.

The Source (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/poll-immigration-hatin-hurts-gop-chances-arizona-illegal-alien-law-election)

[Spang]

Arizona Governor Creates An Ad With A Singing Puppet To Distract From The Real Problems With SB-1070

This weekend, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) released a campaign video featuring a singing frog puppet encouraging opponents to read the state’s recently passed immigration law, SB-1070, before forming an opinion about it. The sing-a-long mocks Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano for criticizing SB-1070 without having had a chance to review the whole bill.

Despite the fact that Napolitano and Holder were likely briefed by someone who had read SB-1070 in detail, they probably should’ve read it themselves. However, Wonk Room has read it well enough to know that Brewer’s ad distracts from the fact that a lot of their criticisms of the law are justified.

In past interviews, Napolitano has rightly pointed out that she had vetoed laws nearly identical to SB-1070 when she was governor of Arizona. So, at the very least, she has some basic knowledge about the core provisions contained in SB-1070. Napolitano has also stated that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency fears it will have to use its stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona’s new law. “We have some deep concerns with the law…it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to concentrate on those in the country illegally, those who have committed the most serious crimes,” Napolitano said. Unless Arizona police plan on personally transporting immigrants back across the border without ever contacting ICE to definitively verify that the suspects are illegally present in the U.S., Napolitano doesn’t need to read the law to know that the state will need the federal government’s help in implementing it. The Center for American Progress estimates that it costs $23,148 for each person to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and finally transported out of the country. Given the high cost of deportation, ICE has a policy of focusing its resources on going after the “worst of the worst.” Yet, SB-1070 does not discriminate between an undocumented gardener and a dangerous drug cartel operative. In practical terms, helping Arizona enforce its new immigration law is beyond the scope of ICE’s limited budget and runs counter to its priorities.

Holder has called SB-1070 “unfortunate” in that it might give rise to potential “abuse” by law enforcement officials. If Holder had read the law, he could’ve pointed to Section 2 of the law which “impermissibly vests” in police officers “unbridled discretion” in establishing “reasonable suspicion” that someone is undocumented. The amended law prohibits racial profiling, but it doesn’t outline the criteria that should be used to establish “reasonable suspicion” that someone is unlawfully present in the U.S. In the words of the president of the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association, David Leopold, “‘reasonable suspicion’ under S.B. 1070 is based on a subjective notion of a person’s status” — which leaves a lot of room for both abuse and error. Also, as part of the amended bill, a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would be required to determine the immigration status if reasonable suspicion is established. One of the bill’s architects, lawyer Kris Kobach, said himself that it essentially means police can use violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion.

Brewer’s video also doesn’t mention the fact that some of SB-1070’s biggest proponents hadn’t read the law before commenting on it either. Think Progress reported last week that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took the liberty to praise SB-1070 as a “good tool” for law enforcement, despite not having “had a chance to look at all the aspects.”

The Source (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/24/brewer-puppet-ad/)

[foxyladi]

don't nobody read any more:eek:

[Jim744]

don't nobody read any more:eek:

Well, at least the President, Attny. general and others who oppose the law apparently can't or don't read! If they did, they'd know that the AZ law is less harsh than the US law (not enforced) and the Mexican immigration law.

[Spang]

SB1070 Sit-In At John McCain's Office

AMY GOODMAN: While President Obama and Calderón were meeting in Washington, another drama was playing out in the state of Arizona. Three immigrant rights activists are facing possible deportation after they were arrested in a sit-in on Monday at the offices of Republican Senator John McCain. The students called on McCain to back the DREAM Act, which would grant permanent citizenship to undocumented workers’ children if they completed two years of college. The three are each undocumented immigrants, marking one of the first known instances activists have risked deportation to back immigration reform legislation.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The activists were held in ICE detention on Tuesday night but were released on Wednesday after a judge ruled they were not a flight risk. The three activists join us now in Phoenix.

Mohammad Abdollahi is a twenty-four-year-old Iranian-born immigrant rights activist. He’s a co-founder of dreamactivist.org, a resource web portal for undocumented students. He’s lived in Michigan since he was three years old.

Yahaira Carrillo is a student at Rockhurst University in Kansas. She was born in Mexico and is the founder of the Kansas Missouri Dream Alliance.

And Lizbeth Mateo is an organizer with DREAM Team Los Angeles. She came to this country at the age of fourteen from Mexico.

Welcome to all three of you. Lizbeth, could you tell us what happened subsequent to your arrest when you entered Senator McCain’s offices?

LIZBETH MATEO: So we staged a sit-in at Senator McCain’s office, and, you know, we were there for a few hours. We refused to leave. And after that, you know, we demanded to—actually, we demanded to get Senator McCain to co-sponsor the DREAM Act. After that, we were arrested and were taken to county jail, where we spent the night. And the next day, we had a hearing, and we were eventually turned over to ICE. We were in custody of ICE for a few hours, and then they determined that we could leave, under a promise to—you know, to appear in court and to, you know, basically just appear in court later, at a later date, when they set that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you tell us a little bit about your personal story and why you made this decision at this particular time to risk the possibility of deportation?

LIZBETH MATEO: Sure. Well, I came to this country when I was fourteen years old and, you know, went to high school. I went to college. I graduated a couple years ago. I’ve been working on the DREAM Act for about seven years now. And throughout that time, I’ve met a lot of young people who have lost a lot of hope, who are so desperate, and who have gone through so much depression and don’t know what to do. I’ve been organizing, like I say, for seven years, and I feel like that I’m, in a way, responsible to do something. You know, I’m twenty-five years old. I’m not so young anymore. And I work with a lot of really young people, high school students who, you know, in a way, look up to me and to other people in my situation who have made it through college. And so, I felt a big responsibility to do something, even if that was, you know, risking possible deportation.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammad, tell us your story, why you chose to sit in that day at McCain’s office earlier this week.

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: Certainly, certainly. My family immigrated here from Iran when I was three years old. I’ve been living here pretty much my whole life. I went to elementary school here, middle school, high school. I graduated from high school in 2003. And after graduating, I kind of came up to this roadblock, where I really wasn’t able to do much because of my legal status. And so, I started organizing on the DREAM Act and started working with students that were facing deportation and helping stop their deportations and organizing and getting resources to undocumented students around the country to make sure that, even if I wasn’t able to go to college, other students would have that opportunity, that we could help them with that.

And so, as we were getting down to the end of this year, we were realizing that the DREAM Act really has a very small chance of passing, in terms of time that we have left. And so we started realizing that, you know, we need to escalate as a movement, and we need to start taking bigger risks, so that we can make sure the DREAM Act has a chance of passing before the end of the school year. And so, that’s why we decided to do this action.

Senator McCain was a longtime supporter of the DREAM Act. He was a champion in 2007. And unfortunately, he felt the need to leave the Senate floor fifteen minutes before the vote in 2007. And so, we thought he was a good target here, here in Arizona, to kind of remind him that we respected him in 2007 as a champion, and out of that respect, we wanted to come back to his office and show him that, you know, we’re still here, we’re still undocumented, and we definitely need him to take a risk, just as we took a risk with our lives, and co-sponsor the DREAM Act.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammad, what would happen if you were deported? Where would you be deported to?

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: If I was deported, I’d be deported to Iran. And because I’m gay, that’s probably not the best place to go. And to be completely honest, I haven’t really thought about what would happen if I was to go back. At this point, like Lisbeth was saying, doing this action came out of a place where we actually owe a lot of responsibility to the undocumented youth that we work with. And as undocumented students that are a little bit more out there and a little bit more public and have a little bit stronger networks than a lot of the young people that we work with, it’s our responsibility to take bigger risks. And so, I would put my life any day in the hands of the people I’m sitting here with, the undocumented youth that I’m working with. And that’s what we did with this action, because we really need to push the DREAM Act forward.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Mohammad, what do you say to those Americans who may be sympathetic to your ability to make a successful college career for yourself, but who say that you’re still in the country illegally and that many others from around the world who are trying to come to the country go through the legal immigration process? What’s your response to them?

MOHAMMAD ABDOLLAHI: I would just remind them, just like myself and Lizbeth and Yahaira sitting here, we’ve pretty much grown up in this country, and so we consider this country our home. And so, whenever people say things like that, for us, it’s just—we’re about—we’re trying to improve our home, which is this country, and that’s why we’re trying to work for the passage of the DREAM Act, because we see a problem in our country, and we want to solve that. And so, that’s why we’re working towards the DREAM Act, because we want the same thing as those people. And so, hopefully we can work together to pass the DREAM Act.

AMY GOODMAN: Yahaira Carrillo, tell us your story. You’re a student. And tell us how you ended up sitting in at John McCain’s office.

YAHAIRA CARRILLO: Well, first of all, thank you for having us here today.

Yes, I am a student at Rockhurst University. I graduated high school in 2003 and have been working on my bachelor’s degree since then. Currently, that’s been seven years in the making. I expect to graduate, hopefully, next spring, which will make eight years since I’ve been working on my degree. I came to the US when I was seven. So, just like Mohammad states, this feels like my home.

And just like Lizbeth stated, we’ve been organizing for years around the DREAM Act. And this action is bigger than ourselves, is one thing that we like to remind ourselves of, and that it’s not about us as individuals. It really is about the thousands of students that we work with and the urgency that they feel and the desperation that they feel, and really the need to pass the DREAM Act, because we need to give young people hope, because their dreams are being truncated and their hopes are being dashed every single day, especially now that we’re in graduation season. It’s a bittersweet time for undocumented youth who are graduating high school and really don’t know what the next step is and where their lives are really going to go. And that’s why I decided to step up and to be there at Senator McCain’s office.

AMY GOODMAN: Where would you be deported to?

YAHAIRA CARRILLO: I would be deported to Mexico.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is your sense right now of what is going happen in all of your cases? Will you be deported? And what has Senator McCain had to say about this? This will be the first time in the country that young undocumented immigrants will be deported for protesting around immigration reform.

YAHAIRA CARRILLO: When we decided to take this step to really step up to the plate and be the leaders that young people look to us as, we knew that that was a risk. But like I said, this is beyond ourselves, and we were willing to take that risk for the young people that we work with. You know, it’s about the DREAM Act. We have to remember the message is not about our individual cases and whether we will or won’t be deported. But the passage of the DREAM Act would address that. The passage of the DREAM Act would stop our deportations and really allow us to move forward with our futures and the dreams that we have of bettering our communities and fully integrating as the Americans that we feel.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Yahaira, what’s been the reaction of your parents to your actions, and the rest of your community?

YAHAIRA CARRILLO: My community has really shown, and all of our communities have shown, an outpouring of love and support for us. They know how hard we have been working for the past years. They know that we’re dedicated, and they know why we’re doing this. And they are with us every step of the way. We definitely feel their love and their support, and we know that they’re doing everything they can to work with us for passage of the DREAM Act.

My mom, you know, it’s hard for her to see her little girl grow up and be taking these kinds of steps, but I know that she is proud of me and, you know, the leadership that I portray. And she knows why I’m doing this. It’s for the right reasons. It’s for bigger reasons than myself. I mean, I wanted to be a teacher. It’s really about those young people who, I hope, will continue to learn and to grow. And without the DREAM Act, they really don’t have that incentive to continue learning, to continue growing and fulfilling themselves as human beings. And that just doesn’t make sense to me.

AMY GOODMAN: Lizbeth, has John McCain weighed in? You all have said that he was for the DREAM Act, and now he is not supporting it. Has he spoken with you, or has his office spoken with any of you?

LIZBETH MATEO: No. No, he hasn’t. One of the things that we did get out of that, you know, sit-in was to eventually schedule a meeting with him when he’s in Arizona, which will be in a couple weeks. So hopefully we’ll be meeting with him in person.

He hasn’t said anything really about the DREAM Act. I know that—we know that he supports it. We know that it’s an election year, and so he has to play politics. But we’re really tired of politicians playing politics with our lives, because they’re not just—you know, they’re thousands of lives. And so, we’re hopeful that he will finally come out in support of the DREAM Act and that both Republicans and Democrats will stop blaming each other for their inaction. I think we need a leader. And we are definitely looking up to not just Senator McCain, but other senators, key leaders in the Senate, to step up to the plate and, you know, take the risk that—a similar risk that we took, you know, have the courage to take that risk, just like we did and just like thousands of students do every day, when they finally say, you know, "I’m going to put fear aside, and I’m going to be myself, and yes, I am undocumented."

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank—

LIZBETH MATEO: So we’re hopeful that that will happen.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us, Lizbeth Mateo, Yahaira Carrillo and Mohammad Abdollahi. Thank you for joining us from Phoenix. We hope to be able to talk to you again soon, and we hope that won’t mean that you’re no longer in this country. We will follow your case around whether you will be deported or not for protesting, for sitting in at Senator McCain’s office.

(No Nudity)

The Source (http://www.socialistwebzine.org/2010/05/sb1070-sit-in-at-john-mccains-office.html)

[Suzan]

When we polled Colorado in early March Michael Bennet and Jane Norton were tied. Last week we found Bennet with a 3 point lead. One of the biggest reasons for that shift? Bennet went from leading Norton by 12 points with Hispanic voters to a 21 point advantage. That large shift in a Democratic direction among Hispanics mirrors what we saw in our Arizona Senate polling last month- Rodney Glassman went from trailing John McCain by 17 points with them in September to now holding a 17 point lead.

Hispanics in the Mountain West are leaning much more strongly toward the Democrats since the Arizona law was passed. The big question then becomes whether there are white voters who are going to go Republican this fall who wouldn't have if that bill hadn't been passed. We don't see any evidence of that happening yet- Bennet and Glassman are both doing better with white voters than they were before as well, although not to the same degree that they've improved with Hispanics.

Wouldn't it be funny if Brewer and crew got voted out of office and were replaced by Mexicans? Talk about Karma.

[Spang]

Wouldn't it be funny if Brewer and crew got voted out of office and were replaced by Mexicans? Talk about Karma.

Si.

[Spang]

'Anchor Babies' Could Be Ariz.'s Next Target

PHOENIX -- E-mails to and from Ariz.state Sen. Russell Pearce reveal the immigration enforcement debate may not stop with SB 1070, the controversial immigration law.

Pearce, R-Mesa, the author of Arizona’s immigration law, has been writing to some of his constituents about what he plans to accomplish next.

In e-mails obtained by CBS 5 News, Pearce said he intends to push for a bill that would enable Arizona to no longer grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.

Pearce wrote in one e-mail: "I also intend to push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen."

CBS 5 Investigates looked through hundreds of e-mails Pearce had sent to constituents and some of their replies. The e-mails varied from praise to criticism and outlined Pearce’s future plans. Most were about SB 1070, his immigration law.

E-mails from the law’s supporters outnumbered those from critics by seven to one.

One supporter wrote, "I think it is about time we take our state and country back from the Mexicans."

One opponent wrote, "Mr. Pearce, you are a sick, racist bigot..."

Pearce replied to some opponents: "Do you not care about the deaths…maimings…billions in cost to America..."

One of the more remarkable e-mails sent to a list of supporters detailed his next steps. The e-mail, several pages long, includes articles critical of the 14th Amendment, which gives babies born on U.S. soil automatic citizenship.

One of the e-mails written by someone else but forwarded by Pearce reads: "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that's the way nature made it. Men don't drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do."

In response, Pearce sent two e-mails to CBS 5 News that contain some of the reasoning he used to conclude that children of illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship. He also said he's disappointed when people think he's mean spirited because he stands for America.

Pearce said his new idea is not only legal but it's also constitutional.

“It’s common sense,” Pearce said. “Again -- you can’t break into someone’s country and then expect to be rewarded for that. You can’t do it.”

When Pearce was shown the e-mail referring to “anchor babies” that he forwarded, he said he didn’t find anything wrong with the language.

“It’s somebody’s opinion… What they’re trying to say is it’s wrong, and I agree with them. It’s wrong,” said Pearce.

Document: E-mails To And From Pearce (http://www.kpho.com/download/2010/0520/23624269.pdf)

The Source (http://www.kpho.com/news/23623047/detail.html#)

[Spang]

"President Obama to deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border. More to come in a second." - Jake Tapper

[greenleaf]

"President Obama to deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border. More to come in a second." - Jake Tapper

It sounds like a good move on Obama's part.

[Spang]

Lawmaker: Obama Deploying 1,200 Troops To Border

The Obama administration plans to announce Tuesday that it will send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to improve border security, an Arizona congresswoman said.

Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords said in a statement released Tuesday that President Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security.

Part of Giffords' district borders Mexico.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman said the governor hadn't been told of the move before her office was contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.

In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. The troops wouldn't perform significant law enforcement duties.

That program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and prevent Mexico's drug violence from spilling over into the United States.

The Source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127116888&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[greenleaf]

The Source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127116888&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

OK, I am officially giving Obama credit for having the good sense to realize that this is the first step to finding some solution to this problem.

Here's hoping he continues to look for peaceful and fair solutions that lessen the existing antagonisms.

[Spang]

OK, I am officially giving Obama credit for having the good sense to realize that this is the first step to finding some solution to this problem.

Here's hoping he continues to look for peaceful and fair solutions that lessen the existing antagonisms.

I don't think the tea party people will be too happy, though. They don't like it when Obama spends "their" money.

[Spang]

Road Rage: Hackers Say 'No Latinos' on Highway Sign

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/052510nolatinosnotacossign.jpg

Electronic road sign hackers generally like to warn motorists of zombie and raptor attacks, but in South Florida, the signs are apparently being used to fuel the immigration debate.

A highway sign flashing "NO LATINOS NO TACOS" greeted drivers on the Palmetto Expressway in Northwest Miami-Dade, after hackers managed to alter it early Tuesday morning.

The sign was in the northbound side of the 826, right near the Northwest 25th street exit.

It's unknown how long the sign had been flashing the message, but by 6 a.m., members of the Florida Highway Patrol and a road crew had turned the sign away from the highway and were working to erase the message.

Officials said the signs are password protected, but that generally does little to stop hackers intent on changing them.

Last year, a string of road sign hacks were made in three separate states.

In Austin, Texas, a sign cautioned drivers to the "ZOMBIES IN AREA! RUN." Another in Collinsville, Illinois said "Daily LANE CLOSURES DUE TO ZOMBIES." And another in rural Indiana read "RAPTORS AHEAD - CAUTION."

Reaction to the sign, posted on the "Today in South Florida" Facebook page was mixed.

"Wow someone has a lot of time on their hands to think up of how they can belittle and disrespect a group of people who help keep this country going," said Luly Cueto-Belot.

"Greatest thing I ever saw...let's take this country back dammit!!!..south will rise again mother---er!!" said David Pines.

The sign is owned by a company called, Highway Technologies, based out of Illinois. Gil Joseph, a spokesman for the company told NBC Miami that it is using all its resources to investigate how the sign was tampered with and who is beind it. "The hacked message was offensive and vandalistic. We had nothing to do with the message and we find the message both appalling and discriminatory," said Joseph.

Highway Technologies is renting the digital roadway sign to a construction company that is working on a nearby project.

Joseph says they have filed a police report for vandalism of the company's electronic sign.

The Source (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Road-Rage-Hackers-Say-No-Latinos-on-Highway-Sign-94810499.html)

[greenleaf]

I don't think the tea party people will be too happy, though. They don't like it when Obama spends "their" money.

It will be money well spent if it helps bring people to the table for a federal solution.

After a hundred years of hate it's time for a truce.

[greenleaf]

The Source (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Road-Rage-Hackers-Say-No-Latinos-on-Highway-Sign-94810499.html)

Oh brother! It might take some time.

[Jim744]

"President Obama to deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border. More to come in a second." - Jake Tapper

What to shake hands and welcome them?:rolleyes:

[Valin]

It sounds like a good move on Obama's part.

"President Obama to deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border. More to come in a second." - Jake Tapper

Obama to deploy 1,200 more troops on Mexico border (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=3069811)

(Snip)
Among those most vocally in calling for increased security is Arizona's Republican Senator John McCain, a former presidential candidate, who said on Tuesday that the new deployments would be insufficient.

"It is simply not enough," he told fellow lawmakers. "We need 6,000. We need 3,000 across the border and an additional 3,000 National Guard troops to the Arizona-Mexico border."

"I hope that my colleagues appreciate the extent of the violence ... and the dramatic increase in that violence that's taken place over the last several years," he added.
(snip)

[Jim744]

Hispanics in the Mountain West are leaning much more strongly toward the Democrats since the Arizona law was passed. The big question then becomes whether there are white voters who are going to go Republican this fall who wouldn't have if that bill hadn't been passed. We don't see any evidence of that happening yet- Bennet and Glassman are both doing better with white voters than they were before as well, although not to the same degree that they've improved with Hispanics.

Not all republicans are white voters. They are the majority but there are many minorities within the republican party. And why does voting have to be dependent on white, black, Hispanic, etc. Why can't the best candidate be the deciding factor?

If you are law abiding, you will be for the candidate who is also, etc. if you care about civil order and such.

If a republican candidate calls for more security and enforcing the law, he automatically turns off Hispanic voters? I think that might be reverse discrimination.

[Valin]

(Not that the usual suspects will pay the slightest attention)

The Racial-Profiling Smoke Screen (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM0MjJlOTdkNjViNzM1OTNjNjE1ODhmNGMwZWJlMWI=)
Heather Mac Donald
5/25/10

As each day passes without any abatement in the increasingly surreal hysteria over the Arizona immigration law, the ground for that opposition becomes ever clearer: The real problem with the Arizona law is that it threatens to make immigration enforcement a reality. Every other argument against it is a smoke screen.

The two main lines of attack against SB 1070 — that it is preempted by federal immigration laws and that it will lead to racial profiling — make sense only if you believe that we should not be enforcing our immigration laws.

Putting state resources behind immigration enforcement interferes with federal enforcement only if it is federal policy not to enforce the immigration laws. Without question, more people will be picked up in Arizona for being in the country illegally with SB 1070 than would have been picked up without SB 1070. Arizona has only several hundred ICE agents, and they are are overmatched by the estimated 560,000 illegal aliens in the state. Authorizing the state’s 15,000 police officers and deputies to inquire into suspected illegal aliens’ immigration status during lawful stops acts as a significant force multiplier for ICE.

That is SB 1070’s only effect. Opponents of SB 1070 can argue that a state’s detection of illegal aliens conflicts with federal policy only if it is federal policy that those illegal aliens never be subjected to the immigration laws in the first place. Everything that the Obama administration has said regarding SB 1070, as well as its implementation of the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs, suggests that such lax enforcement is in fact its de facto stance on immigration.

President Obama reiterated the racial-profiling trope in his meeting this Wednesday with Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón: “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, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

The Arizona legislature agrees. SB 1070 states that a law-enforcement officer may make an inquiry regarding someone’s immigration status only if he has reasonable suspicion — a longstanding legal concept requiring defensible objective facts — for thinking that the person may be in the country illegally, and only if the officer has stopped or detained that person as part of an independent and lawful police investigation. What someone “looks like” is not a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion under the law, pace Obama. The most likely trigger for an officer’s immigration inquiry under SB 1070 will be driving without a license or not possessing another form of valid government identification during a lawful stop, having no credible explanation for the lack of identification, and giving answers that suggest possible illegal status. If someone presents a valid ID, any possibility of reasonable suspicion arising is gone.....(Snip)

[Spang]

(Not that the usual suspects will pay the slightest attention)

Good movie.

[Alces95]

(Not that the usual suspects will pay the slightest attention)

The Racial-Profiling Smoke Screen (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM0MjJlOTdkNjViNzM1OTNjNjE1ODhmNGMwZWJlMWI=)
Heather Mac Donald
5/25/10

I don't know if I am one of the usual suspects but anywho....

If the part that you have bolded is how it plays out then 9 times out of 10 its fine. But the law opens up an easy defense - will they be checking on everyone or most everyone who forgets their license? I doubt it. I just can't see them avoiding either profiling or giving a mediocre defense lawyer an easy out.

[Spang]

Puerto Rican Man Almost Deported To Mexico

This is why Arizona SB 1070 will backfire: Immigration authorities in Berwyn, Illinois arrested Puerto Rican Eduardo Caraballo in a stolen car case, but when his mother posted his bail, he was detained because authorities didn’t believe he was a legal citizen. His mother brought his birth certificate, but Eduardo was unable to answer some questions about the island because he’s lived all his life on the mainland. Eduardo was detained for more three days and threatened with deportation–to Mexico. Thanks to tipster Ricky Martin for the heads up on this one.

(No Nudity)

The Source (http://guanabee.com/2010/05/puerto-rican-man-almost-deported-to-mexico/)

[Spang]

Troops not militarizing Mexico border: U.S. envoy

(Reuters) - U.S. troops deployed to the Mexican border will take a backseat role to civilian security forces combating illegal flows of drugs and migrants and will not militarize the frontier, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico said on Wednesday.

In response to spiraling drug violence in northern Mexico where cartels are battling for smuggling routes, President Barack Obama announced on Tuesday he would send 1,200 more National Guard troops and ask for an additional $500 million to secure the almost 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

But U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual said the number of soldiers was tiny compared to the 26,000 immigration, customs and border patrol agents.

"This isn't a militarization of the border. In fact the overall share of the military is still relatively small," Pascual told correspondents at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City. He said with the 300 National Guard troops already stationed at the border, the total number would not surpass 1,500.

"I think it is important that we continue to reinforce in our strategy that we are putting civilian law enforcement agencies out front and that they have the lead," he said.

The troops, rather than carrying out operations to dismantle drug cartels or human smuggling rings, will be working in back offices helping intelligence officials process information, or be posted as lookouts between ports of entry.

Border experts and human rights workers say the border is already militarized with parallel steel fences backed up by sensors and patrolled by helicopters and armed border agents.

Republicans have criticized Obama's plan for not going far enough. They want him to send 6,000 troops, which is how many his Republican predecessor George W. Bush sent in 2006, in "Operation Jump Start."

"Though this initial deployment is an important first step, the President is not sending enough troops," said Arizona's two U.S. senators, Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl, who introduced an amendment seeking to force Obama to send more soldiers.

The lawmakers are concerned about Mexican drug violence spilling over the border. More than 23,000 people have been killed as drug gangs fight turf wars and battle federal agents and the army, since Mexican President Felipe Calderon took office in late 2006 promising to attack the cartels head on.

The frightening daytime shootouts with automatic weapons that have become a common occurrence in northern Mexican cities like Ciudad Juarez have not been seen on the U.S. side of the border, Pascual said.

The flow of illegal immigrants, a hot button issue after Arizona passed a tough new illegal immigration crackdown, can only be solved with comprehensive reform backed both by Obama and Calderon when they met in Washington last week, he said.

The Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P73820100526?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F +US+%2F+Top+News%29)

[samurai007]

(No Nudity) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOoHblfeOk&feature=player_embedded)

The Source (http://guanabee.com/2010/05/puerto-rican-man-almost-deported-to-mexico/)

Arizona's law will fail because authorities in Illinois were extra careful with someone they arrested in a stolen car with no ID? Makes no sense at all.

[Spang]

Arizona's law will fail because authorities in Illinois were extra careful with someone they arrested in a stolen car with no ID? Makes no sense at all.

They almost deported a Puerto Rican to Mexico. You seriously don't see a problem with that?

[Spang]

Grover vs. Brewer: Right-Wing Immigration Smackdown

The conservative leader accuses the Arizona governor of exploiting the immigration issue.

When Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the most draconian immigration statute in the country last month, she said she was doing it because Washington had failed to act, blaming "decades of federal inaction and misguided policy" for creating "an unacceptable situation." But conservative Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, insists she had a cynical motive: She was exploiting this hot-button issue. He says Brewer is a "lousy governor" who's using a "clever strategy to get people to focus on something other than her billion-dollar tax increase." With this comment, Norquist is setting off a major catfight between a leading strategist of the conservative movement and a governor hailed on the right for her tough stand on immigration.

Whether or not it was intentional, Brewer's timing certainly seems perfect. As national pundits and the Obama administration rained criticism on her for signing a bill that empowers local law enforcement to detain people suspected of being in the country illegally, Brewer quietly scored a major victory that enraged anti-tax activists. On May 19, voters approved a one-cent hike in the state sales tax that is predicted to send a billion dollars into the state's dwindling coffers. The driving force behind the initiative was Brewer herself, who realized that the state's $1.6 billion deficit couldn't be overcome simply by cutting services without serious repercussions to state residents.

Even with the tax hike, the state is about to drop more than 300,000 residents from Medicaid—about a quarter of the program's total capacity. It has closed rest stops and parks and will be hiking tuition rates at its largest universities by 20 percent. More cuts would have seriously threatened primary and secondary education. So last year, shortly after Brewer moved up from the secretary of state's office to fill in for Democrat Janet Napolitano—who left the governor's mansion to run the US Department of Homeland Security—she realized that the state's budget problems couldn't be fixed just by a snip here and a trim there. She started pushing the tax hike, a move that put her at serious odds with the Republicans in her party and many Democrats, too. The tax proposal was a very modest one. But it was so unpopular among Republicans that when Brewer announced it, 20 people jumped in to the primary election to challenge her in August, when she makes her first official run for the governor's seat.

The proposed tax hike might have been the death of Brewer's campaign but for one thing: Her decision to sign the immigration bill. While roundly criticized in Washington and elsewhere, the immigration measure proved wildly popular at home. And it earned Brewer the support of such luminaries as Sarah Palin, who now appears prominently on a website funded by Brewer's campaign, www.securetheborder.org.

Brewer has now become something of a heroine to some conservatives. They seem content to overlook the tax apostasy. But not Norquist, who not only hates the tax hike but the immigration bill, too.

Brewer's support of that measure has put a major damper on Norquist's latest enterprise: an attempt to recruit conservative Latinos into the GOP fold. In February, Norquist helped launch the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, a spin-off of the American Principles Project founded by conservative Princeton professor Robert George. George, a gay marriage foe, had apparently hoped to appeal to Latinos by relying on such social issues as abortion and gay marriage. (Latinos tend to be more conservative on these topics.) The group's official mission is "to garner greater Latino support for conservative causes and candidates, and at the same time, to encourage the conservative movement to support Latino conservative groups, leaders, and candidates, as well as policies that are welcoming of Latino immigrants."

The project was a recognition that despite major efforts by the sometimes-Spanish speaking George W. Bush, the GOP has a pretty dismal record at reaching the expanding Latino voting bloc that's expected to have an increasing influence on future elections. Norquist officially kicked off the project at a big powwow in March at the Conservative Political Action Convention in Washington, where he appeared with a couple of telenovela stars and the new partnership's executive director, Alfonso Aguilar, a former Bush administration Homeland Security official.

But Brewer and her fellow Arizona Republicans didn't get the memo. The Arizona law isn't exactly the sort of "welcoming" policy Norquist had in mind. It comes just as Aguilar has started hosting town hall meetings for Latinos (the first one was in Orlando earlier this month) and pitching the outreach as a "Tea Party for Hispanics." He has also been appearing on TV trying to do damage control in the wake of Arizona's immigration crackdown. Unfortunately for him and Norquist, recent polls suggest that the Arizona law has Latino voters fleeing from GOP candidates en masse, giving Democrats a significant advantage in several races in the West.

When I asked Norquist whether Brewer had basically sunk his latest project, he was somewhat diplomatic. He would only say that because of the immigration law, it's important for conservatives to reach out to Latinos. He wasn't so polite about Brewer, though. "Jan Brewer is on my bad person list already because of her tax increase," he says. "She's not getting into heaven for that reason. You don't need two reasons not to get in."

The Source (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/grover-norquist-jan-brewer)

[Suzan]

The Source (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/grover-norquist-jan-brewer)
I heard a pundit on TV today saying that if the GOP gets less than 40% of the Latino vote, they'll never win another presidential election. I don't know about other elections, but clearly they'll be impacted too.

[samurai007]

The Source (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/grover-norquist-jan-brewer)

First, there are plenty of legal Latinos that are not at all happy about the flood of illegals. Every illegal is a slap in the face of the people who took the time, money, and effort to obey the law and come here legally.

Second, if we have to ignore or abolish laws in order to curry favor with a voting block, then somethings wrong there, and they aren't truly part of our party, agreeing with our goals and values, etc, but merely there because they got a handout, and will only stick around to get more handouts. That may work for the Democrats, but Republicans should be above that. I mean, I'm sure we could win over the alcoholic/drunk driver vote by abolishing penalties for drunk driving, but that doesn't mean we should do it. Just like drunk driving laws, we have immigration laws for very good reasons, and they need to be enforced.

[samurai007]

They almost deported a Puerto Rican to Mexico. You seriously don't see a problem with that?

Maybe a problem in Illinois, but not in Arizona, no.

[Spang]

Maybe a problem in Illinois, but not in Arizona, no.

Maybe? He's an American citizen. They can't just go around deporting American citizens to Mexico just because they look the part.

[samurai007]

Maybe? He's an American citizen. They can't just go around deporting American citizens to Mexico just because they look the part.

They didn't deport him at all! They held him for a few extra days to confirm that he was legal after he was arrested driving a stolen car with no ID. If the idiot hadn't been driving a stolen car, none of it would have happened. As it is, he remained in the US once his identity was proven, so what are you complaining about?

[Spang]

As it is, he remained in the US once his identity was proven, so what are you complaining about?

First, this happened to an American citizen. Second, this happened in a state that doesn't have an SB1070-style law. If you don't think this kind of shit will be more prevalent in Arizona once SB1070 takes effect, you need to take a few sips of the reality juice. Strike that, you need to consume the whole goddamn carton.

[samurai007]

First, this happened to an American citizen. Second, this happened in a state that doesn't have an SB1070-style law. If you don't think this kind of shit will be more prevalent in Arizona once SB1070 takes effect, you need to take a few sips of the reality juice. Strike that, you need to consume the whole goddamn carton.

"This will happen"? An idiot driving a stolen car without any ID is suspected of being an illegal and then upon further investigation/paperwork it's discovered they aren't, and so they aren't deported at all? Yeah, I can see that happening, and I'm perfectly fine with it. The system worked here, they found out who he really was, and he wasn't deported. Good. That's what I would hope happens.

[Suzan]

Justice Department poised to challenge Arizona immigration law

Nine police chiefs meet with Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to tell him the measure would hinder local law enforcement and ask that the Obama administration block it.

Top Justice Department officials have drafted a legal challenge asserting that Arizona's controversial immigration law is unconstitutional because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders, sources said Wednesday.

At the same time, the government officials said, the department's civil rights section is considering possible legal action against the law on the basis that it amounts to racial profiling of Latinos who are legally in Arizona but conceivably could be asked to provide documents proving their citizenship.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. met Wednesday with nine top police chiefs who object to the Arizona legislation and promised them he would act on the recommendations soon, a spokesman said.

The police chiefs urged Holder and the Obama administration, which has grave reservations about the Arizona measure, to stop the law. The chiefs said it would seriously hamper local police work if officers had to serve as border patrol policemen.

He did say that the Justice Department is seriously considering what they would do and that could come very soon," said Chuck Wexler, the director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a think tank that helped bring the police chiefs together with Holder.

Echoing concerns from Obama and Holder, the chiefs told the attorney general during the closed-door meeting that the problem with the Arizona law is that it will break down trust between victims and witnesses of crimes and the police officers in their communities.

One of the attendees was Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who said afterward that he told Holder that "legislation like this inhibits us from doing our jobs" and would deter immigrants from reporting crimes, either as victims or witnesses.

"The fear of the police already inhibits immigrants from coming forward to a certain extent," Beck said. "But if you add this, you increase the reluctance tenfold.

"People should remember that undocumented immigrants are witnesses in all kinds of crime, and this does not just affect them. If people don't come forward to help the police solve and protect against crime, no matter what their status, then we are doomed to failure. It threatens to destroy a lot of the work that has been done."

Beck added that his officers are guided by a different set of rules than those laid out in the Arizona law. For more than three decades, he said, the agency has followed a policy that prohibits officers from initiating contact with someone solely to determine whether he or she is in the country legally.

But an additional dozen or more states are considering passing legislation mirroring the Arizona law, which is to go into effect in July. That groundswell of support for the Arizona law is part of what is pushing Holder and the White House to act swiftly if they decide they want to strike down the measure in Arizona.

The new Arizona law requires police to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop and suspect is in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to lack proper immigration papers in Arizona.

Read the rest here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder-immigration-20100527,0,6251283.story)

[Spang]

(No Nudity)

[Spang]

Immigration: No Correlation With Crime

Despite our melting-pot roots, Americans have often been quick to blame the influx of immigrants for rising crime rates. But new research released Monday shows that immigrants in California are, in fact, far less likely than U.S.-born Californians are to commit crime. While people born abroad make up about 35% of California's adult population, they account for only about 17% of the adult prison population, the report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed. Indeed, among men ages 18 to 40 — the demographic most likely to be imprisoned — those born in the U.S. were 10 times more likely than foreign-born men to be incarcerated.

"From a public safety standpoint, there would be little reason to limit immigration," says Kristin Butcher, an economics professor at Wellesley College and one of the report's authors.

The new report even bolsters claims by some academics that increased immigration makes the United States safer. A second study, released earlier this month by Washington-based nonprofit Immigration Policy Center, found that on the national level, U.S.-born men ages 18-39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than are their foreign-born peers. And, while the number of illegal immigrants in the country doubled between 1994 and 2005, violent crime declined by nearly 35% and property crimes by 26% over the same period. The PPIC even determined that on average, between 2000 and 2005, cities such as Los Angeles that took in a higher share of recent immigrants saw their crime rates fall further than cities with a lower influx of illegals.

Driving these statistics, researchers believe, are the same factors that drive immigration in the first place. "People who make the decision to come here from another country want to get ahead, establish a better life," says Harvard sociology professor Robert Sampson. "That dream is not something they're likely to risk by getting arrested."

Sampson and colleagues recently examined more than 3,000 violent acts committed in Chicago from 1995 to 2003, analyzing police records, census data and a survey of more than 8,000 residents. They discovered what Sampson calls the "Latino Paradox" — first-generation Mexican immigrants were 45% less likely to engage in violence than third-generation Americans. This pattern continued into the second generation, which was 22% less likely to be violent. Similar trends have been seen in New York and Miami, both of which have large immigrant enclaves. "Immigrant communities are often responsible for revitalizing the urban neighborhoods that they live in," Sampson says. The irony of people's popular misconceptions, he adds, is "that the longer one is exposed to American culture, the more likely you are to participate in violence."

Critics note that studies such as those mentioned above rarely distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Reliable data that separates the two groups is hard to find, but Indiana University economist Eric Rasmusen has culled figures from a 2005 GAO report on foreigners incarcerated in Federal and state prisons to calculate that illegal immigrants commit 21% of all crime in the United States, costing the country more than $84 billion. Rasmusen contends the distinction is important because immigrants with a green card or U.S. citizenship have already jumped through several legal hoops to live and work in the U.S., including a background check into any prior criminal record back home. "Legal immigrants are by definition unusually law-abiding," Rasmusen wrote last June. But Professor Daniel Mears, a Florida State University criminologist, argues that such reasoning can also be turned on its head. "If someone is here illegally," Mears asks, "why would they call attention to themselves by committing a crime?"

Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter immigration controls, warns that even if immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, their children and grandchildren may be more likely to end up on the wrong side of the law. He points out that U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that Hispanics make up 20% of state and Federal prison populations in 2005, a rise of 43% since 1990. At that rate, one in every six Hispanic males born in the U.S. today can expect to be imprisoned during his lifetime — more than double the rate for non-Hispanic whites, but lower than that of African-Americans of the same age. "That means the children and grandchildren of immigrants are committing a lot of crime, making this a long-term problem," Camarota says, before adding, "That's much worse news."

Whatever the findings of the latest PPIC research, it will do little to cool the passions on either side of the issue. When debating immigration, says Mears, "it doesn't matter what the empirical evidence shows; people react with their gut feelings first."

The Source (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717575,00.html)

[Spang]

Democrats stop bid to send 6,000 troops to border

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate on Thursday killed a move by presidential rival John McCain to send an additional 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S-Mexico border.

The Arizona Republican says the security situation along the order has deteriorated so badly that 3,000 guard troops are needed just to help protect his state. Even though McCain won support from a dozen Democrats, he failed to muster the 60-vote supermajority required to adopt his plan under Senate rules.

Democrats also repelled more than $2 billion in additional border security spending proposed by border state Republicans John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona.

The action came as the Senate continued debate on an almost $60 billion measure funding Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, foreign aid and domestic disaster relief.

The GOP proposals were comparable to those made several years ago when many Republicans pressed border security steps, such as a border fence, instead of a more comprehensive approach to overhauling the nation's immigration system. Obama supports comprehensive immigration reforms but prospects for substantive legislation appear bleak in an election year. Just Tuesday, he promised to send 1,200 Guard troops to the border.

In the past, McCain has advocated changes to immigration laws that would give illegal immigrants already in the U.S. an opportunity to earn their citizenship. But as violence along the border has escalated — and in the face of a spirited primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth — McCain has adopted a harder line on immigration issues.

"The borders are broken," McCain said Thursday. "We have an obligation to our citizens to secure our border and allow them to lead lives where they not live in fear."

Kyl proposed expanding a program that throws illegal immigrants in jail for two weeks before deporting them back to Mexico, which he said is a deterrent to them trying again.

Cornyn wanted money for state and local law enforcement agencies, unmanned drone aircraft and other equipment, and additional Border Patrol officers and immigration agents.

Both amendments got 54 votes but fell short of the required 60-vote supermajority.

"Until we deal with this broken border, we are not going to be able to deal with other aspects of our broken immigration system," Cornyn said.

A top Democrat said Republicans were throwing money at the problem and urged waiting until Obama sends up his border security plan next week.

"This is a huge amount of money ... from colleagues who talk fiscal moderation," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "It's sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem."

Obama on Tuesday promised to send 1,200 Guard troops to the border to support efforts to block drug trafficking and temporarily supplement Border Patrol agents until more agents can be trained. He also pledged $500 million for improved border security. The money could be added to the measure during House-Senate negotiations.

The Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100527/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_border_security)

[Suzan]

Organizers: 50,000 To Protest Immigration

Marchers From Across U.S. To Gather

PHOENIX -- Opponents of Arizona's tough new crackdown on illegal immigration are planning a protest march in Phoenix on Saturday.

Organizers briefed reporters about the march on Tuesday. They said they predict upward of 50,000 marchers will come from around the country.

Opponents plan to demand that President Barack Obama order federal immigration authorities not to accept custody of illegal immigrants brought in under the Arizona law, and they want the Obama administration to revoke agreements that allow local police departments to enforce federal immigration laws.

The march is being organized by labor unions and civil rights groups.

Supporters of Arizona's law also have a protest planned for Saturday.

KPHO.com (http://www.kpho.com/news/23672880/detail.html)

[foxyladi]

They didn't deport him at all! They held him for a few extra days to confirm that he was legal after he was arrested driving a stolen car with no ID. If the idiot hadn't been driving a stolen car, none of it would have happened. As it is, he remained in the US once his identity was proven, so what are you complaining about?

no i.d. and in a stolen car:eek::eek:

[Laura Cereta]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0134827ee033970c-600wi
A sudden new twist in the ongoing rhetorical and legal struggle over Arizona's tough new law to round up illegal immigrants.

Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state's Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop.

The governor's abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall's gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation's capital.

As the state's chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against...challenges to the Legislature's action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government's inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.

However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.

On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.

Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."
Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.

Her statement (full text below) said:
Due to Attorney General Goddard’s curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona’s new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration laws.
Despite widespread criticism in the media and the Obama administration, whose officials including Holder admitted they had not actually read the legislation, numerous polls have shown deep support for the measure nationally and within Arizona.

And that approval has transferred over to Brewer, who was trailing Goddard early this year in polls of a hypothetical matchup come Nov. 2. Brewer inherited the governor's office last year when Janet Napolitano resigned to accept the man-caused nomination of Homeland Security secretary from President Obama.Read @ Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/jan-brewer-arizona-illegal-immigrant-law.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+topoftheticket+%28Top+of+the+ Ticket%29)

[kyforhillary]

I admire this woman to no end. She is gutsy and stands for what she believes is the best for her people and state. No matter how you feel about the law, you have to respect her for standing up for it.

[jlynne]

Abruptly? The AG could be seen colluding with the opposition and was in a position to irrevocably damage the State of AZ's case. The governor's only recourse was to remove the AG as quickly as possible. If I were her, I'd refer him to the bar for disiplinary action. Probably wouldn't go anywhere but it might remind him that his legal obligations supercede his political ambitions.

[samurai007]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/29/obama-arizona-governor-dont-ill/

Obama to Arizona Governor: Don't Call Me, I'll Call You

Published May 29, 2010

President Obama has turned down Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request to meet while she's in Washington next week as tensions mount between his administration and Arizona over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Brewer will be in Washington to meet with other governors. She said Friday that she had asked to meet with Obama and Homeland security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss border security and immigration but Obama's schedule "doesn't allow for a meeting" with her, White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, adding that the president "does intend to sit down with the governor in the future."

When Obama returns from his Chicago vacation on Tuesday, he will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Peru President Alan Garcia at the White House. On Wednesday, Obama is meeting with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, before heading to an event in Pittsburgh and hosting a concert at the White House to honor Paul McCartney.

On Thursday, Obama will speak at Secretary Clinton's reception for a new partnership between U.S. and India. On Friday, the president will welcome the Major League Soccer men's championship team, Real Salt Lake, to the White House.

The apparent snub comes after Justice Department officials told Arizona's attorney general and aides to the governor Friday that the federal government has serious reservations about the state's new immigration law. They responded that a lawsuit against the state isn't the answer.

"I told them we need solutions from Washington, not more lawsuits," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat.

The Justice Department initiated separate meetings by phone and face-to-face in Phoenix with Goddard and aides to Brewer to reach out to Arizona's leaders and elicit information from state officials regarding the Obama administration's concerns about the new law.

The strong message that the Justice Department representatives delivered at the private meetings -- first with Goddard, then with Brewer's staff -- left little doubt that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.

Goddard said he noted that five privately filed lawsuits already are pending in federal court to challenge the law.

"Every possible argument is being briefed," said Goddard, who is running unopposed for his party's nomination for the governor's race.

Brewer, who is seeking re-election, later said in a statement that her legal team told the Justice Department officials that the law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."

Brewer, who has hired private attorneys to represent her in the pending cases, said the department officials "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."

Key provisions of the sweeping law include a requirement that police enforcing any other law question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and the law's supporters contend it will save taxpayer money and reduce crime by pressuring illegal immigrants to "self-deport."

Federal officials and other critics fear the state law could lead to widespread racial profiling.

Goddard said it would be wrong to assume that Arizona law enforcement officers would not act in a fair and highly professional manner."

The federal officials' trip to Phoenix also was an effort to see if the two sides can find common ground in the debate, which has reignited immigration as a major political issue nationwide.

A number of other states are considering laws similar to Arizona's.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with a number of police chiefs Wednesday in Washington "to hear their concerns about the impact of the Arizona law on their ability to keep communities safe.

"We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government," Miller said.

While numerous police chiefs have criticized the law, several Arizona associations representing rank-and-file police officers support it.

[kyforhillary]

460,000 that is a staggering amount. Somebody has to pay for this many people breaking the law (federal), guess who it is, not the federal government, but the people of Arizona. This is a disgrace, but bless their little hearts, they can do this why? And the government of Ariz. can't do anything about it why? Because their skin is brown, give me a break.

[Spang]

Obama Administration Signals Lawsuit Over Arizona Immigration Law

Justice Department officials told Arizona's attorney general and aides to the governor Friday that the federal government has serious reservations about the state's new immigration law. They responded that a lawsuit against the state isn't the answer.

"I told them we need solutions from Washington, not more lawsuits," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat.

The Justice Department initiated separate meetings by phone and face-to-face in Phoenix with Goddard and aides to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to reach out to Arizona's leaders and elicit information from state officials regarding the Obama administration's concerns about the new law.

The strong message that the Justice Department representatives delivered at the private meetings – first with Goddard, then with Brewer's staff – left little doubt that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.

Goddard said he noted that five privately filed lawsuits already are pending in federal court to challenge the law.

"Every possible argument is being briefed," said Goddard, who is running unopposed for his party's nomination for the governor's race.

Brewer, who is seeking re-election, later said in a statement that her legal team told the Justice Department officials that the law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."

The department officials, Brewer said, "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."

Key provisions of the sweeping law include a requirement that police enforcing any other law question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the people are in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Story continues below

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and the law's supporters contend it will save taxpayer money and reduce crime by pressuring illegal immigrants to "self-deport."

Federal officials and other critics fear the state law could lead to widespread racial profiling.

Goddard said it would be wrong to assume that Arizona law enforcement officers would not act in a fair and highly professional manner."

Brewer, who has hired private attorneys to represent her in the pending cases, expressed unease with Goddard's willingness to defend the law.

Goddard earlier vowed to defend it.

"While Senate Bill 1070 is far from perfect, it is a response to a very serious problem," Goddard said. "I told the lawyers that it would be just plain wrong for the federal government to sue to stop Arizona from dealing with something that the federal government has ignored for so many years."

Brewer's office declined immediate comment.

The federal officials' trip to Phoenix also was an effort to see if the two sides can find common ground in the debate, which has reignited immigration as a major political issue nationwide.

A number of other states are considering laws similar to Arizona's.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with a number of police chiefs Wednesday in Washington "to hear their concerns about the impact of the Arizona law on their ability to keep communities safe.

"We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government," Miller said.

While numerous police chiefs have criticized the law, several Arizona associations representing rank-and-file police officers support it.

The Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/29/doj-arizona-officials-mee_n_594429.html)

[Spang]

Thousands descend on Phoenix to protest immigration law

(CNN) -- They came from Los Angeles and San Diego, and Wisconsin, Texas, Illinois, Chicago, Seattle and, of course, Arizona -- a river of humanity flooding the Phoenix streets to protest the state's controversial immigration law.

The Arizona legislature passed the bill earlier this year and the state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed it. In two more months, unless the law is overturned in court, police in Arizona will be allowed to check the residency status of anyone who is being investigated for a crime or possible legal infraction if there is reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally.

Opponents say the bill opens the door for racial profiling. Supporters deny that and say it's necessary to stem a tide of illegal immigration they believe is a source of a soaring crime rate.

Supporters of the bill plan a rally Saturday evening in Tempe, just outside Phoenix, but the day belonged to tens of thousands of protesters, stretching two miles along a Phoenix street leading to the state Capitol.

Organizers said they expected 50,000 people. But Saturday morning, as people arrived at a Phoenix park for the start of the march, they said they may have underestimated.

Arizona resident Marlene Vazquez, 18, and her family came for the march, worried, they said, about how the bill would affect their own lives.

"There's no way that they're not going to racial profile," Vazquez told CNN affiliate KPNX in Phoenix. "How does someone look illegal?"

San Diego college professor Justin Akers Chacon told KPNX he and more than 100 others came to Phoenix Friday night, sleeping in a downtown warehouse that march organizers arranged for out-of-towners.

"There was a seriousness and confidence that we're all here for the right reasons," he told the station.

Chicagoan Eric Ruder, 40, said Arizona's law had captured the attention of the nation and many are very concerned.

"The criminalization of immigrants is a scary direction that this country is heading in," Ruder told another CNN affiliate in Phoenix, KNXV.

Supporters of the law, however, said opponents really didn't know what the law is about.

Phoenix resident David Kimball acknowledged that the bill's language isn't perfect, but said something had to be done.

"It's creating dialogue," he told KPNX. "Most protesters haven't read the bill. They don't have a clue."

Gina Loudon, an organizer of the pro-law rally Saturday night, dismissed the anti-law protest.

"Arizona has the right to enforce the laws that are already on the books," she told KNXV.

Critics and supporters agree on one point, however: The federal government has not done enough to curb illegal immigration.

Salvador Reza is an immigrant activist who opposes the law.

"Arizona has long been a testing ground of failed enforcement immigration polices ... that empower local authorities to racially profile and terrorize the community, all under the guise of federal immigration enforcement," said immigrant activist Salvador Reza. "The federal government helped create his disaster, now it must stop it."

The American Civil Liberties Union is leading a court challenge to the new law. Attorney General Eric Holder -- who this week met with a delegation of police chiefs from Arizona and elsewhere and dispatched key officials to meet with top Arizona officials to discuss the law -- has given no indication whether the federal government would file a legal challenge.

Meanwhile, Brewer released a statement saying she was bypassing Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard and will rely on other lawyers to defend the state against challenges to the law. Goddard, who opposes the law and is running for governor against Brewer, said he would defend the law in court, but Brewer said the legislature had given her the power to use outside counsel "because of its lack of confidence in the Attorney General's willingness to vigorously defend" the law.

The Source (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/29/arizona.immigration.march/index.html)

[Spang]

Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law

By Connie Mack (R)

America is at a crossroads on a number of issues. And as we tackle national concerns such as immigration, conservatives have a responsibility to commit ourselves to our philosophy of less taxing, less spending, less government and more freedom.

That means opposing any administration, Republican or Democratic, when it taxes too much, spends too much or takes over nearly one-sixth of the economy.

When the Obama administration undermines the basic concepts of capitalism and the free market through endless bailouts, "stimulus" plans and a government takeover of health care, it is picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy -- and threatening our liberties.

The latest issue freedom-loving conservatives should be concerned about is the Arizona immigration law.

This law clearly challenges citizens' freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being affected.

During World War II, while a German American hero and future president -- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower -- led the allied forces in Europe, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We destroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution.

We did so under the guise that we were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation.

Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens -- a shameful overreach of the government.

The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives.

Illegal immigration poses clear security risks to our nation and is a cancer on our economic well-being.

The Obama administration and previous administrations have failed to secure our border. While the announcement of additional National Guard troops at the border is a good first step, the federal government must do more to secure our borders -- both north and south -- now.

But trampling on the rights of some Americans to protect the majority conflicts with the values our nation was founded upon.

Our Constitution protects individual freedoms and liberties. Nowhere does this document speak of protecting the majority over the minority. Anger about the economy, increased crime and security concerns are fueling this law, not constitutional principles.

Conservatives' most important responsibility is to remember to protect freedom, liberty and the rights of every citizen. The Arizona immigration law doesn't do that, and that's why I oppose it.

I am proud that the GOP has been the party in which freedom has always mattered. We are a party whose members are willing to stand up for liberty because we believe that freedom matters and that it works.

As the wise saying goes, he who sacrifices freedom for security ends up with neither.

I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked "Where are your papers?" We are better than that.

The Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051304351.html?sub=AR)

[foxyladi]

hey..i don't care what color they are.if they are pink and illegal they gotta go or get legal:D

[samurai007]

The Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051304351.html?sub=AR)

And I don't want to live in a country absolutely over-run with millions of illegals, who may be criminals, have diseases, or just want to sponge off of our welfare state, and at best are taking jobs at less money that our own citizens could do.

We are better than that.

[hillary4change]

Abruptly? The AG could be seen colluding with the opposition and was in a position to irrevocably damage the State of AZ's case. The governor's only recourse was to remove the AG as quickly as possible. If I were her, I'd refer him to the bar for disiplinary action. Probably wouldn't go anywhere but it might remind him that his legal obligations supercede his political ambitions.

Could not agree more.

460,000 that is a staggering amount. Somebody has to pay for this many people breaking the law (federal), guess who it is, not the federal government, but the people of Arizona. This is a disgrace, but bless their little hearts, they can do this why? And the government of Ariz. can't do anything about it why? Because their skin is brown, give me a break.

As a person living in Az., it feels like the Government is telling us to sit down and shut up. Kind of a - If you try to defend yourself against our (the government) unwillingness to defend the federal law, we will get sanctions against you via other states and you can just bite us!
Now (to borrow a phrase from spange) go eff yourselves!

So, we chose not to eff ourselves and Governor Brewer stood up to the Federal Goverment, all by her lonesome with no other backing!! Can you say, gutsy! I am voting for her, no doubt about it. She has shown herself to be principled.

hey..i don't care what color they are.if they are pink and illegal they gotta go or get legal:D

My sentiments exactly, I will be at the D-Backs game Friday. I will carry a sign that says, "What part of illegal do you not understand?" and the other side will say, "Welcome to America, legal immigrants!" :rockon::rockon:

[foxyladi]

will they be boycotting and marching in MASS.next????

[samurai007]

will they be boycotting and marching in MASS.next????

No, it's a known liberal state, they'll just get the ACLU to shop around and find a liberal judge to overturn it and quietly sweep it under the rub as an embarrassing lapse.

[Laura Cereta]

Lovely...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/162052/thumbs/s-ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION-large300.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/doj-arizona-discuss-immig_n_594229.html)

[Spang]

White supremacists with loaded weapons appear at immigration rally

PHOENIX -- Rallies were held for supporters on both sides of Arizona's immigration law on Saturday. The "National Day of Action against SB 1070" rally took place in downtown Phoenix Saturday morning. And the "Stand with Arizona" pro-SB 1070 rally was held at Tempe's Diablo Stadium Saturday evening.

Both events were peacful, passionate gatherings of like-minded individuals in support of their respective positions. However, a few supporters of Arizona's new immigration law were also on-hand at the anti-SB 1070 rally.

Two men carrying loaded weapons and waiving a confederate flag said they were there to support SB 1070. One man was carrying a loaded shotgun and wearing a White People's Party shirt. The other said he was a big fan of Hitler, calling him a "great White civil rights leader."

When asked why they broght loaded guns to the event, the men said they needed to defend themselves and they were ready to fire.

Many of the protesters feel that Arizona's new immigration law was written by people with similar views. SB 1070 was co-authored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which as been categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center has as a hate group.

Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy Network says, "I don't mean to say that anyone who agrees with 1070 agrees with those views, that is not the case. But it's important for people to know that there are folks in this country who feel that way...and they were the authors of this bill."

The Source (http://www.azfamily.com/news/95223914.html)

[Spang]

(No Nudity)

[samurai007]

The Source (http://www.azfamily.com/news/95223914.html)

So, by all accounts, they were peaceful gatherings, and all you can do is focus on 2 guys, out of the many people there? And we don't even know if they were real white supremacists or Leftists in disguise playing for the cameras.

[Spang]

And we don't even know if they were real white supremacists or Leftists in disguise playing for the cameras.

Yes we do, watch the goddamn video.

[samurai007]

Yes we do, watch the goddamn video.

Nothing in the video proves who they are, or whether or not they are Leftists playing to the cameras and pretending to be nazis to make the supporters look bad.

[Spang]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/r09f5y.gif

[mack20]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/r09f5y.gif

That's really the perfect GIF for a good handful of the posts on this board, isn't it?

[Spang]

That's really the perfect GIF for a good handful of the posts on this board, isn't it?

It is, thank you for finding it.

[LucyTN]

Nothing in the video proves who they are, or whether or not they are Leftists playing to the cameras and pretending to be nazis to make the supporters look bad.Of course you're right but that makes no difference here. Two people out of thousands show up to try and disrupt the proceedings and that's what our class clown focuses on. What's new?

[Laura Cereta]

After Facing Criticism, Obama to Meet Arizona Gov. Brewer on Thursday (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/01/facing-criticism-obama-meet-arizona-gov-brewer-thursday/)
2 June 2010, FOX

President Obama intends to meet with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday, a White House official told FoxNews.com, after criticism mounted over reports the president wouldn't be able to meet her while she is in Washington this week.

Brewer had requested a face-to-face meeting with Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor, as tensions rise between his administration and the Grand Canyon State over its controversial law clamping down on illegal immigrants.

The White House denies that Obama snubbed Brewer, saying there initially were some scheduling issues this week that have been resolved.

"This Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources over the past 16 months to fulfill the federal government's responsibility to secure the Southwest Border," a White House official told Fox News. "The President looks forward to discussing those efforts and other matters of mutual interest with Gov. Brewer."

Obama continues to push for a multi-layered approach to immigration. Brewer's arrival will put the president face-to-face with the most visible exponent secure-the-border-first immigration policy.Continues @ link...

[samurai007]

Los Angeles Students to Be Taught That Arizona Immigration Law Is Un-American

By Jana Winter

Published June 02, 2010

The Los Angeles Unified School District school board wants all public school students in the city to be taught that Arizona's new immigration law is un-American.

The school board president made the announcement Tuesday night after the district's Board of Education passed a resolution to oppose the controversial law, which gives law enforcement officials in Arizona the power to question and detain people they suspect are in the U.S. illegally when they are stopped in relation to a crime or infraction.

Critics of the law say it will result in racial profiling.

The school board voted unanimously on Tuesday to “express outrage” and “condemnation” of the law, and it called on the school superintendent to look into curtailing economic support to the Grand Canyon State. About 73 percent of the students in the school district are Latino.

But supporters of the law say the school board is way out of bounds and that the measure will just distract from the children's education.

“This is ridiculous, it’s ridiculous for us to be involved in Arizona law,” said Jane Barnett, Chairman, Los Angeles County Republican Party. “There is a 50 percent dropout rate in some parts of the school district—is this going to keep kids in school?”

According to its press release, "The Los Angeles Board of Education also requested that Superintendent Ramon Cortines ensure that civics and history classes discuss the recent laws with students in the context of the American values of unity, diversity and equal protection for all people.”

"America must stand for tolerance, inclusiveness and equality,” said Board President Monica García, according to the release. “In our civics classes and in our hallways, we must give life to these values by teaching our students to value themselves; to respect others; and to demand fairness and justice for all who live within our borders. Any law which violates civil rights is un-American."

In an e-mail to FOXNews.com, school district spokesman Robert Alaniz elaborated:

“The Board of Education directed the Superintendent to ensure that LAUSD civics and history classes discuss the recent laws enacted in Arizona in the context of the American values of unity, diversity, and Equal Protection for all. Much like a number of controversial periods and laws that are part of our history and are currently taught including:

-- Slavery

-- Jim Crowe laws and segregation

-- Native American reservations

-- Residential schools (for Native Americans)

-- The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

-- Anti-Irish racism in the 19th century

-- Racism against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the 20th century

-- Anti-Semitism

-- Internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II

-- The Mexican Repatriation Program (1929-1939)."

The school district resolution also opposed another new Arizona law that bans schools from teaching classes that promote the overthrow of the government or advocate ethnic solidarity.

The school board called on Arizona's leaders to reverse both of these “misguided” new laws, the press release said.

The board said the laws “effectively sanction and promote unconstitutional racial profiling and harassment,” and “blatantly violate the civil rights of both Arizona residents and all visitors to the State.”

They said Arizona’s new laws also “severely restrict the education of all children in Arizona by refusing to incorporate vital sections of history that incorporate the contributions of this country’s many diverse groups.”

The superintendent was also asked to investigate ways to curtail contracts with Arizona-based businesses and district travel to the state.

"We need to do everything in our power to help our students be global citizens, develop appreciation for the diversity in our midst, and reject any forms of racism or bias," said Board Vice President Yolie Flores. "This resolution highlights our commitment to ensuring that our students understand the ideals and constitutional rights that this great country is founded on, while also gaining an appreciation of the histories and cultural contributions of those who have helped build this nation."

“It is a sad day in America when the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are trampled upon under the color of law and authority,” said LAUSD Board Member Martinez. “Everyone, regardless of their status in the United States, has the right to equal protection under our laws. These Arizona laws are nothing but a knee-jerk backlash resulting from the lack of a comprehensive and well thought out immigration reform policy.”

The LA County Republican chairwoman said she’s been inundated with phone calls, e-mails and Facebook messages from people all over Los Angeles who say their school district has no business meddling in another state’s laws when they’ve got so many problems of their own to deal with.

“This is really crazy,” she said. “Everybody is upset about this.”

Barnett called the school board resolution a “pathetic stunt” that distracts educators from what they should be focusing on: educating the students.

“This is nothing we should be involved in. Let the courts deal with this,” she said. “We need to keep out of other people’s states’ business.”

Nathan Mintz, the founder of the South Bay Tea Party and the Republican nominee for the 53rd State Assembly seat.

“This is just another example of these embedded bureaucrats in California doing anything they can to deflect and distract from the poor job their doing of educating our children,” said Nathan Mintz, the founder of the South Bay Tea Party and the Republican nominee for the 53rd State Assembly seat.

He said attacking Arizona’s immigration law is just “a distraction from the key issue of educating the kids in our schools.”

“We support Arizona,” Barnett said. “In fact, I think we ought to go there right now for vacation.”



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/02/la-school-district-teaches-az-law-is-un-american/

I can tell you right now, as someone whose degrees are in History and Social Science teaching, and a former teacher, if I were teaching there, I'd take a bit of 1 day to teach the real facts of the law and how it is NOT racist or un-American, but rather is for the benefit of all Americans and legal immigrants.

[clintonobserver]

What is a multi-layered approach? Just enforce the law! It isn't that complicated, Mr. Obama! The law also benefits would-be legal immigrants in that if they enter the country lawfully, they are not subject to being indentured servants, having to hide or be on the move all the time and many other benefits of being law abiding and eventually a citizen!

[Spang]

Los Lobos cancel Arizona concert appearance to protest SB1070

This just in from Los Lobos' camp: The band is canceling its performance at the Talking Stick Resort in Arizona's Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on June 10 as a protest against the passing of the state's controversial new immigration bill, SB1070. The band issued the following statement via its management:

“We support the boycott of Arizona. The new law will inevitably lead to unfair racial profiling and possible abuse of people who just happen to look Latino. As a result, in good conscience, we could not see ourselves performing in Arizona. We regret the inconvenience this may have caused the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Casino Arizona, Talking Stick Resort and our fans, but we feel strongly that it is the right thing to do.”

The Source (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2010/06/los-lobos-cancel-arizona-concert-appearance.html)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/4646535660_0f61e7ed4b_o_d.gif

[Tybee]

The Source (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2010/06/los-lobos-cancel-arizona-concert-appearance.html)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/4646535660_0f61e7ed4b_o_d.gif

Who is Los Lobos, and why do you care? Why do you care about some group boycotting citizens in your own country? You like seeing that possibly more Americans will lose their jobs? Make you feel good?

[Spang]

Who is Los Lobos...

(No Nudity)

[cindyb]

The double standard by some is incredible. I have not heard one word talking smack or boycotts about MASS.
YOU PEOPLE kill me. :laughing:

It is also nice to see that you don't care about the American citizens of Arizona, Spang, and think they should just wait for their "multi-layered" response from Barack. :rolleyes:

(multi-layered response coming to a state near you in the year 2063)

[clintonobserver]

Multi layered approach:

obfsucate
lie
obfsucate som more
lie
keep on obsfucating
lip service
visit the gulf
lie

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP070/k0700576.jpg

[Kbentleyis]

Is it all about the votes? Who's side is BHO and his regime on? For those who are against businesses hiring illegals, what sense does this make? Another failed attempt from the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/justice-dept-challenges-arizona-immigration-law-targeting-employers/?test=latestnews

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses.

"If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants.

The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes.

"The argument that the Justice Department is making here, is you know, the fundamental question, which is where does state authority begin and end when it comes to federal immigration law?" said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council.

The Arizona statue relies on a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, which made clear federal law preempts the states on immigration – but left one exception: "The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens."

"Congress said very clearly that licensing and similar laws can be used to impose consequences on employers who hire unauthorized aliens at the state level," said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "And that's exactly what Arizona did."

Oddly enough, the law in question was signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, now Obama's Homeland Security secretary.

Not only that, but the law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"And bear in mind that 9th Circuit is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits in the United States – and so the Obama administration, evidently, believes that the 9th Circuit views on this question is too conservative for this administration," Kobach said.

And this is yet another issue in the ongoing tug of war between Washington and the states, especially Arizona.

"The idea that states can't be involved in immigration law in any way is wrong," Johnson said. "The states have always had a role to play in immigration enforcement. The tricky part is defining where that authority begins and ends."

[clintonobserver]

Trying to make sense of the senseless is futile! Either Obama is truly dangerous to this country or he is truly dangerous to this country! He's proven it time and time again!

[CGP]

Hundreds of people who support Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigration rallied in Phoenix Saturday. Supporters waved American flags. However, soaring temperatures may have put a damper on turnout. (June 5)

YouTube- Raw Video: Rally in Support of New Ariz. Law

[samurai007]

But I thought the drumbeat of the lefties was "go after the evil Corporate employers, leave the poor 'migrant' alone!" Now they want to protect businesses that hire illegals because evil, evil Arizona went after them back when their own Dir of Homeland Security was in charge of the state?

[lanesharon]

Has anyone here read the law? And, looked at the Arizona legal site to see how it is going to be applied. In case you want honest information, here is a link to the law, in pdf format:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

And, here is how the state will apply the law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

There will be no roundups or racial profiling, trust me, in this state, with the majority of the current population being Hispanic, that would never happen.

I live in southern Arizona. We deal with the illegal immigration situation everyday. That terminology 'illegal immigration' is too benign of a word for what we are living with every day.

We have illegals walking on our property. Many are just people, looking for work, but many are criminals and drug runners looking to distribute. You never know which group they belong to, so you sit in fear.

The 'coyotes' bring truck loads across and then leave them in the desert to die. Some have been left in tracter trailer trucks, locked in. Then, the coyote disconnects the trailer and takes off, if they have any fear of being detected. So, there those people sit, in internal heat that can get well over 150 degrees. Is this humane?

Or the coyotes put them in houses, with dozens of other illegals. They make them work on jobs that they receive very little for and they charge the 'employer' a much higher amount. They pocket the rest. Is this humane?

Our (and the illegal) children attend schools where there are wrought iron picket fences surrounding the entire school. The education system has to do this for safety (drug runners and criminals). If a gun is detected 'on campus', they put the school on 'lock down', sometimes with the kids inside. Is this humane?

We have had to shut down a percentage of our schools this year because of the expense of educating children of illegals. They don't pay taxes, but they do get all the benefits that we pay for. So, now, all the kids will have to 'double-up' in school. More students per room, less teachers. Will our kids get a good education? Is this humane?

Our hospitals, at night, are overloaded with illegal aliens. These are people who come across the border and go to the emergency rooms to have their children looked at for colds and flus. This puts a burden on our medical institutions, that in turn jeapordizes the lives of AZ citizens who need medical care, in emergency situations. Some times you can wait for hours and hours. If you go by ambulance, you sometimes still have to wait, in the hallway, for hours. Is this humane?

Our state budget is blown way out of proportion because we, the citizens of Arizona are paying the tab for all of these services. Many here are senior citizens and cannot afford this extra expense. Jan Brewer, and her predecessor, have had a very tough time 'paying the bills' because they are not our bills and we have no incoming property or payroll taxes from these people. I am not talking about a 'little bit' or money. I am talking about a very large percentage of our state budget. Is it humane for us to pay the bills of Mexican citizens who are here illegally?

Everyone, who does not live in a border state or community, has an opinion about this that is way off the mark. You have to live her and see the guns flying, the criminal impact, the drugs being pushed on your kids, the impact on the education and medical services to really know what is happening.

The largest percentage of tax paying Arizonans side with Jan Brewer on this. Why? Because we actually live here and deal with this, every single day.

[Valin]

Has anyone here read the law? And, looked at the Arizona legal site to see how it is going to be applied. In case you want honest information, here is a link to the law, in pdf format:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

And, here is how the state will apply the law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

There will be no roundups or racial profiling, trust me, in this state, with the majority of the current population being Hispanic, that would never happen.

I live in southern Arizona. We deal with the illegal immigration situation everyday. That terminology 'illegal immigration' is too benign of a word for what we are living with every day.

There are those that can't be bothered by petty little details. Not when it's so much easier to scream Profiling.

[devildog]

Where's the boycott of California because of Prop 8?

[Suzan]

Where's the boycott of California because of Prop 8?
Actually Prop 8 was a different situation. It wasn't a bill written, passed and enacted by the state legislature. It was a proposition financed primarily by churches that were so concerned with retribution that they petitioned to have the donor names kept secret. So yes, actually, there was plenty of flack directed at those who supported Prop 8.

[devildog]

Actually Prop 8 was a different situation. It wasn't a bill written, passed and enacted by the state legislature. It was a proposition financed primarily by churches that were so concerned with retribution that they petitioned to have the donor names kept secret. So yes, actually, there was plenty of flack directed at those who supported Prop 8.

I disagree. A law is still a law. People supported it (and voted for it), like people in Arizona who supported this law.

[cinnamongirl]

I disagree. A law is still a law. People supported it (and voted for it), like people in Arizona who supported this law.

People didn't vote for directly this law. It was not a referendum like Prop 8.

[clintonobserver]

lanesharon, you bring up excellent points that so many who don't live it are ignorant of. They are ready to jump into the anti-AZ law fray first knowing nothing accurate about the law and second, knowing nothing accurate about the way people like you have to live due to the illegal alien situation.

If this country doesn't wake up soon (and with Obama it won't). it will be like this in many more parts of the US and then the anti-law people will be told "we told you so". How do you like living locked down in your own home and community half the time?

[sojourner]

Where's the boycott of California because of Prop 8?

The short answer: Business, Democrat lead government, and large Hispanic rights organizations have a vested interest in the illegal immigration issue. Gay rights, not so much.

[greenleaf]

Has anyone here read the law? And, looked at the Arizona legal site to see how it is going to be applied. In case you want honest information, here is a link to the law, in pdf format:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

And, here is how the state will apply the law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

There will be no roundups or racial profiling, trust me, in this state, with the majority of the current population being Hispanic, that would never happen.

I live in southern Arizona. We deal with the illegal immigration situation everyday. That terminology 'illegal immigration' is too benign of a word for what we are living with every day.

We have illegals walking on our property. Many are just people, looking for work, but many are criminals and drug runners looking to distribute. You never know which group they belong to, so you sit in fear.

The 'coyotes' bring truck loads across and then leave them in the desert to die. Some have been left in tracter trailer trucks, locked in. Then, the coyote disconnects the trailer and takes off, if they have any fear of being detected. So, there those people sit, in internal heat that can get well over 150 degrees. Is this humane?

Or the coyotes put them in houses, with dozens of other illegals. They make them work on jobs that they receive very little for and they charge the 'employer' a much higher amount. They pocket the rest. Is this humane?

Our (and the illegal) children attend schools where there are wrought iron picket fences surrounding the entire school. The education system has to do this for safety (drug runners and criminals). If a gun is detected 'on campus', they put the school on 'lock down', sometimes with the kids inside. Is this humane?

We have had to shut down a percentage of our schools this year because of the expense of educating children of illegals. They don't pay taxes, but they do get all the benefits that we pay for. So, now, all the kids will have to 'double-up' in school. More students per room, less teachers. Will our kids get a good education? Is this humane?

Our hospitals, at night, are overloaded with illegal aliens. These are people who come across the border and go to the emergency rooms to have their children looked at for colds and flus. This puts a burden on our medical institutions, that in turn jeapordizes the lives of AZ citizens who need medical care, in emergency situations. Some times you can wait for hours and hours. If you go by ambulance, you sometimes still have to wait, in the hallway, for hours. Is this humane?

Our state budget is blown way out of proportion because we, the citizens of Arizona are paying the tab for all of these services. Many here are senior citizens and cannot afford this extra expense. Jan Brewer, and her predecessor, have had a very tough time 'paying the bills' because they are not our bills and we have no incoming property or payroll taxes from these people. I am not talking about a 'little bit' or money. I am talking about a very large percentage of our state budget. Is it humane for us to pay the bills of Mexican citizens who are here illegally?

Everyone, who does not live in a border state or community, has an opinion about this that is way off the mark. You have to live her and see the guns flying, the criminal impact, the drugs being pushed on your kids, the impact on the education and medical services to really know what is happening.

The largest percentage of tax paying Arizonans side with Jan Brewer on this. Why? Because we actually live here and deal with this, every single day.

Thanks for sharing.

[Laura Cereta]

Has anyone here read the law?

Hey, you. Long time, no "see." :D

[Spang]

Citing fears that the measure may lead to racial profiling, a number of musical artist have recently called for a boycott of Arizona, including Carlos Santana, Willie Nelson, Kanye West, Shakira, Rage Against the Machine's Zack de la Rocha, Los Tigres del Norte and Sonic Youth.

The Source (http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/music/articles/2010/06/03/20100603los-lobos-cancel-scottsdale-show-protest-immigration-law.html)

[clintonobserver]

Do you support the AZ Immigration law? Over 94% voting in this poll do.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/12/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration

[lanesharon]

Do you support the AZ Immigration law? Over 94% voting in this poll do.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/12/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration

OMG, you mean facts are disputing the media 'spin' ! Usually, they 'spin it' and everyone just 'falls in line'. Finally the American citizens are making up their own minds. At least on this issue. :D

[Spang]

You think YOU'RE outraged?

Jan Brewer and other out-of-touch officials continue to make Arizona famous for all the wrong reasons. Our accidental governor recently signed into law a ban on ethnic studies and a ban on human-animal hybrids. And just last week, a Prescott city councilman publicly called for artists to "lighten the skin" on images of children in a school mural.

Join the 5,000 Arizonans who have signed the Arizona Fights Back petition. Help us stop Gov. Brewer and extremist Republicans in Arizona and elect more Democrats this November.

Check out our new video to see how Arizonans really feel about what's happening in our state:

(No Nudity)

Read the complete article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-heredia/you-think-youre-outraged_b_607710.html?ref=twitter); it's only three more paragraphs and two of them don't have that many words.

[clintonobserver]

OMG, you mean facts are disputing the media 'spin' ! Usually, they 'spin it' and everyone just 'falls in line'. Finally the American citizens are making up their own minds. At least on this issue. :D

Yes, I certainly hope so anyway! Even other polls that are conducted scientifically have agreement between 52% to the mid 70's.

[lanesharon]

The new Arizona law requires police to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop and suspect is in the country illegally.

Asolutely not true. Please read the legislation and the amendments to it that followed - Arizona HB 2162. On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin. The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.

Just because someone puts erroneous information in some online publication, does not make it fact....

[lanesharon]

YouTube- President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing

[foxyladi]

methinks the Governor straightned out the W.H.:laughing:

[lanesharon]

YouTube- Governor Brewer on Greta van Susteren

[Alces95]

YouTube- President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLgZ1LWLlko)

I am coming around on the AZ law but...

A sitting governor puts out an ad that is against a sitting President and is paid for by her re-election committee and that President is not her opponent.

So this is just an attack ad on someone not in the race.

I am perfectly ok with comments made during interviews and such but the ad is pure politics. She's just like the rest but maybe even lower brow. :-bd

[samurai007]

I am coming around on the AZ law but...

A sitting governor puts out an ad that is against a sitting President and is paid for by her re-election committee and that President is not her opponent.

So this is just an attack ad on someone not in the race.

I am perfectly ok with comments made during interviews and such but the ad is pure politics. She's just like the rest but maybe even lower brow. :-bd

The fact that Bush wasn't in the 08 race never stopped Obama from running against him, and he's still doing it. Fact is, this election is going to be a referendum on Obama as much as it is a local thing.

[Alces95]

The fact that Bush wasn't in the 08 race never stopped Obama from running against him, and he's still doing it. Fact is, this election is going to be a referendum on Obama as much as it is a local thing.

"Yeah but Obama did it" is your response?

I'm looking for politicians to lead with dignity and she is no better than O in that category.

[sojourner]

I am coming around on the AZ law but...

A sitting governor puts out an ad that is against a sitting President and is paid for by her re-election committee and that President is not her opponent.

So this is just an attack ad on someone not in the race.

I am perfectly ok with comments made during interviews and such but the ad is pure politics. She's just like the rest but maybe even lower brow. :-bd

I see it as an attempt, maybe out of desperation, to force the President to do his job and secure the border. Obviously normal channels to the WH and Homeland Security are not working.

[lanesharon]

I am coming around on the AZ law but...

A sitting governor puts out an ad that is against a sitting President and is paid for by her re-election committee and that President is not her opponent.

So this is just an attack ad on someone not in the race.

I am perfectly ok with comments made during interviews and such but the ad is pure politics. She's just like the rest but maybe even lower brow. :-bd

Oh, and President Obama is NOT saying anything that might be seen as an attack on Jan Brewer. Yeah Right !

If the feds would do the job that they are supposed to do, we, in Arizona, would not have to spend taxpayer dollars doing it for them. The Mexican border is 1,969 miles long. President Obama has 'pledged' all states that share a border with another country (remember Canada people) an additional 1,200 border patrol agents. We don't have any of them yet here in AZ. The border is currently guarded by more than seventeen thousand border patrol agents, however they only have "effective control" of less than 700 miles of the total border. This is about a third of the border. So, two thirds of the border is 'wide open' to drug trafficers, criminals, and illegal aliens who come from ALL countries. Adding an additional 7% to the current number of agents isn't going to resolve this problem.

I, personally, believe that the United States federal government has turned a 'blind eye' to illegal immigration for decades, through both political regimes. Why?

There are an estimated half a million illegal entries into the United States each year. I can tell you from personal experience that the majority of these are coming across the Mexican border, initially through California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican authorities are way too lax on people coming into their own country. Which means, that a portion of these illegal crossings are not Mexican nationals.

Yesterday's national news:
"In what was billed as the largest U.S. dragnet in the war on drugs from the Southwest border, senior federal law enforcement officials said Thursday that they had arrested more than 2,200 people including a top Mexican cartel leader, seized nearly 75 tons of drugs and confiscated $154 million in cash."

These guys carry guns and ammunition with them when they cross the border. They use well built and financed tunnel systems. There is a LOT of money, and criminal behavior, that goes along with drug smuggling. But, if you are a Mexican border state, you should just let them cross without defending your rights ? I don't think so. And, I personally, would much rather see my rights defended by my government than a group of citizens with even more guns.

[clintonobserver]

Does anyone know if Obama's illegal alien aunt is being deported? If she is, the rest of illegals shoul also be. If not, then why are we deporting some illegal aliens? Obama is between a rock and hard place and obviously doesn't have much respect for the immigration laws which he himself may have broken or at least be hiding the fact that he likely went to school here as a foreign student. Don't expect much help from him--just lip service.

[clintonobserver]

Reminiscences of Victims of Illegal Alien Crime

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/graphics/shelly.jpg

If there is another case of someone being murdered because of possibly reporting an illegal alien to the authorities, I don't know of it. That fact makes this crime uniquely shocking, as well as how a 40-year-old actress, Adrienne Shelly, was killed in a situation disguised to look like suicide. But what was really being hidden was the immigration status of the killer.
"I was having a bad day," illegal immigrant Diego Pillco, 19, allegedly told cops. "I didn't mean to kill her. But I did kill her."
Pillco told detectives that he punched Shelly, 40, last Wednesday afternoon outside the Abingdon Square apartment she was using as an office after she yelled at him about the noise he was making while working in a vacant apartment below. [...]
After seeing she was unconscious and believing she was dead, Pillco claimed, he dragged Shelly into her apartment, wrapped a bed sheet around her neck and attached it to a shower rod in the bathroom to make it appear she had hanged herself, sources said.
[Star's Suicide Was Killer Cover-Up, New York Post, 10/7/06]
Shelly was discovered hanged in the shower of her Greenwich Village apartment/office on Nov. 1 by her husband Andy Ostroy. Police originally thought she might have been a suicide, but the family objected that her life was going too well for that, plus a sneaker print in the bathtub was from a stranger.
Adrienne Shelly had everything to live for. She had become more interested in writing and directing, and was looking forward to the release of her film "Waitress." She had a 3-year-old daughter, Sophie.
But her life meant nothing to an illegal alien who would do anything to protect himself.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/

[clintonobserver]

A Police Officer's Story

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/graphics/rodneyjohnson2.jpg


It has never been easy to be a cop, but the presence today of millions of illegal aliens makes the job enormously more difficult and dangerous. That hazard is multiplied for police who work in a sanctuary city or state (see map), where they are prevented from asking about immigration status, knowledge which should be part of every officer's toolbox. In such places, the criminal is given an edge and law enforcement suffers.
We don't know whether Houston's sanctuary policy had a direct connection with the murder of Officer Rodney Johnson on Sept. 21, for example by making the city a more attractive place for the accused killer, illegal alien Juan Leonardo Quintero, to settle. We do know that the accused was previously deported in 1999 for sexual indecency with a child, so he may have wanted all the advantage he could get.
Officer Johnson had stopped Quintero for speeding, found he didn't have a license, then cuffed him and put him in the back of the squad car. Quintero somehow was able to draw a weapon which Johnson had missed, and then shot and killed the officer as he sat in the driver's seat. Quintero was quickly caught and was arraigned a day following the crime. Rodney Johnson truly was one of Houston's Finest and had been recognized more than once for his heroic actions in the line of duty.
More details.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/

[clintonobserver]

There are a lot more examples of illegal immigrant violence on innocent citizens, one a paramedic, children women, etc. in the article linked above. Everyone should read them.

[clintonobserver]

Video: Rancher Captures Illegals with guns, human traffickers, drug smugglers crossing the border on hidden camera:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4236690/rancher-catches-illegals-on-video/?playlist_id=87937

Scroll down to all videos thumbnails.

[Spang]

Sins of The Fathers

So 89-year-old Helen Thomas is excoriated for her comments that the Israeli Jews should go back where their parents came from --- "Poland, Germany, the United States" but the governor of Arizona blithely says that American children should go back where their parents came from (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/az-governor-to-illegals-with-us-citizen-children-take-them-back-home-with-you/) and that's considered perfectly normal political discourse, not even worthy of discussion:

[Video goes here]

“It is illegal to trespass in our country. It has always been illegal. And people have determined that they want to take that chance, that responsibility. It’s not going to tear them apart. They can take their children back with them.”

What a lovely piece of work this woman is. Arizonans must all be so proud.

The Complete Article w/ Video (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/jan-brewer-isnt-89-years-old-so-whats.html)

[samurai007]

The Complete Article w/ Video (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/jan-brewer-isnt-89-years-old-so-whats.html)

There's a vast world of difference between people that snuck into another country illegally, and sending the people of a sovereign nation, on their own land, back to the scene of a holocaust that resulting in the deaths of 6 million of their people.

[Spang]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

[samurai007]

The Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

There's an important part you're overlooking...

Originally Posted by The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Spang]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/CRAYOLA-ARIZONA.jpg

[lanesharon]

YouTube- SOUTHERN EXPOSURE DOCUMENTARY TRAILER

This woman's 50,000 acre ranch has been in existence since 1880! Part of it has been environmentally destroyed with large layup areas (areas where illegals gather, eat, change clothes, and leave everything behind as they make their last trek north). I walked one area the size of a football field and my shoes never touched the soil. This family has experienced, first-hand, the affects of the mass migration and drug trafficking. Video clip of her comments:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=392792732438#!/video/video.php?v=396410582438

We shot this footage of illegal aliens crossing the desert at night. Border Patrol sent out scores of agents and two helocopters but failed to apprehend any of them. There were 140 in this group. Video clip:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=392792732438#!/video/video.php?v=396409602438

[lanesharon]

A very small example of illegal immigration on healthcare:

YouTube- ONE cost of illegal immigration on healthcare

[lanesharon]

A very simple explanation of why SB1070 is important to the legal citizens of Arizona:

YouTube- Gabriella Speaks City Council Meeting April 27, 2010

[lanesharon]

Mexico's President Calderone recently came to the United States. In his public speech he condemned the state of Arizona for instituting SB1070. Let me put into perspective why.

In 2005 the government of Yucatan produced a handbook and DVD about the risks and implications of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The guide told immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools, and how to send money home. Officials in Yucatan said the guide is a necessity to save lives but some American groups accused the government of encouraging illegal immigration.


In 2005 the Mexican government was criticized for distributing a comic book which offers tips to illegal aliens emigrating to the United States.That comic book recommends to illegal immigrants, once they have safely crossed the border, "Don't call attention to yourself. ... Avoid loud parties. ... Don't become involved in fights."


Why would these countries 'strongly suggest' that their citizens leave their country of origin and take the risk or bodily harm or death to illegally enter the United States? Because a large percentage of those who do send money back to their country of origin. In fact, the statistics dating back to 2006 show that these types of remittances constitute an important percentage of Mexico's GDP.

A remittance is a money transfer from a foreigner to his native homeland. In 2008, Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. sent $25.3 billion back to their homeland (http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2010/swe1001d.pdf), roughly equalling 3% of Mexico's GDP. Remittances from immigrants living in the U.S. have become Mexico's largest source of revenue second only to their oil industry.

[Spang]

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists — things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The Complete Article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996064,00.html)

[clintonobserver]

lanesharon, I notice your posts and mine as well as most people who are trying to get the truth out about how terrible the illegal immigration problem is are totally silent. And, it is not a matter of race. It is a matter of illegality. There are others entering the country from Canada but not in enormous numbers. Many of them are caught but it doesn't make the news. It doesn't matter what country illegals are from, it matters simply that they are illegal, breaking the laws, putting a strain on our economy and health care as well as other social programs. And the safety of our citizens is also a HUGE issue. I find it abhorrent that some and many politicians (because of the vote) will oppose AZ and defend breaking the law.

See this article about how illegal immigration impacts voting & the electoral college:

In addition, because of the increasing size of the illegal alien population in this country, once every decade the problem of illegal immigration in America secretly becomes even worse. This is because the inclusion of illegal aliens in the United States Census acts to compromise the Founding Fathers' principal of fair and equal representation for each and every citizen.

You may ask how counting illegal aliens in the United States Census compromises the basic principals of our Constitution. Well, it is because each state's total census population is used as a basis for the once a decade calculation of Congressional Apportionment, which is the distribution of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives among the 50 states. In addition that apportionment is used as the basis to distribute more than $200 billion in federal aid to the states each year.

That's right, a large number of illegal immigrants in a state's census population could increase its representation in Congress, electoral votes, and lead to a subsequent increase in federal aid every year for a decade. Illegal aliens have this type of secret impact even though they are not citizens and cannot vote.


Read more:

http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-secret-impact-of-illegal-immigration-in-america-603104.html#ixzz0qm2dYuNb
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[devildog]

PHOENIX (AP) - Sheriff's deputies raided two Sizzler steak house restaurants in Phoenix on Saturday, arresting nine employees who are suspected of being illegal immigrants and using fraudulent documents to get jobs.

The raids were part of a yearlong investigation into whether the operators of the two Sizzler locations broke a civil law by knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Lt. Brian Lee said in a statement.

Deputies were looking for 23 suspects wanted for identity theft, Lee said. Authorities believe one of the suspects was deported three times and has been hired back by Sizzler each time he returned.

Authorities raid Sizzler restaurants in Phoenix (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100613/D9GA4CAO0.html)

[clintonobserver]

Authorities raid Sizzler restaurants in Phoenix (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100613/D9GA4CAO0.html)

I hope the employers get in trouble also. Identity theft, huh?

[devildog]

I think the employers should have to pay a HUGE fine and we have a 3 strikes and your out law. 1st time, you pay a fine. 2nd time, you pay a larger fine and your business license gets suspended for 30 days. 3rd time it happens, your business license is revoked for good. It's not just large corporations (as some people would have you believe) doing this. It's small businesses hiring illegals as well.

[clintonobserver]

I think the employers should have to pay a HUGE fine and we have a 3 strikes and your out law. 1st time, you pay a fine. 2nd time, you pay a larger fine and your business license gets suspended for 30 days. 3rd time it happens, your business license is revoked for good. It's not just large corporations (as some people would have you believe) doing this. It's small businesses hiring illegals as well.

Yep! But politics gets in the way of fairness and justice a lot of the time!

[samurai007]

So, is working at Sizzler now one of those horrible, back-breaking jobs that no American would ever do, even at twice the wages?

And identity theft is pretty much a given with illegals. They get forged documents so they can work, and many times, the Soc Sec #s end up matching to real Americans.

[RE:]

Why would these countries 'strongly suggest' that their citizens leave their country of origin and take the risk or bodily harm or death to illegally enter the United States? Because a large percentage of those who do send money back to their country of origin. In fact, the statistics dating back to 2006 show that these types of remittances constitute an important percentage of Mexico's GDP.



I have, over the years, worked very closely with illegal immigrants and I can tell you for a fact that they all send a big chunk of their money home to their families. It's a cycle...they will eventually move back to their country of origin and their children will do the same for them, and so on.

Remittances are very important to the GDP of a country. The Philippines are the same way. http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/remittances-and-the-philippines-economy-the-elephant-in-the-room

[clintonobserver]

I have, over the years, worked very closely with illegal immigrants and I can tell you for a fact that they all send a big chunk of their money home to their families. It's a cycle...they will eventually move back to their country of origin and their children will do the same for them, and so on.

Remittances are very important to the GDP of a country. The Philippines are the same way. http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/remittances-and-the-philippines-economy-the-elephant-in-the-room

This too!

[lanesharon]

I think the employers should have to pay a HUGE fine and we have a 3 strikes and your out law. 1st time, you pay a fine. 2nd time, you pay a larger fine and your business license gets suspended for 30 days. 3rd time it happens, your business license is revoked for good. It's not just large corporations (as some people would have you believe) doing this. It's small businesses hiring illegals as well.

This is exactly what I was telling a friend of mine last week. But, most of their 'employers' don't even have a business license. And, remember, a large portion of these 'illegal immigrants' are coming here for criminal purposes. At least one in four is the 'estimate'.

clintonobserver - I knew about the census counts. It is pretty obvious here when the 'language spoken' question is asked.

BTW, I am not a racist and neither are the Arizonans that I have talked to about this. My best friend (my next door neighbor) is Hispanic. But, she is a legal resident of the US. And, guess what? We have discussed this topic, in depth, and she has said a lot of the same things that I have brought up here. In fact, since she spends time in Mexico, she is able to give me the perspective from the other side of the border.

[lanesharon]

You might want to read how much farther ahead, in illegal immigration legislation, Missouri is vs Arizona.
--> Link for article (http://ozarkssentinel.com/clients/ozarkssentinel/missouri-ahead-of-the-game-in-dealing-with-illegal-immigrants-p1034.htm?twindow=Default&smenu=145&mad=No)

In 2007, the Missouri General Assembly approved HJR 7 to place on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri. Voters then went to the polls and approved the measure with nearly 90 percent voting in favor. With that, English became the official language for all governmental proceedings in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language other than English. A common language is the cornerstone of a cohesive and united state and country. Ensuring that English is our official language is simply common sense.

Another measure that directly addresses the issue of illegal immigration was passed in 2008. HB 1549 requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It also allows Missouri law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. Furthermore, the bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will not have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps and health care through MO HealthNet. With the passage of this legislation, Missouri sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are not welcome in our state, and that they are certainly not welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers.
2009 saw another significant piece of legislation passed dealing with illegal immigration. HB 390 ensures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education do not award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all postsecondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Department of Higher Education that they have not knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States. The bill represents another common sense approach to the issue as it ensures taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize the education of someone who is in our country illegally.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it’s important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem. The laws we have on the books help ensure the rights and benefits of Missourians are preserved for actual Missouri citizens. It’s also important to remember that this country has always opened its arms to immigrants, which is why our nation is often referred to as the great melting pot. Immigrants from all parts of the world have helped make our country what it is today. However, our doors are not open to those who try to live in our country illegally. I believe Missouri’s laws make that very clear and give our law enforcement officials the authority they need to deal with the problem.
Thanks again for allowing me to represent you in the state capitol. Feel free to contact me with your concerns, suggestions and ideas

I found it interesting in reading this one person's comment that followed. Sounds like the Missouri police are having the same problems getting INS to do their jobs, as the Doctor that I put in the video above.

Great legislation and I’m 100% in favor of everything written BUT it’s almost impossible to enforce… EXAMPLE: I have multiple good friends in law enforcement. They stop people who do not speak any English and/or are barely able to communicate in English…..have little or ZERO legal documentation, even some who readily ADMIT they are illegal !!! PROBLEM: The law enforcement officer calls the federal office affected (such as the INS) and the INS (or other Federal agency) DECLINES to come and pick up the illegal immigrant, even if a crime has been committed. Repeatedly, over and over and over again they decline to respond and/or pick up the illegal!! The officers I know finally quit calling because the Federal agencies refuse to respond and it becomes a huge waste of time, and quite honestly, pisses them off. At this time, local officers (St Louis City & County) and I THINK state law enforcement officers as well are NOT able to detain or lock up every illegal they stop in local and state facilities….IF the ONLY offense is that they are illegal….it’s simply not “on the books”. They/we do NOT have the time, money, or holding facilities to accommodate this activity…only FEDERAL agencies have this responsibility and they REFUSE to answer the calls of local and state law enforcement. It’s a “Catch 22”, ALL caused by the Federal agencies responsible for detaining and deporting illegal’s. If this bothers you as much as it does me, PLEASE forward this AND contact your LOCAL, STATE, & NATIONAL elected representatives and tell them you are sick of the double speak, lies, and lack of follow-thru from the federal government!

[RE:]

Excellent post, lanesharon!

I find it ridiculous that AZ is being labeled a racist state, but when MO did it a couple years back...we heard NOTHING!

Amazing.

[Spang]

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state.

Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.

Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law's passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.

The Complete Article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-08-immigration_N.htm)

[Spang]

You people in Arizona are getting what you want. You'll need new laws to get rid of the blacks and Asians, though.

[RE:]

You people in Arizona are getting what you want. You'll need new laws to get rid of the blacks and Asians, though. Calling people from Arizona racist is discriminatory and generalizing.

This is a discriminatory free zone.

[Spang]

Calling people from Arizona racist is discriminatory and generalizing.

This is a discriminatory free zone.

You people don't approve of the policy, yet you want it enforced?

[RE:]

You people don't approve of the policy, yet you want it enforced?Again. Stop with the generalizations and accusations. I am not a part of 'you people'.

You people = discriminatory verbage

[Spang]

Again. Stop with the generalizations and accusations. I am not a part of 'you people'.

You people = discriminatory verbage

You don't approve of the policy, yet you want it enforced?

[RE:]

You don't approve of the policy, yet you want it enforced?Again....stop with the accusations. I never said how I felt about the policy.

[Spang]

Again....stop with the accusations. I never said how I felt about the policy.

Do you approve of the anti-discrimination policy?

[RE:]

Do you approve of the anti-discrimination policy?Yes, I approve. Do I agree with ALL of it's verbage? No.

Do you?

[Spang]

Do you?

Yes. I see nothing wrong with it.

[samurai007]

The Complete Article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-08-immigration_N.htm)

Looks like it's working!

[Spang]

Looks like it's working!

Yup, it's getting rid of all those filthy Latinos. :thumbsup:**==:thumbsup:**==

[RE:]

"If I were alone, I'd try to stay. But I have a family, and I have to find a place where we can live with more freedom," said Cruz, who hopes to move July 4 to blend in with holiday weekend traffic. "This is getting too hard."



Maybe he can move his family to Missouri. :itwasntme:

[lanesharon]

You people in Arizona are getting what you want. You'll need new laws to get rid of the blacks and Asians, though.

Well, looks like you want to attack all of us Arizonans on a personal level. And, generally put a racist label on all of us. Interesting attitude. I told you on another post here and I will say it again. Come on down and live here, in a border town, for a while. Let's see how it effects your opinions on illegal immigration.

BTW, the figures you mentioned about Balsz are incorrect. You might want to do better research. And, the Balsz elementary school was the first school in the Phoenix area to extend their school year to 200 vs. 180 days this year. They extended it into mid June. Many parents of school aged children are against this policy for understandable reasons. HEAT.

It is not unusual to have a temporary exodus out of Arizona during the heat of the summer. Our temperatures have been well over 100 for several weeks now, so that exodus has started earlier than normal, this year. The ocean shore areas of Mexico are much cooler and several people that I know go to that area for the summer.

[Spang]

I told you on another post here...

I responded to that post.

BTW, the figures you mentioned about Balsz are incorrect.

I didn't write the article.

[devildog]

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I would like to start with the immigration debate in the United States. The recently approved law in Arizona has presented sort of a difficult scenario for the President Obama Administration. According to some polling, half of the United States has approved this law and maybe other states would like to implement it. How’s Obama Administration dealing with this debate? Is the immigration law near reality?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, first, let me say how pleased I am that I have this chance to talk to you about these and other important issues. President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act. But the more important commitment that President Obama has made is to try to introduce and pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is what we need. Everyone knows it, and the President is committed to doing it.

Video at Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/17/clinton_obama_administration_to_sue_arizona_over_i mmigration_law.html)

[clintonobserver]

Vido at Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/17/clinton_obama_administration_to_sue_arizona_over_i mmigration_law.html)


Should be Real Muddy Politics. Love Hillary but spouting the admin's rhetoric I can do without.

[LucyTN]

Seems to me that time spent getting a lawsuit together might be better spent trying to help the state of Arizona secure their border.

[clintonobserver]

Seems to me that time spent getting a lawsuit together might be better spent trying to help the state of Arizona secure their border.


genericstamp!

[lanesharon]

Ditto

genericstamp!

[Spang]

MLB teams prepare Latino rookies for Arizona law

PHOENIX — Dozens of these young Latino men have crossed the border into Arizona. Some are just teenagers, some are in the United States for the first time. Many don't speak English.

Illegal immigrant fighter sheriff Joe Arpaio need not be concerned. They already have all the paperwork an immigrant — and baseball player — could want.

The Arizona Rookie League starts Monday, with some 150 or so prospects from Latin America taking part. Unless a court decides otherwise, the state's much-debated immigration law will take effect on July 29. The season ends a month later.

The Complete Article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-yH1tj15OVi7ztuWiyA86whzbIQD9GDSVAO0)

[clintonobserver]

I think this whole situation pitting the Fed. gov't. against a state is outrageous. What if AZ loses? Are they then supposed to wait until hell freezes over to have the feds enforce illegal immigration. Already, parts of the state (and soon-to-be-other states) are closed to citizens due to danger. What about getting rid of the danger? *shaking head in disbelief*

Mexican Drug Cartels Coming to a City Near You Soon (if not already there):

YouTube- Mexican Drug Cartels Overrunning American Cities. Build a border Wall - Glenn Beck

YouTube- Mexican Drug Cartel In US Cities

YouTube- Mexican Cartels in Nearly 200 U.S. Cities

[lanesharon]

Good for major league baseball for educating their rookies about the new law. I am sure they will all be fine because the DO have the proper paper work to be in the United State legally.

About the cartels - what ever happened to that "War on Drugs"? HMMMMM

[samurai007]

Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law
Published June 24, 2010
| FOXNews.com

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

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

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


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/arizona-dem-accuses-federal-agencies-nixing-conventions-immigration-law/

It's rather ironic that the US Border Patrol won't go to Arizona even for their convention, much less to do their jobs.

[lanesharon]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/arizona-dem-accuses-federal-agencies-nixing-conventions-immigration-law/

It's rather ironic that the US Border Patrol won't go to Arizona even for their convention, much less to do their jobs.

Yeah, I posted this to my FB page last night just because of that irony. It has gotten wayyyyy past the absurd !

[Valin]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/arizona-dem-accuses-federal-agencies-nixing-conventions-immigration-law/

It's rather ironic that the US Border Patrol won't go to Arizona even for their convention, much less to do their jobs.


:atwitsend:



I wonder what the border patrol agents think?

[clintonobserver]

:atwitsend:



I wonder what the border patrol agents think?

It's a real morale booster! :rolleyes: Kinda like some of the morale boosters our troops overseas get!

[Tybee]

Teen shot by Border Patrol had smuggling arrests

EL PASO, Texas – A 15-year-old Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers, according to federal arrest records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The records show Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereca had been arrested at least four times since 2008 and twice in the same week in February 2009 on suspicion of smuggling illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Hernandez was repeatedly arrested along the U.S. side of the border near downtown El Paso, not far from where he was killed, but was never charged with a crime by federal prosecutors.

A Border Patrol agent shot and killed Hernandez June 7 while trying to arrest illegal immigrants crossing the muddy bed of the Rio Grande. Some witnesses said a group of people on the Mexican side were throwing rocks at the agents. Agents are generally permitted to use lethal force against rock throwers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100626/ap_on_re_us/us_border_patrol_shooting

Seems AP finally came out with something Fox News reported weeks ago.

[samurai007]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100626/ap_on_re_us/us_border_patrol_shooting

Seems AP finally came out with something Fox News reported weeks ago.

They like to wait until nobody cares anymore to admit the truth.

[lanesharon]

The really sad part of this is that if the Federal government was actually doing their job, this young man would have been arrested, much earlier. That arrest or multiple arrests may have actually saved his life. Think about it....

[clintonobserver]

It looks like the feds lied in 2009 when referring to protecting our borders and US citizens:

"It's a common sense extension of our continued work with our state, local, and tribal partners in securing the southwest border," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Friday.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who described the contingency plan in an interview with The New York Times this week, said he ordered specific plans to be drawn up this summer as violence in Mexico continued to mount.

The plan includes federal homeland security agents helping local authorities and maybe even military assistance from the Department of Defense, possibly including aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to go to areas overwhelmed with violence, authorities said.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479088,00.html

[clintonobserver]

AZ should file it's own lawsuit for the $750 billion owed them by the federal government according to this article:

-snip-

This week, it's widely expected that the United States of America is going to sue the state of Arizona. It seems we rank right up there with Osama bin Laden and British Petroleum as enemies of the state.

So I'm thinking we ought to return the favor.

For a couple of months now, we've been the nation's punching bag as politicians across the country have proclaimed us the spawn of Hitler, given this state's embrace of Senate Bill 1070. It doesn't help when state Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, pops up on TV every other day, talking about alien invasions.

-snip-



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/27/20100627arizona-federal-lawsuit-roberts.html#ixzz0sAFFfRig

[lanesharon]

YouTube- Brewer to Obama: Warning Signs Are Not Enough

YouTube- Federal Government Warning Sign for Arizona Desert

[lanesharon]

YouTube- Phoenix responds to DC on Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

YouTube- Arizona's new immigration law - abc news

[lanesharon]

YouTube- Illegal Immigration Part 1.wmv

YouTube- Illegal Immigration Part 2.wmv

YouTube- Illegal Immigration Part 3.wmv

[Alces95]

I agree with this person.
I think it’s really sad that individual communities are trying to cope with our broken immigration system. It should not be the responsibility of a municipality or county. This has to be fixed at the federal level. There are lots of strong arguments against turning local police officers into immigration enforcement officials. It has to do with making sure people will report crimes, making sure people will go to the police when there’s a problem. That’s a matter of public safety. It doesn’t always only affect the immigrant community, it affects all of us. So I far prefer that we try to do what needs to be done on comprehensive immigration reform...

The feds should handle this and be forced to rather than local law enforcement, who shouldn't be.

[Suzan]

I agree with this person.


The feds should handle this and be forced to rather than local law enforcement, who shouldn't be.
I agree with this as well. Local police should not be forced into a position of policing borders and searching out illegal immigrants. If illegals are caught breakinig laws, then of course, that's within the jurisdiction of the local police, but not otherwise.

[clintonobserver]

The feds aren't enforcing the law anywhere close to its fullest extent, there aren't enough of them and they have traditionally relied on local police, sheriffs and others to enforce immigration laws locally and turn them over to the feds. There is no way that it should be ONLY the feds doing it for the above reasons!

[lanesharon]

The feds aren't enforcing the law anywhere close to its fullest extent,

NO, it is even worse than that. When the local officials call the INS to come pick up the illegal immigrants, they don't show up. There have been hundreds of cases of this reported, all over the US.

[lanesharon]

This is the Immigration and Nationality Act, here:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD&CH=act

If you read through it, specifially Section 237 here:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5684.html#0-0-0-246

You will have to admit that there is no way that INS or the Attorney General is doing the job that they are supposed to do. If they were, there would not be millions of illegal aliens in the United States.

[Alces95]

Here is another quote from that person who I happen to agree with:
Q: Would you allow “sanctuary cities” to ignore the federal law & provide sanctuary to immigrants?
A: Why do they have sanctuary cities? In large measure because if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, you will hav people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. That is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

Q: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

A: Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The local police chief trying to solve a crime might know people from the immigrant community have information about it, but they may not talk to you if they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.



The federal government needs to handle this, and is not doing so effectively now. However, putting this on local law enforcement is a mistake.

The person I agree with in this case is Hillary.

[clintonobserver]

Those who think the federal government should handle this issue by itself, need to read up on the laws and agreements. Granted, the feds aren't doing their jobs as has been pointed out on this thread (by refusing to respond or whatever the case may be), but local law enforcement is an extension of the federal gov't. in this case.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

The cross-designation between ICE and state and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE allows these local and state officers: necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and increased resources and support in more remote geographical locations.

http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm

[clintonobserver]

Here is another quote from that person who I happen to agree with:


The federal government needs to handle this, and is not doing so effectively now. However, putting this on local law enforcement is a mistake.

The person I agree with in this case is Hillary.

Can you reference a link?

[Alces95]

Those who think the federal government should handle this issue by itself, need to read up on the laws and agreements. Granted, the feds aren't doing their jobs as has been pointed out on this thread (by refusing to respond or whatever the case may be), but local law enforcement is an extension of the federal gov't. in this case.



http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm

In reading the quote, did DHS and Arizona enter into an agreement? Were they all trained by ICE as required? And the last sentence in your post refers to very specific incidents that they would be able to work in that capacity, for investigative purposes.

The federal government is the one dropping the ball, AZ is responding. I just don't think it is the most effective way.

Here is the link I saw the Clinton quotes: http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Immigration.htm

[lanesharon]

working in conjunction with ICE

The problem is ICE! They are not doing their job and many states have complained about this.

[lanesharon]

Can you reference a link?

Ditto! I searched this am. and could not find this quote anywhere.

I think that everyone who thinks that we should just 'leave things the way they are' in Arizona, needs to come here and live for a while. Unless you live in a Mexico/US border state or city, you really cannot understand how overloaded we are with illegals. It is easy to sit 'outside' of a problem and have an opinion on how things 'should be done'. It is a whole different thing to live it.

[Alces95]

Ditto! I searched this am. and could not find this quote anywhere.

I think that everyone who thinks that we should just 'leave things the way they are' in Arizona, needs to come here and live for a while. Unless you live in a Mexico/US border state or city, you really cannot understand how overloaded we are with illegals. It is easy to sit 'outside' of a problem and have an opinion on how things 'should be done'. It is a whole different thing to live it.

The link is in my last post.

You are right, I can only empathize since I am not there. I am not that far from the Canadian border but we really don't have an issue. How many illegals do you see a day?

[cinnamongirl]

The link is in my last post.

You are right, I can only empathize since I am not there. I am not that far from the Canadian border but we really don't have an issue. How many illegals do you see a day?

Thing is, Alces (and it's not you, just that you reminded me of one of my biggest issues with how we handle illegal immigration), how do you know for sure there's not really an issue? Could it be there are fewer illegals busted because Canadians are able to blend and assimilate a little easier as a rule?

[Alces95]

Thing is, Alces (and it's not you, just that you reminded me of one of my biggest issues with how we handle illegal immigration), how do you know for sure there's not really an issue? Could it be there are fewer illegals busted because Canadians are able to blend and assimilate a little easier as a rule?

I think that is the case. Also, I am not sure of the crime rate that Canadians have. I actually do know that there is an issue. I think it is much smaller in comparison and it happened when we didn't have the laws that we do today.
Its no secret why many native NH people have French Canadian last names.

[cinnamongirl]

I think that is the case. Also, I am not sure of the crime rate that Canadians have. I actually do know that there is an issue. I think it is much smaller in comparison and it happened when we didn't have the laws that we do today.
Its no secret why many native NH people have French Canadian last names.

Yeah, I totally see what you're saying. I just find it disturbing that we as a country have a major double standard--that just because one arm of of illegal immigration isn't as easy to track and is perceived as less of an immediate problem, we ignore it almost completely in favor of the illegal immigration that's easier to spot and quantify. It's much easier to vilify Mexicans than Canadians, so that's what we end up doing, ad nauseam.

[lanesharon]

Yeah, I totally see what you're saying. I just find it disturbing that we as a country have a major double standard--that just because one arm of of illegal immigration isn't as easy to track and is perceived as less of an immediate problem, we ignore it almost completely in favor of the illegal immigration that's easier to spot and quantify. It's much easier to vilify Mexicans than Canadians, so that's what we end up doing, ad nauseam.

Maybe this is the reason (from wikipedia):

The illegal immigrant population of the United States (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States) in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies) to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.[2] (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/discussion/#cite_note-1) According to a Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/wiki/Pew_Hispanic_Center) report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/wiki/Mexico); 24% were from other Latin American (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/wiki/Latin_America) countries, primarily from Central America (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/wiki/Central_America);[3] (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/discussion/#cite_note-Estimates_from_PHC-2) 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world

[Spang]

PHOENIX — A seventh challenge filed to block enforcement of Arizona's tough new immigration is the first legal objection to training materials designed to teach police officers how to enforce the law.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, says the training materials are "so vague and ill-defined that they will certainly lead to widespread racial profiling and discrimination."

Among the materials is a video released July 1 that warns officers not to use race or ethnicity when enforcing the new law, but tells them they're allowed to consider whether a person speaks poor English, looks nervous or is traveling in an overcrowded vehicle.

[...]

The Complete Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38183040/ns/us_news/)

[CGP]

Arizona's impending immigration law went before a federal judge for the first time Thursday, and attorneys for both sides sparred over who had the right to enforce immigration law: local officials or the federal government. (July 16)

YouTube- First Lawsuit Heard Against Ariz Immigration Law

[clintonobserver]

YouTube- First Lawsuit Heard Against Ariz Immigration Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNeONJ2YUQ)

Both have the right but when the feds abdicate their responsibility to do so, the state has to. Ultimately, the persons are turned over to the feds to deport, prosecute or whatever the case may be.

[Tybee]

Car bomb signals new dimension to Mexican drug war

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico – A drug cartel has used a car bomb for the first time in Mexico's decades-long fight against traffickers, setting a deadly trap against federal police in a city across the border from Texas, the mayor of Ciudad Juarez said Friday.

Mayor Jose Reyes said federal police have confirmed to him that a car bomb was used in the attack that killed three people Thursday.

It was the first time a drug cartel has used a bomb to attack Mexican security forces, marking an escalation in a raging drug war that already is extremely deadly: On Friday alone, a dozen people were killed and 21 wounded in a series of gun battles between soldiers and cartel gunmen in the Mexican border city of Nuevo Laredo, the federal Interior Department said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico


This is very bad news. Anyone think this will not migrate into the U.S.?

[Tybee]

Hezbollah and Mexica Drug Cartels Operating in Mexico and U.S.


http://banderasnews.com/0810/edat-mexhezbollah.htm

And here:

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/tag/hezbollah-mexico/