Blog For Arizona

The prolonged aftereffect of deficient legislative management

By Karl Reiner

Arizona's legislature has allocated $100,000 to fight subpoenas involving the passage of SB 1070. Passed in 2010, the law is Arizona's belligerent attempt to get more involved in the area of federal immigration law enforcement. Brushing aside suggestions that the lawsuits would go away if the parts SB 1070 not already negated by the courts were repealed, the Republicans (not fiscally conservative in this case) decided funds needed to be allocated to protect their fuzzy concept of what characterizes Arizona's sanctified legislative process. The petulant Republican legislators don't like, and perhaps fear, the insinuation in the subpoena that SB 1070 was motivated partly by racial bias. Given SB 1070's unsympathetic scope, it is quite understandable how a large number of people could arrive at that conclusion.

 

Stop pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits: Repeal the remnants of SB 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's lawless legislature does not hesitate to piss away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court. It does this all the time, and frequently loses in court. The real losers in the end are Arizona's taxpayers who have to pay the attorneys fees and court costs for these ideological extremists.

Our lawless legislature -- the Tea-Publican leadership -- currently has three lawsuits in court challenging the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), the citizens initiative that created it, and the 2012 redistricting maps. This is a purely partisan endeavor that the Arizona GOP should be paying for out of its own deep pockets, not the taxpayers of Arizona.

The most recent example of our lawless legislature pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court is the continuing litigation over the remnants of SB 1070, most of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which came with a warning from the Court that it would strike down the remainder of the law when a proper case and controversy under the remaining provisions of SB 1070 reached the Court. The writing is on the wall.

This week, the legislature approved using taxpayer money to pay the court costs of Republican politicians -- some of whom are no longer in the legislature -- in response to discovery requests in the litigation over SB 1070. Lawmakers approve funds for SB 1070 defense:

Saying they were protecting the legislative process, the House and Senate voted along party lines Thursday to hire a lawyer to help them fight subpoenas over the state’s controversial 2010 immigration law.

The legislation sets aside up to $100,000 to contest a request by the American Civil Liberties Union for the personal emails and other correspondence between some current and former lawmakers and those who might have helped them craft or line up votes for SB 1070.

Arizona Legislature 2014: not much new under the sun

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

A couple of early updates from the new session of the legislative session:

While some of the names have changed, some things haven't changed at the Capitol.  Like the arrogance and culture of entitlement among the majority caucus.

Exhibit 1:  They're proposing to pay any legislators, current and past, who claim to have incurred legal costs from lawsuits against their infamous anti-immigrant measure, SB1070. (Arizona Capitol Times, subscription required)

Something similar to this has been proposed before this week; after former senator Russell Pearce was recalled.  There was a move to reimburse him for the costs of his campaign in (unsuccessful) defense of him.  That move didn't go far, not least because he didn't actually pay for his defense - contributors did.

Pearce's acolytes in the lege may have failed the first time, but they haven't stopped looking for ways to funnel taxpayer money to him.

Exhibit 2: One state legislator, Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma), in response to proposals to end the practice of legislators accepting tickets to sporting events from lobbyists, proclaimed that unless legislators get a pay raise he's going to keep accepting bribes tickets.

For the record: I actually agree with Shooter on one thing - legislative pay should be raised.  Most would-be public servants are honest and honorable people.  However, they also have families to support and cannot do that on the current legislative salary of $24K per year.

So, instead of people who want to work for the best interests of their constituents and the state, Arizona ends up with the majority of the legislature is made up of whackjobs and grifters.

I'll leave it to readers to determine for themselves which category (or both, they're not mutually exclusive) that Shooter fits in.

In any event, he knew what the pay level for legislators was *before* he took his oath of office.  While I think that legislative pay is too low, that doesn't justify corruption.  He gets absolutely no sympathy on this.

Arizona and the repercussions of SB 1070

By Karl Reiner

Passed in 2010, SB 1070 was Arizona's attempt to have local police become more involved in enforcing immigration laws. Although it added a burden on the police, the law generated a great deal of publicity regarding the state of affairs along Arizona's border. It gave fearful people something to think about, taking their minds off of the devastating effects of the Great Recession. Regrettably for Arizona, most of the publicity was highly unfavorable. As the political leadership in Phoenix flaunted its idiosyncratic bizarreness, Arizona became known as a hothouse of intolerance and/or a place where elected officials were too inept to understand the difference between federal and state policing responsibilities.

Arizona's actions antagonized the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora at the same time it brought heaps of unflattering publicity upon itself. All this was occurring at a time when federal border enforcement was on the upswing, the number of illegal borders crossers was dropping and trade with Mexico was increasing. It appeared that Arizona's goal was to freeze trade, encourage tourists to stay away and push up the unemployment rate. The effort to implement SB 1070 soon ran into legal problems as large parts of the law were swiftly negated by the courts. The legal bills mounted as flinty state officials continued to push implementation. In retrospect, the spending on SB 1070 legal fees might have been put to better use supporting the investigation of child protection cases.

So does this mean that Jan Brewer is running for governor?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Accidental Governor, Jan Brewer, was on her way to becoming a footnote in history in 2010 until she embraced SB 1070 and churned up anti-immigrant hysteria to ride to victory.

As Brewer's PR guy Howie Fischer frequently reminds readers, Jan Brewer has not yet declared if she will be a candidate for governor this year (which would require a legal challenge to Arizona's term-limit provisions).

Jan Brewer is embracing SB 1070 again. So does this mean that Jan Brewer is running for governor? Howie Fischer reports, Brewer asks Supreme Court to allow expanded SB 1070 enforcement:

Gov. Jan Brewer is asking the nation’s high court to let Arizona enforce a 2010 law making it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants.

Legal papers filed Monday on the governor’s behalf at the Supreme Court contend there is nothing improper about the state having its own laws aimed at controlling immigration. John Bouma, Brewer’s chief legal counsel, said the fact that there are federal laws criminalizing the same conduct does not pre-empt state action.

* * *

The law in question makes it illegal for someone to transport, conceal, harbor or shield anyone unlawfully present in this country or “encourage or induce the alien to come to or live in Arizona.”

It is part of SB 1070, a broader package of measures designed to give police more power to question and detain those they believe are in the country illegally. Several provisions already have been voided by courts, including three by the Supreme Court itself, as preempted by federal law.

Governor Brewer Proves My Point

By Tom Prezelski

Re-blogged from Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

Yesterday, I wrote here about how the Martin Luther King Jr. of the public imagination has been reduced into a cuddly Care Bear to make him palatable to the picket fence crowd, enabling movement conservatives claim his legacy by forgetting nearly everything he stood for. In fairness, I was not the only one who did so, Salon’s Joan Walsh said more or less the same thing, in a beautiful case of great minds thinking alike.

It was only later that day that I read that Governor Jan Brewer had issued a call for Arizonans to ring bells in honor of the 50th anniversary of The March on Washington.

Old timers may remember that this is the same Jan Brewer who, as a State Senator, supported the  notorious Governor Evan Mecham and voted against the MLK holiday twice.

Questions for Martha McSally: What is your position on comprehensive immigration reform?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics -- I am not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.

Preface: The "Gang of Eight" in the U.S. Senate, which includes Arizona senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, crafted a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate on a super-majority vote of 68-32, with 14 Republicans including Arizona's seantors voting in favor.

The "Gang of Eight" bill includes a "border surge" amendment from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) that throws $30 billion in spending over a 10-year period at border security which would produce a financial windfall to some of America's largest aerospace, technology and security companies, and to border states. Sen. Corker conceded that his "border surge" is "almost overkill."

Has Governor Brewer moderated her view of Mexico?

By Karl Reiner

When Gov. Brewer signed SB 1070 into law in April 2010, few of Arizona's political leaders had anything good to say about Mexico.  SB 1070 provoked a conflict between federal and state enforcement responsibilities and generated numerous problematic civil rights issues.  Picking up on the negative vibrations, Mexico's border state governors refused to attend the border governor's conference if it was held in Arizona in 2010.

The publicity SB 1070 generated encumbered Arizona with an economy damaging negative reputation.  It has been estimated that the SB 1070 affair cost the state a loss of output in the range of $250 million, resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs and was responsible for a $9 million drop in tax revenue.

Gov. Jan Brewer: Racial discrimination doesn’t ‘take place any longer’

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans truly live in an alternate universe reality. Governor Jan Brewer actually asserted with a straight face that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in this state.

This is the woman who used the racially divisive SB 1070 to get elected to the governor's office (SB 1070 was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional).

This is the state where crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio was just recently found by the federal court to have engaged in a policy of unlawful racial profiling (he is appealing).

This is the state where nativist anti-immigrant politicians like J.D. Hayworth, Russell Pearce, and Andrew Thomas are celebrated as heroes by conservatives in the GOP.

This is the state where Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and John Huppenthal, and editor and columnist Doug MacEachern at The Arizona Republic, have engaged in unhinged demonization (criminalization) of Latino students in Tucson for ethnic studies programs at TUSD.

Jan Brewer is delusional.

RAW Story reports, Arizona governor: Racial discrimination doesn't 'take place any longer':

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on Tuesday said the Voting Rights Act had “hampered” the state and was pleased to see a key provision of the civil rights law struck down.

* * *

When asked why Arizona shouldn’t be required to have its voting laws precleared, Brewer said racial discrimination was no longer a problem in the state.

Governor Brewer calls wasteful 'border surge' a 'victory for Arizona'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about the "border surge" amendment from Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-SD) to the "Gang of Eight" comprehensive immigration bill last week. The price for GOP nativism and racism: $30+ billion wasted dollars. As Chris Hayes pointed out:

Now when you were evaluating -- you right now watching this -- the American
voter, the American citizen, the American taxpayer, you`re thinking: is
this a smart way to spend money?

I would like you to keep in mind these two important things. The Migration
Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, found that in 2012 we spent $18
billion on immigration enforcement agencies, a 43 percent increase from
2006. Here`s the kicker. That $18 billion, that`s more than we spent on
all other law enforcement agencies combined by 24 percent.

And do you happen to know what the net migration between Mexico and the
United States currently is? It is zero. Zero.

The complexities and economics of Arizona's border relationship

By Karl Reiner

Although it is of little concern in the state capital, Arizona's exporters had a good first quarter of 2013.  U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $53.5 billion, an increase of $487 million over the same period last year. Texas was the leading state with $24.16 billion, followed by California, Michigan and Louisiana.  Arizona ranked fifth with $1.65 billion, up $132 million over the previous year's first quarter.

Mexico's stock market hit an eight-month low in May.  Sluggish sales to the U.S. (Mexico's largest export market) during the first quarter of 2013 slowed the economy.  Mexico's economic growth forecast was reduced to 3.1% from 3.5%.

So how's that GOP rebranding working out?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Sunday, the Arizona Republic for some reason felt compelled to publish a guest opinion (and video) by the disgraced and recalled former Senate President, Russell Pearce, writing on behalf of his anti-immigrant nativist hate group, BanAmnestyNow.com.

Pearce discloses a continuing working relationship with the anti-immigrant nativist hate group,  Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose lawyer Kris Kobach wrote SB 1070 for Pearce.

Pearce also cites the widely discredited Heritage Foundation report (.pdf) released last week, which was drafted, in part, by Jason Richwine, who subscribes to the controversial "science" of hereditarianism and eugenics. Richwine was forced to resign from the Heritage Foundation on Friday, presumably after Russell Pearce submitted his guest opinion to the Republic.

Ol' Russel writes, Immigration tug-of-war: Reform effort is a sham:

The 3-year-old Senate Bill 1070, America’s toughest anti-illegal immigration law, has had a dramatic impact on Arizona. We are a better place.

* * *

According to information from the Federation of American Immigration Reform, Arizonans pay $2.6 billion per year to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. According to the Heritage Foundation, the billions we pay today are but one-third of our eventual tab a decade from now if the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill becomes law.

* * *

However, despite the many advances we have made, the burdens of illegal immigration still are too high. This is why I call upon my fellow citizens to join me in opposing the latest amnesty/citizenship bill. The group of eight U.S. senators’ legislation (including Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake) risks America’s financial and national security. This bill is the epitome of everything that is wrong, backward and corrupt in Washington.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of Alabama anti-immigrant law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ALEC model legislation for the anti-immigrant crusade of Kris Kobach, legal counsel with the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the author of Arizona's SB 1070, is losing in court. Federal courts have made it clear that federal law preempts the field in immigration law. Only federal gov't, not states, can enforce immigration laws, Supreme Court says:

The Supreme Court made it clear Monday that enforcing immigration laws is reserved for the federal government, not the states.

By an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected a request from Alabama to revive part of a 2011 law designed to drive out illegal immigrants. That year saw a wave of new laws in Republican-controlled states where lawmakers decried perceived federal inaction. Alabama's was deemed the toughest.

State officials said if federal authorities were not going to arrest illegal immigrants, their police would take on the task.

But the Obama administration went to court to challenge these laws, arguing that federal immigration policy trumped state efforts. The administration said it was targeting criminals, gang members and smugglers, not the millions of otherwise law-abiding but undocumented immigrants who live and work in this country.

The administration won a major victory last year when the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, known as SB 1070. In a 6-3 decision, the justices agreed that Washington, not the states, gets to decide how to enforce the immigration laws. The opinion rejected the idea that states could make immigration violations a crime under state law.

Border policy myths, realities and faulty assumptions

By Karl Reiner

Gov. Brewer recently asserted that Arizona's controversial SB 1070 served as the catalyst for the creation of the immigration legislation now in Congress.  Although much of SB 1070 was set aside by the courts, the governor believes the law, costly legal fights and publicity helped start the momentum that led to the current bipartisan immigration proposal.

The governor has a point because the SB 1070 effort was not a low cost affair.  The publicity it generated saddled Arizona with a mostly negative reputation.  In far away Washington, Congress would have been aware of the SB 1070 tempest.  It could have encouraged senators to consider moving on immigration legislation.  

Are Arizona's mayors on to something?

By Karl Reiner

The U.S.-Mexico relationship has its good and bad points.  Over $540 billion in merchandise trade moved between the countries in 2012. Mexico ranks third as an American supplier and second as an export market.  There are security problems involving the massive illegal drug trade, illegal migration (mostly from Mexico and Central America) and the flow of smuggled firearms to Mexico.  With Arizona's state leaders focusing mainly on security, the economic benefit of being a border state tends to be ignored.

SB 1215 is moving unobtrusively through the Arizona Legislature.  The bill extends the life of the Office of Sonora (part of the governor's office since 1992) for eight years.  The office works on exchanging information, promoting business and tourism with the state of Sonora, Mexico.  It assists the Arizona-Mexico Commission and keeps tab on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

VoteVets.org ad supports universal background checks

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

VoteVets.org released a new online ad today urging members of Congress to support universal background checks on firearm purchases. This one focuses on Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). (video below the fold).

Immigration Reform questions for Obama from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Good questions from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network...

Key Questions for the White House on Immigration Reform 

1.  It is widely reported that the Obama administration has deported unprecedented numbers of immigrants, and it is widely suspected that the Department of Homeland Security is operating under a self-imposed a deportation quota.  Is there a deportation quota?  If so, where does it come from, and will it be reduced or eliminated as part of the President’s proposal on immigration reform? [More good questions after the jump.]

New US immigration report reveals 'formidable' & expensive machinery to secure border

by Pamela Powers Hannley

A detailed new report release by the Migration Policy Institute reveals the sophistication and cost-- both human and monetary-- of the United States' immigration policy in recent years.

According to the nearly 200-page report, the US system is based upon 6 pillars: border enforcement; visa controls and travel screening; information and interoperability of data systems; workplace enforcement; intersection between criminal justice system and immigration enforcement; and detention and removal of noncitizens. Each area is described in detail. 

The report includes a wealth of information about the intricacies of the Department of Homeland Security and how immigration enforcement intersects with the criminal justice system, the FBI, and the CIA. Probably the most dramatic finding is:

The US government spends more on its immigration enforcement agencies than on all its other principal criminal federal law enforcement agencies combined. In FY 2012, spending for CBP [Customs and Border Protection], ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and US-VISIT reached nearly $18 billion. This amount exceeds by approximately 24 percent total spending for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Secret Service, US Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which stood at $14.4 billion in FY 2012.

Judging by resource levels, case volumes, and enforcement actions...immigration enforcement can thus be seen to rank as the federal government's highest criminal law enforcement priority.

Whoa. More key findings after the jump.

The Economic Ramifications of SB 1070

By Karl Reiner

Unhappy with federal efforts and unfazed by the recession, the Arizona legislature decided to get the state involved in immigration policing.  It ignored the fact that state and local enforcement of immigration laws might hinder the federal government's ability to set priorities and burden local police forces.

The state legislature crafted a broad and anti-illegal immigration measure. It was based on a model drafted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.  Despite warnings from various groups regarding a host of unwelcome consequences, SB 1070 was signed into law in April 2010.

The Revitalization of Mexico

By Karl Reiner

Through September 2012, Arizona's exports to Mexico were running $415 million ahead of last year's level.  Almost unnoticed by Arizona's politicians, Mexico is changing in ways that will benefit the state's economy.  It may be time for political leaders to rethink their view of the country across the border.

The U.S.-Mexican border is the world's busiest.  Border crossings have slowed because of security considerations and port of entry bottlenecks.  Some of Arizona's politicians seem to like it that way.  The undervaluing of trade and the fear of migrants has led the  legislature to pass such controversial legislation as SB 1070.

'CCA, go away': Florida residents say 'no' to nation's largest deportation center (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Private prisons are a "infecting our nation like a virus," according to Florida activists who are fighting against the construction of one of the nation's largest immigrant deportation centers. 

From their website...

We do not agree with the federal government privatizing our immigration detention centers throughout the nation when there is clear evidence that privatizing our prisons creates a clear public safety threat. For ICE to continue to privatize these institutions and bring this safety threat through their "secure communities Initiative" to our community is unacceptable. Depriving someone of their liberty is a non-delegable governmental function and privatizing of such a function is infecting our nation like a virus.

What about Arizona? Governor Jan Brewer and many in the Arizona Legislature are loyal private prison boosters-- to the detriment of our residents. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) runs six private prisons in Arizona. In addition to the well-know immigrant detention centers, CCA also runs DUI prisons. CCA likes to have all of their beds full. Is it any wonder, then, that Arizona has some of the toughest immigration laws and toughest drunk driving laws? Watch anti-CCA protesters in Florida after the jump.

Gov. Brewer sued over order denying driver’s licenses to DREAMERS

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tenther "states' rights" George Wallace in a dress, Governor Jan Brewer, was sued today by a group of civil-liberties and immigrant-rights organizations in a class-action lawsuit challenging the Guv's executive order denying driver’s licenses to young undocumented immigrants approved for federal work permits under President Barack Obama’s deferred-action program (DREAM Act-Lite). Brewer sued over migrant license policy:

The lawsuit seeks to block Arizona Executive Order 2012-06, issued by Jan Brewer after the federal government implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. The program allows certain undocumented immigrant youth who came here as children to live and work in the United States for a renewable period of two years. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, an immigrant youth-led organization, and five young individuals.

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge against a state for denying driver’s licenses to young undocumented immigrants authorized to live and work temporarily in the U.S. under the program.

The lawsuit could affect other states that have also denied driver’s licenses to non-citizens protected from deportation under the program.

The suit was filed by the Arizona and national chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Immigration Law Center. The same groups are involved in an ongoing civil-rights lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration-enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070.

Gov. Brewer's blind hatred for DREAMERS (proxies for President Obama)

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Gov. Jan Brewer's executive order denying driver's licenses and ID cards to undocumented immigrants who obtain work permits through President Barack Obama's deferred-action program is a significant change in state policy, records obtained by The Arizona Republic show. Brewer's order to end migrant driver licenses 'contradictory':

Over the past eight years, Arizona issued licenses and ID cards nearly 40,000 times to non-citizens who had federal employment-authorization documents. Since Brewer's Aug. 15 order, the state has issued more than 1,000 driver's licenses or ID cards to non-citizens with work permits while denying licenses to those with work permits issued through Obama's program.

The data show that despite the state's longstanding practice of issuing driver's licenses to non-citizens with work permits, Brewer has singled out so-called dreamers, denying them driver's licenses even when they have work permits.

The federal work permits are identical except for a number that identifies them as recipients of deferred action under Obama's program. Anyone with that number can't get a permit under Brewer's order.

"It's completely contradictory," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "If you give a driver's license under one of these circumstances, they are all pretty much the same circumstance, so it's contradictory to say we will give to one but not the other."

Immigration reform: What role will Ron Barber play?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The Republican vs Republican-lite Congressional District 2 race has finally been called. Congressman Ron Barber defeated Colonel Marthy McSally in a very tight contest.

With the special election primary, the special election, and the general election, Barber has been running for office for 10 months of this year. Now, he can finally relax into his new Capitol Hill seat.

But, wait, there's more... now, he has to stand up and be our Congressman.

And immigration reform-- a hot-button Southern Arizona issue, for sure-- is at the top of President Barack Obama's priority list, after his rainbow-hued election win. With his delayed deportation for Dreamers and his focus on deporting undocumented criminals (and not your housekeeper), Obama has been inching forward on immigration reform. 

What will the role of Baja Arizona's new Congressman be? Find out after the jump.

Life and death on the border (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Loneprotestor has done it again. Check out her poignant video about recent deaths along the US/Mexico-- in honor of the Day of the Dead.

Eight days after Border Patrol agent Nicholas Ivie was killed by friendly fire on the U.S.- Mexican border, a sixteen year-old boy was shot seven times through the border fence by a Border Patrol agent. Yet - in spite of involving the murder of a child across international lines - one incident received national attention for weeks, but the other was largely unknown except in the town where it happened. On November 2, the Mexican Dia de los Muertos, both sides of the border in Nogales, Arizona, walked to honor Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez and the sixteen others killed by Border Patrol in the last three years, and called for an end to Border Patrol immunity.

Video after the jump.

Will there be a Latino voter surge in Arizona on Tuesday?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A Latino voter surge in Arizona has long been predicted, but has yet to materialize, as it did in California after Republican Governor Pete Wilson screwed the pooch with his anti-immigrant Prop. 187. California is now reliably "blue."

Will Republican Governor Jan Brewer's embrace of disgraced recalled state senator Russell Pearce's anti-immigrant SB 1070 lead to the long anticipated Latino voter surge in Arizona on Tuesday? Latino groups say they have registered tens of thousands of new Hispanic voters in Arizona leading up to the Nov. 6 general election. Latino voters surge in Arizona:

Over the past six months, a coalition of 10 Latino groups has been going from door to door, registering new voters and encouraging voters who are already registered to sign up for early mail-in ballots. The groups also have been encouraging voters who have received early ballots to mail them in and even offering to deliver them to county election officials on their behalf.

The voter-registration drives are part of a concerted effort by advocacy groups to increase the number of Latino voters in Arizona to counter what they consider anti-Latino policies such as Arizona’s immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s immigration-enforcement sweeps.

The voter-registration efforts intensified over the past two weeks after it was revealed that [Maricopa] county printed the wrong election date on some election materials in Spanish, including bookmarks distributed at voter-outreach events and election reminders distributed with voter-ID cards.

The Spanish version of the materials gave Nov. 8 as the election date instead of the correct date, Nov. 6.

The errors sparked an outcry from Latino voting groups concerned that the wrong election dates printed in Spanish could prevent some Latinos from voting, undermining some of their efforts to boost Latino turnout at the polls.

Presidential knockout: If you're still undecided after debate II, you're not paying attention

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The second 2012 presidential debate was a rousing throwback to old school American politics. Both candidates were "fired up and ready to go." Both delivered a few zingers and gotcha moments. Both explained their plans for America's future... well, sort of.

Republican challenger Mitt Romney-- obviously hoping for a repeat of the frist debate in which he appeared energized, arrogant, and on top of his game, if you ignore the lies and the moderator bullying-- started the second debate smiling and upbeat. About 30 minutes into it, Romney was scowling in the background as President Barack Obama actually answered policy questions. By the end of the debate, when the families came on stage, both Romney and wife Ann had those "holy shit what just happened?" looks on their faces.

So, why was the second debate so different from the first one? Obviously, after the first debate, Obama realized that Romney wasn't going to play by anyone's rules but his own (ie, stick to the truth, stick to the question topics, stick to his previously stated views, or stick to the agreed upon debate rules). In the first debate, Obama seemed confused and frustrated by Romney's reckless but masterful disregard for propriety, and Obama didn't call him out on it, which is why, I believe, many people said Obama was "off his game" that night. Where was our witty, intelligent guy? Why didn't he point his finger at Romney and say, in prep school style, "You, Sir, are a liar!" Or, in Chicago style, "What you talkin' bout, n....?" [Sarcasm alert.]

Last night, Obama-- and moderator CNN's Candy Crowley-- took the gloves off with the prep school bully turned vulture capitalist. Obama and Crowley both called out Romney when he didn't answer the questions or answered a completely different question than what was asked. In his element with the town hall format, the president was quick-witted and light on his feet, when he said that Romney's economic plan was a "sketchy deal"; when he said that Romney didn't have a five-point plan, he had a one-point plan; when he ripped Romney's infamous 47% comment (after Romney opened the door by saying he cared about 100% of Americans); or when he answered the first college student's questions about post-graduation employment with a specific list of policies (when Romney had just shined the student on with platitudes).

But I think the best performance of the evening was by Crowley. Let's face it. Jim Lehrer blew the first debate. He allowed Romney steamroll him... repeatedly. The debate was such a mess that it was difficult to figure out the format or what the questions were half the time because both candidates (but mostly Romney) were allowed to stray. Crowley-- who is being attacked today by the right for her active role in actually moderating the debate-- did her best to keep the debate moving and make the candidates stick to the format and the questions.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could be undecided after last night, but if you are, undecided, check out this story by the New York Times after the jump and get off your duff.

'Mr. Self Deportation' doubles down during debate

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The issue of immigration reform and the DREAM Act came up during last night's debate. Willard "Mittens" Romney whined that President Obama promised a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year during the 2008 campaign, and he failed to deliver.

Somehow Whiner Willard has conveniently forgotten that in Obama's first year, the U.S. and world financial systems were in a catastrophic collapse, and the U.S. and world economy were on their way to cratering into a new economic dark ages, a parting "gift" to President Obama from his predecessor George W. Bush.

It's called prioritizing "Mittens" -- deal with the disasters first. Stop the ship from sinking, then you can rearrange the deck chairs.

Whiner Willard has also conveniently forgotten that Republicans like Sen. John McCain, who once championed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, disavowed his own bill during the 2008 campaign and adopted the GOP hard-line on immigration reform. McCain could have become an elder statesman by working with Obama. Instead, he opted for the role of embittered sore loser, constantly sniping at the man who defeated him.

When Republicans conspired on the day of Obama's inauguration to oppose everything he proposed, Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration, who exactly was going to partner with Obama on a bipartisan compromise? The GOP has had from day one a scorched earth policy of "just say no."

During last night's debate, President Obama slammed Romney for having endorsed "self-deportation" during the GOP primaries as a credible immigration policy. (Romney's chief anti-immigrant adviser is Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona's SB 1070 and other anti-immigrant measures). Steve Benen writes, Trying (and failing) to defend 'self-deportation':

Romney responded, haltingly:

"Self-deportation says let it, let people make their own choice. What I was saying is, we're not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented, illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead, let, make people make their own choice. And if they, if they find that, that they can't get the benefits here that they want and they can't find the job they want, then they'll make a decision to go a place where, where they have better opportunities."

Do you know Jeff? (Flake, that is.)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Former mining lobbyist, right-wing think-tank exec, and Koch Brothers darling  Congressman Jeff Flake wants to replace long-time Arizona Senator Jon Kyl in the US Senate. (Shudder.) Former surgeon general Dr. Richard Carmona is trying to end the stronghold that Republican extremists have had on our two Senate seats for decades. 

As a public service-- just so you really know who you're voting for-- the Carmona campaign has launched a new website to educate voters about Flake's Teapublican, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare reform, pro-1% voting record. Check out DoYouKnowJeff.com before you vote.

The Troubling Tyler Mott waves the bloody shirt - owes the family of Agent Nicholas Ivie an apology

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Chair of the Pima County Young Republicans, The troubling Tyler Mott, running for the senate in LD 9, tried to exploit the recent shooting death of Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Ivie by "waving the bloody shirt" and making his Citizens Clean Elections debate with Rep. Steve Farley all about border security and SB 1070. I expected some yahoo besides Governor Jan Brewer would attempt to exploit this Agent's tragic death. Farley, Mott debate border policy.

Only the Troubling Tyler Mott looks like the complete fool that he is today because 'Friendly fire' killed agent Ivie:

Border Patrol agent Nicholas Ivie was accidentally killed by a fellow agent in what investigators confirmed Friday was a tragic case of "friendly fire."

The Cochise County Sheriff's Office said in a news release that the FBI reached the "indisputable" conclusion that it was friendly fire after doing ballistics testing.

The FBI hedged slightly, saying the investigation into Tuesday's fatal shooting near Bisbee is ongoing but there are strong preliminary indications that Ivie was killed and another agent wounded as the result of an "accidental shooting incident involving only the agents."

I do believe that Governor Brewer and the Troubling Tyler Mott owe an apology, in particular, to the family of Agent Nicholas Ivie, for attempting to exploit his tragic death for their political posturing.

The Troubling Tyler Mott further demonstrated that, in addition to his willingness to exploit a tragic death for political posturing, he knows nothing more than rote memorization of Tea-Publican talking points about border issues that are divorced from reality and the facts. Farley, Mott debate border policy:

• Mott is against comprehensive immigration reform.
• Mott would have voted for SB 1070.
• Mott said it's the federal government's job to build border fences.
• Mott cited Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as saying the border is more secure than it's ever been. "She could not be more wrong," Mott said.

As a matter of fact, it is the Troubling Tyler Mott who could not be more wrong. I know that facts don't matter in the fact-free world of Tea-Publicans, but for the vast majority of Americans who live in the reality-based world, facts do matter. Government crime and immigration statistics are the metrics by which such things are measured, and measured by those metrics, the border is more secure and safer today than it has been in years.

This state doesn't need another Russel Pearce extremist. There is one clear choice in this senate race, and that is Rep. Steve Farley.

The Citizens Clean Elections debate video has not yet been posted. I will post it when it is available.

White privilege? Video is worth a thousand words (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Dave Safier posted a short story this morning-- Presented Without Comment-- about the Three Sonorans' putdown of Safier's endorsement of Kristel Foster for the Tucson Unified School Board (TUSD).  (Whatever, I said I didn't agree with Dave either. People are allowed to have their own opinions.)

What Safier failed to mention was that the Three Sonorans also used the occasion to crack on Blog for Arizona and progressives, in general, and me, in particular. So, what else is new? Morales likes to pick on women who are vocal and active in politics. Just ask Loretta Hunnicutt, Kyrsten Sinema, Dolores Huerta, Janet Marcotte, DeeDee Blase, Adelita Grijalva, Gabby Giffords, Regina Romero, and Kristel Foster--to name a handful of his past targets. 

Sexism aside, I take issue with Morales' assertion that progressives take action and protest on the street corners when unions need our help but not when Latinos need our help. This false dichotomy implies that only white people belong to unions and that's why only white people care about them. Wrong. 

After the jump, watch the anti-SB1070 protest video, the protest video against anti-union legislation proposed by the Arizona Legislature, and testimony regarding anti-union activities at the IBEW Hall. You'll see progressives standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Latinos in all three videos.  (BTW, in the photo above, that's me in the turquoise dress, between the two cops, covering the UnDocuBus protest in Charlotte.)

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer: 'I heart SB1070' (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Sometimes you just don't know what you're going to find on the Internet. I was looking for something completely different, and Goggle gave me this...

After the jump, watch a 2010 video of Republican Congressional candidate and Mexican immigrant Gabriela Saucedo Mercer voicing her support for SB1070. (She also takes the opportunity to dump on Councilwoman Regina Romero and Congressman Raul Grijalva, her current opponent in the CD3 race.)

Hispanic Chamber opposes 'Quality Education & Jobs' Prop 204

by Pamela Powers Hannley

I guess stingy Republicans come in all colors.

Tucson's Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has voted to oppose the Quality Education and Jobs initiative (Prop 204) on the November ballot. In their opposition, they proudly join the Goldwater Institute, Governor Jan "Mother-of-SB1070" Brewer, former State Senate President Russell "Father-of-SB1070" Pearce, State Representative Debbie "Let-your-employer-control-your-birth-control" Lesko, and others who regularly stand up for Latinos. (Sarcasm alert.)

It's another example of a group voting its class interest over other considerations. Who needs those guvmint schools anyway?

[P.S. Yes, I know that the BfAZ bloggers are split on Prop 204.]

How progressive is Tucson?

• 

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Tucson has a reputation of being Arizona's hotbed of liberal thought, old hippie ideas, great music, and electic art, but how progressive is Tucson?

Pretty darn progressive... 
 
- Recently 341 Pima County residents were elected as precinct committee people (PCs). These volunteers represent the Democratic Party's ground game. They show up to walk, they make phone calls for candidates, and they donate to candidates and issues. Of the 341 newly elected PCs, 81 or 24% are affiliated with Progressive Democrats of America's (PDA) Tucson Chapter. This includes six of the eight people who serve on the PDA Tucson Steering Committee (some of whom are pictured here with other PDA state and national leaders.)

- Tucson's PDA Chapter is the largest in the state, and one of the largest in the country. 

- PDA Tucson has sponsored or partnered with others to support public events related to the People's Budget 1,2,3 (as opposed to the military-industrial complex's budget), union busting, single payer healthcare, public banking, open primaries, clean elections and the end of Citizens' United, job creation by promoting local business, the Robin Hood Tax, corporate personhood, the Occupy movement, immigration reform and the end of SB1070, and other Main Street issues.

- PDA Tucson is bringing progressive issues to local candidates through the Brown Bag Lunch Program.

- PDA Tucson is partnering with Tucson MoveOn and The Screening Room to create the first-ever Tucson Progressive Film Festival, October 26-28.

If you want to learn more about this burgeoning progressive movement or be added to our mailing list, check out PDA Tucson's blog or Facebook page or the PDA national website.

You can be the change you want.

WaPo editorial opinion: The ‘Show Me Your Papers’ state

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Both The Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star subscribe to the syndicated Washington Post op-eds. Somehow I don't think they will be republishing today's editorial opinion from the Washington Post. Arizona’s bad immigration law takes effect:

AFTER A TWO-YEAR struggle, a federal judge this week authorized Arizona law enforcement agencies to require officers to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. Wearing the wrong clothes, speaking with the wrong accent or having the wrong skin color could land you in hot water in Arizona.

The state’s “show me your papers” provision — one of the most bitterly contested parts of the obnoxious immigration law enacted in 2010 — is the second such measure to receive a green light from federal courts. The first was from Alabama, where a similar policy was implemented about a year ago.

There, according to a recent report by the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrant advocacy group, law enforcement officers have created an “environment of racial profiling” that has encouraged private citizens to discriminate and abuse people they regard as foreign. The report, based on thousands of calls to a hotline, recounted instances of Hispanics, including legal residents, who were repeatedly stopped by police on flimsy pretexts and, in some cases, subjected to prolonged roadside detentions.

Arizona has a far larger population of Hispanics than Alabama does, including citizens, legal residents and illegal immigrants. Many of them have good reason to brace for similar treatment. Although the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s “show me your papers” provision, the justices warned that it could be struck down if it gave rise to a documented pattern of racial profiling or if it caused detentions to be prolonged. The Alabama case suggests that is highly likely.

The 'show me your papers clause' of SB 1070 goes into effect

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a simple three-paragraph ruling drafted jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice and lawyers for the state of Arizona, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ordered that the injunction be dissolved against the "show me your papers clause" of SB 1070. That provision, Section 2B, requires officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. Police can start enforcing Ariz. immigration law, judge rules:

Bolton also ordered Tuesday that two other sections SB 1070 be permanently enjoined. Those sections required immigrants to carry immigration papers, required police to determine whether a person had committed an offense that could lead to deportation and barred illegal immigrants from seeking work.

Two other components, one that prohibited day laborers from blocking traffic while seeking work and another that forbade harboring or transporting illegal-immigrant criminals, have been enjoined as well.

Bolton had originally imposed the injunction of key parts of SB 1070 in July 2010 at the request of the Department of Justice, which sued to block the law from taking effect. The injunction was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then, in late June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all but one part of the injunction, Section 2B, and sent the case back to Bolton through the 9th Circuit.

[The high court ruled that Section 2B did not automatically violate constitutional rights and was not necessarily pre-empted by federal immigration law. But the justices suggested the matter could be reconsidered if evidence of violations surfaced after the law went into effect.]

A coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups tried to get the injunction reinstated on different grounds, but on Sept. 5, Bolton denied the request and ordered the state and the Justice Department to work out the wording of the order dissolving the injunction.

The civil rights coalition, meanwhile, has appealed Bolton's decision to the 9th Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court expressed skepticism that the "show me your papers clause" of SB 1070 could be enforced in a constitutional manner. In fact, the Court inferred that a legal challenge would find its way back to the Court and that it would likely find it unconstitutional. The only question now is how long it will take before that case arises. With crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, probably before the end of the week.

Undocumented protesters arrested outside of Democratic Convention

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Ten undocumented protesters from Arizona were arrested late Tuesday afternoon outside of the Time Warner Arena in uptown Charlotte, as Democratic National Convention delegates watched.

Chanting in Spanish and English, the protesters-- surrounded by media and conventioneers with smart phone cameras-- quickly marched toward the arena where First Lady Michelle Obama was scheduled to speak.

As throngs of convention delegates bustled down the sidewalk, the small band of Latinos laid a large yellow mat decorated with butterflies in the middle of the intersection and sat in protest of US immigration policies. Just as quickly, they were surrounded by police on foot and on bicycles. Although it was difficult for passersby to see them, we could hear their stories and feel the passion. 

More details and video after the jump.

Democratic & Republican conventions: Occupiers/protesters ready for delegates

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Occupiers in Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, NC are gearing up for the deluge of politicians, dignitaries, convention delegates, journalists, and other protesters who are about to descend upon their cities.

The Republican National Convention (RNC) will be held in Tampa will be August 27-30. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) will be held in Charlotte (AKA Wall Street of the South) from September 3-6.

With their anti-women, anti-any-color-but-white, anti-immigrant, anti-middle class, anti-gay, anti-union... OK... anti-99% agenda, the RNC offers a fertile field for protests from the rest of us. With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on the ticket, the Republicans have cemented their place in history as the party of the 1%. 

Occupy Tampa is one of the few Occupations with tents on the ground, and they plan to be camping-- and protesting-- during the RNC.

More hints about what will be happening outside the convention halls, after the jump.

Close down the Tent City Jail: Part Deux (video)

On Saturday, June 23, 2012, thousands of protesters from Puente Arizona, the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, the United Church of Christ, and left-leaning activist groups held a rally and vigil at the infamous Maricopa County Tent City Jail-- while Phoenix Tea Party and militiamen held a counter rally.

Immigrant rights protesters, bathed in candle light, sang and listened to speeches about standing up to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his forces of hate-- while militiamen dressed in camouflage uniforms brandished their weapons and shouted angrily about their rights.  

Predictably, amateur videos and photos were uploaded as the scene unfolded, but for a more in-depth view of the demonstration, check out this video by Phoenix independent videographer Dennis Gillman, after the jump.

Governor Jan Brewer demagogues on anti-immigrant hatred and hysteria

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This woman is an affront to all that is good and decent in Arizona. Our delusional governor, who is in denial of the fact that a conservative U.S. Supreme Court just handed her a smack-down defeat on SB 1070, is now venting her rage by demagoguing on anti-immigrant hatred and hysteria, just as she did during her 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

E.J. Montini of the Arizona Republic reports Brewer says Obama wants “illegals” to vote:

Gov. Jan Brewer went on the radio after the SB 1070 ruling and told KFYI host Mike Broomhead that President Obama’s immigration policies are designed to improve his reelection chances by getting him the votes of illegal immigrants.

Not Latino citizens.

The governor of Arizona says that the president of the United States is encouraging people to cross the border and vote for him.

I’m not making this up. (Here is a link to the radio interview. The accusation comes during an answer beginning at about the 4-minute 30-second mark.)

When asked about her administration’s relationship with the Obama administration Brewer said in part:

“We have done everything we could think of to work cooperatively with them and they turn a blind eye to us. They’re not interested. They want chaos. They want a larger voting base as far as I’m concerned and they want the illegal immigration to continue. Not to even mention the fact that they have addressed the issue that you can register with the federal registration form that doesn’t even need documentation that you’re a citizen… Now they’ll have all the illegals and they can all do whatever they want and register to vote. Although it’s illegal if you’re not a citizen to register. But they’re not enforcing the law so what is going to happen to them? He’s looking for votes.”

Sounds to me like the governor is accusing the president of a crime. A conspiracy to commit voter fraud or worse.

Is she?

I put the question to her office.

A tutorial for the media villagers on SCOTUS opinion re: SB 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY)

In the case of news reporters, they are not entitled to express their opinion either. They are supposed to report the facts.

And yet the corporate media villagers continue to misreport and misrepresent the Supreme Court holding in Arizona et al. v. United States, the Court's ruling on federal preemption of SB 1070.

The only way this is possible after two days is if the media villagers have not taken the time to actually read the opinion in Arizona, et al. v. United States (.pdf), in which case, how can they be said to be reporting on the decision? Or they are simply parroting the GOPropaganda talking points, in which case they are not part of a legitimate news organization. I suppose a third possibility is that they are just effin' ignorant, in which case, why are they even employed by a news organization?

Lawrence O'Donnell has provided the most succinct summary of the Court's ruling on SB 1070 that I have seen to date. So pay attention media villagers, and get it right. Start reporting the facts of this case accurately. Video below the fold.

Arizonans can't get rid of 'Not intended to be a factual statement' Jon Kyl soon enough

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of Arizona's twin embarrasments in the U.S. Senate, "Not intended to be a factual statement" Jon Kyl, has really been making a supreme ass of himself since SCOTUS ruled on SB 1070.

Steve Benen has two reports on our embarrassing senator. What Jon Kyl considers a factual statement:

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's anti-immigrant law, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R), who represents Arizona, issued a curious press release.

"I note that in his response to today's Supreme Court ruling, President Obama called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I also note that the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill I helped draft in 2007 was killed -- in part -- by then-Senator Obama."

Clearly, expectations for honesty are low when it comes to the politician who made "not intended to be a factual statement" famous, but even by Kyl's low standards, this is unnerving.

First, Obama, as a U.S. senator in 2007, didn't vote to kill comprehensive immigration reform; he voted for it. Kyl's version of reality is the opposite of the one the rest of us live in.

Second, though Kyl bragged yesterday about the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill he "helped draft" five years ago, if we actually look back at the Senate record, we see that the Arizona Republican voted to filibuster the bill. Jon Kyl is falsely accusing Obama of doing what Jon Kyl actually did.

Maybe yesterday's press release wasn't intended to be a factual statement, either?

Jan Brewer in the rewrite on SB 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I was gobsmacked yesterday by how much of the corporate media got the decision in Arizona v. United States completely WRONG in their reporting. The initial reporting all tracked along the GOPropaganda talking point, led by our delusional Governor Jan Brewer, that this was a "victory" for SB 1070, and the "heart" of SB 1070 had been "upheld."

(As David Safier pointed out in the previous post, the Arizona Daily Star continues this inaccurate GOPropaganda talking point reporting on its front page today. Ironically, the editorial opinion in the Star today gets it right. High court ruling no clear victory for SB 1070.)

All day long when I saw this crappy reporting I had to ask out loud in disbelief, "Did you people even read the opinion? Because what you are reporting in not what the opinion actually says!" (That's why I posted the syllabus from the opinion).

This just demonstrates the extent to which the GOPropaganda machine directs the corporate media news coverage in this country.

It also demonstrates why we should not have reporters who are not trained in the law and do not understand the substantive and procedural posture of a case reporting on Supreme Court decisions. (At one time the networks actually had Supreme Court reporters).

If all we are going to get from our media villagers is parroting of GOPropaganda talking points, then the public is lost in a propaganda campaign of disinformation.

The first accurate reporting I saw all day was from Judge Napolitano on FAUX News Fraudcasting, the Rachel Maddow Show and Lawrence O'Donnell's Last Word. It took until late in the day before the Court's opinion was reported accurately. That is a sad commentary on the sorry state of our media in this country.

I dread the mass confusion from crappy reporting about to be unleashed on the public when SCOTUS announces its decision on the Affordable Care Act.

Lawrence O'Donnell gives a good summary of how the Court's ruling on SB 1070 was a smack-down to the state of Arizona and nothing remains of SB 1070. The remaining provision is certain to be held unconstitutional when it reaches the Court in the future, as the Court intimated in its opinion. (Video below the fold).

Shep Smith didn't get the FAUX News memo

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I love it when Shep Smith speaks his mind instead of reading from the FAUX News memo:

"I felt like the Yankees had just played the Red Sox in a four game set, the Yankees had won three out of four, and the Red Sox claimed the series victory." -- Response to Jan Brewer Press Conference

Video below the fold.

Jan Brewer gibberish on CNN

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Governor Jan Brewer clearly has not read the Supreme Court opinion on SB 1070. She and Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature are running a propaganda offensive claiming "victory," when in fact SB 1070 is in serious trouble. The corporate "lamestream" media keeps saying that the "papers please" provision was "upheld." This is imprecise. The Court simply said it is not preempted by federal law at this preliminary stage.

The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for a trial on the merits. Arizona Courts may find the "papers please" provision is unconstitutional or violates federal law because it hinders the federal immigation law scheme outlined by the Court in this opinion. In short, the Court left this question to be resolved another day on an evidentiary trial record. The opinion today did not "uphold" the provision as constitutional. That issue remains to be decided.

I predict the trial court will issue an injunction when the case returns to the trial court, to remain in effect until the conclusion of the trial (and later on appeal).

John King of CNN was having none of Governor Jan Brewer's propaganda offensive. Brewer quickly devolved into speaking gibberish during this interview (video below the fold).

Getting Romney to take a position is like trying to nail Jello to the wall

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Willard "Mittens" Romney believes that he is entitled to be the next president. As his wife said, "it's his turn." So Mittens has this attitude that he should just be handed the job. "I don't have to answer any questions or tell you what I am going to do." You don't want to be that guy, Mittens -- people really hate that guy.

Mittens is in Scottsdale, Arizona today for a fundraiser (probably attended by the universe of Koch brothers' affiliated entities and their evil minions in the state of Maricopa) -- the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the majority of SB 1070 and left the "papers please" provision to another day after the Arizona Courts are done ruling on it.

After a day of being hounded by reporters, Mittens gave his typical non-responsive answer. He has a problem making a commitment. Romney Wishes Courts Gave States ‘More Latitude’ On Immigration:

Getting an opinion from Mitt Romney on immigration has been like pulling teeth after the Supreme Court’s decision on SB 1070 Monday, but the presumptive Republican nominee finally offered up some words on the ruling at a fundraiser in Arizona.

“Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and, you know, given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws,” he said, according to NBC.

Did you even read the opinion, Mittens? The Court was pretty emphatic that immigration is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and that express or implied federal preemption precludes the state from acting on immigration matters on its own. Only where there is cooperation between the state and federal government under an express provision of federal law -- and the Court did not expressly find cooperation or hinderance by Arizona on this ground since that provision of SB 1070 has been on hold pending this opinion -- does the state have a narrowly defined and limited role to play. "States Rights" Tenthers like Governor Jan Brewer and Mittens just had the foundation for their arguments blown away today by the Court.

Talking Points Memo earlier reported that Romney Spokesman Dodges 20 22 Questions On Romney’s Immigration Position:

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been extremely careful not to take a clear position on either Arizona’s SB 1070 law or the Supreme Court decision on Monday that ruled parts of it unconstituional. In an exchange with the traveling press, transcribed by Politico, Romney spokesman Rick Gorka was asked over 20 times by reporters to clarify the candidates position on either the law or the ruling.

Syllabus of SCOTUS decision in Arizona, et al. v. United States

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona, et al. v. United States (.pdf), cite as 567 U. S. ____ (2012), is some 76 pages in the .pdf format. The Syllabus of the opinion, however, will tell you the substance of the Court's decision. I have added emphasis to some portions of the Syllabus.

An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to“establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories ofaliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.

President Obama's statement on SCOTUS decision in Arizona v. US

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States:

I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law.  What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.  Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.

I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are.  What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.

###

Governor Jan Brewer is delusional

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The United States Supreme Court this morning held that most of SB 1070, the anti-immigrant law that Governor Jan Brewer rode to victory in 2010, is preempted by federal law and the surviving "papers please" provision must be construed narrowly and is subject to future constitutional challenges. An ass-whooping, right?

Governor Jan Brewer declared victory. The woman is totally delusional. Statement of Governor Jan Brewer: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Heart of SB 1070 (.pdf):

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

SCOTUS Watch: Most of SB 1070 is preempted by federal law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Did you hear a low rumbling sound this morning around 7:16 a.m. (Arizona time)? That was the sound of the head of every anti-immigrant bigot exploding as the Court announced that most of SB 1070 is preempted by federal law, and the surviving part must be read narrowly and is subject to future constitutional challenges. This is a major victory for the Obama administration, it got almost everything it wanted from the Court.

Monday was the last day the Court was scheduled to release opinions, but it has scheduled Thursday for announcing its remaining opinions this term. The Affordable Care Act will be Thursday.

Here is a quick recap of the opinions announced today. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarizes the cases, followed by a link to today's opinions. The remaining merits cases as of June 23: In Plain English:

Arizona v. United States

Argued April 25, 2012

Plain English Issue: Whether an Arizona law that, among other things, requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone whom they arrest, allows police to stop and arrest anyone whom they believe to be an illegal immigrant, makes it a crime for someone to be in the state without valid immigration papers, and makes it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without proper papers, is invalid because it is trumped by federal immigration laws.

The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Justice Kagan did not participate. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. 5-3 decision. The opinion in Arizona v. US is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

The Court rules that Section 3, 5, and 6 are preempted by federal law. Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. Only one provision is held not to be proved preempted.

It was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released. There are ongoing proceedings on Section 2(B) and whether it involves racial profiling. That issue was NOT before the Court today.

The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the "papers please" provision that commands officers to check immigration status. The Court says that it is not clear whether application of this provision will interfere with immigration law.

The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply its "papers please" provision. The Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.

The opinion also says that today's ruling does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law. The Court's decision on the "papers please" provision strongly suggests it will have to be read narrowly to survive.

Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto. As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he commented on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case. This is totally out of bounds on SCOTUS. Scalia is a rogue Justice.

I will have more on the opinion when I have had the chance to read it, and I would like to check commentary from other legal writers.