Blog For Arizona

SCOTUS gives split decision on SB1070: UPDATE on Tucson protest

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The US Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision Arizona's infamous SB1070. They struct down several parts of the "papers please" law, but kept the "papers please" part.

From the Huffington Post...

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but upholding the "papers please" provision. Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.

Monday's decision on "papers please" rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization. The provision that was upheld -- at least for now -- also commands police to check all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before they are released.

The court gave the Obama administration a victory by striking three other challenged provisions as stepping on federal prerogatives. Two of them made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present and to seek employment in Arizona, while a third authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they had probable cause to believe had committed a deportable offense.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.

"The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Noting that he would have upheld the state law in its entirety, Scalia wrote, "Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty -- not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State."

"I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not preempt any of the challenged provisions of SB 1070," Thomas wrote. "I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the 'ordinary meaning' of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here."

Arizona's "papers please" policy remains embattled despite the state's win at the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments on whether to certify a class of what could be hundreds of thousands of individuals now trying to bring equal protection, free speech and due process challenges to S.B. 1070. These are separate issues from the question of pre-empting federal policy.

Beyond the Grand Canyon State, lawmakers in Utah, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina will be parsing the Supreme Court's decision to see how their Arizona-style immigration statutes will be affected.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in Arizona v. United States, presumably because she worked on the case during her tenure as President Barack Obama's first solicitor general. Erin Mershon contributed to this report. [Emphasis added.]

Local leftists have planned a demonstration for the day of the SB1070 decision. I guess that would be today.

UPDATE: Derechos Humanos Press Conference and Protest...

ACTION ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TODAY!!!!! [June 25]

Tucson Community Members Demand a Repeal of SB1070: Affirm the Principle that if a Law is Unjust, Our Duty is Resistance!

1. Press Conference TODAY At: 1pm @ Arizona State Building in Downtown Tucson, corner of Congress and Granada.

2. Community rally at 4:30 pm TODAY and TOMORROW, in opposition to SB1070 at the same place. Arizona State Building in Downtown Tucson, corner of Congress and Granada.

3. Things to bring if you can: noise makers, signs, water and friends. [And cameras.]

Thousands protest Arpaio's Tent City Jail (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

As anticipated, 1000s of protesters from the Unitarian Universalist Church, the United Church of Christ, Puente Arizona, and other groups descended upon Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Tent City Jail last night.

Here is a news round up for the event, since it was not covered by southern Arizona news outlets.

Stories

Several thousand protest Arpaio's Tent City

PHOTOS: Huge Anti-Arpaio Protest Outside Tent City

Videos

Tent City Protester Calls Out Sheriff Joe Arpiao on His Abuses!

Massive Crowd at Tent City Protest!

06-24-2012 Tent City Vigil - Dennis and Stephen talk to the tea party

Photos

Photo Collection

Arpaio's Tea Party Patriots Face Off with the Unitarians at the Tent City Jail

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Tonight-- June 23-- the Unitarian Universalists, Puente Arizona, and members of other liberal groups, including Progressive Democrats of America, will hold a peaceful vigil at the Maricopa County Tent City Jail to protest cruel and unusual punishment of immigrants and other prisoners.

Or... as the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots put it... 

Just as we all had expected, another stunt meant to undermine enforcement of immigration laws, the passage of SB1070, and of Sheriff Arpaio who enforces those laws has been launched! Left-wing and Marxist agitators are planning what their organizers claim to be a "massive protest" on Saturday evening, June 23 at 8 PM at Sheriff Joe's "Tent City".

Many of these agitators are being bussed in from out of state in order to do the dirty work required to unseat the good Sheriff in November. RidersUSA has been called upon by a number of organizations, including our friends at Sons of Liberty Riders to stand with them against the enemies of this country, our Constitution and the American way of life!

It’s time again to support the Rule of Law and show that "we the people" will not stand for outsiders, criminals and their supporters to take over our streets without facing resistance from dyed in the wool, American Patriots! We need to send a strong message, that the Rule of Law reins Supreme in this Country and no amount of pressure from these assorted groups of anarchists, open borders proponents, Socialists, Marxists and general malcontents will ever gain the upper hand! "Not in our house, not in our town, not in our country" is our firm commitment!!! If you would like, please meet with fellow RidersUSA members and our friends at Sheriff Joe's Tent City. Parking of the bikes will be at 3226 West Durango Street (35th Ave & Durango), Phoenix. We will begin grouping here between 7:00 and 7:30 PM. Bring water and a flashlight.

Bussed in to do their dirty work? Approximately 4000 Unitarian Universalists from across the country are in Phoenix this week for their Justice General Assembly-- four days of social justice workshops, worship, and witness actions... like the action tonight at the jail. As for "dirty work", it has been reported that the Unitarians were caught singing in downtown Phoenix the other day.

The vigil starts at 8 p.m. I'm hoping that the Side of Love will wash over the Tea Party, Sheriff Joe, and that abominable Hell Hole they call the Tent City Jail. 

 

 

The 'Side of Love' Confronts Arpaio: Saturday Night at the Tent City Jail

by Pamela Powers Hannley

There's going to be a showdown at the infamous Maricopa County Tent City Jail this Saturday, June 23, at 8 p.m.

No, Sheriff Joe Arpaio won't be shooting it out with Randy Parraz.

Saturday night-- at the Tent City, a symbol of shame and cruelty-- the side of hatered and bigotry (AKA Sheriff Joe) will meet those standing the side of love (AKA a few thousand Unitarian Universalists, parterning with Puente Arizona, and social justice other groups).

Approximately 4000 UUs from across the country are in Phoenix this week for their annual General Assembly, four days of workshops on social justice, community service, worship, and action.

Saturday's vigil at the Tent City is being billed as the UUs' Standing on the Side of Love Wittness for Justice because, obviously, there is no justice for the inmates in the Tent City (especially when the temperatures are over 110 degrees).

From the Standing on the Side of Love website...

We will shine a light on the culture of cruelty perpetrated in our name by state governments that pass anti-immigrant laws like SB 1070 that lead to racial profiling and discrimination; and by a federal government whose practices both at the border and via an increasingly for-profit system of mass detention and deportation have created a culture of fear that terrorizes entire communities, makes us all less safe, and simply does not reflect our nation’s values.

From AZCentral...

"The main point is to show national disapproval of Arizona's immigration laws," [UU spokesman Steve] Carl said. "Arizona is at the forefront of human violations and leading the way for other states in the country."

In response to the thought of 1000-4000 liberal pacifists showing up at his doorstep, Sheriff Joe has decided to lock down all six of the Maricopa County Jails for Saturday. Come on, Joe, are you afraid of a few thousand old white folks? I guess you are. If they were brown, you could just beat them up, run them off with dogs and guns, or lock them up. 

If you want to join in the peaceful demonstration, check out the event on Facebook or the UU website.

You can never have too many witnesses to injustice.

 

 

Remembering May Day with movies: Black, brown, white-- unite! (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

May Day-- more than any other day-- is a holiday for the 99%. For decades, on May 1, workers around the world have honored the memory of Haymarket Square and striking Chicago workers who were fighting for an 8-hour work day.

From Wikipedia...

The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre or Haymarket riot) refers to the aftermath of a bombing that took place at a labor demonstration on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square[3] in Chicago.

It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an eight-hour day. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they acted to disperse the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians, and the wounding of scores of others.

In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy, although the prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb. Seven were sentenced to death and one to a term of 15 years in prison. The death sentences of two of the defendants were commuted by Illinois governor Richard J. Oglesby to terms of life in prison, and another committed suicide in jail rather than face the gallows. The other four were hanged on November 11, 1887. In 1893, Illinois' new governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned the remaining defendants and criticized the trial. [Emphasis added.]

The Haymarket affair is generally considered significant as the origin of international May Day observances for workers.[4][5] The site of the incident was designated a Chicago Landmark on March 25, 1992,[6] and a public sculpture was dedicated at the site in 2004. The Haymarket Martyrs' Monument in nearby Forest Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark on February 18, 1997.[2]

When I was growing up in the 1960s, May Day was not celebrated widely in the US. On the TV news, we watched May Day marches in the Soviet Union, and the corporate media billed May Day as a Communist holiday. Thanks to selective education in the public school system, I had no idea that May Day was connected to early battles for workers' rights in the US.

As wealth inequality between the 99% and the 1% has grown, the US economy has crumbled, forclosures and layoffs have skyrocketed, unions have been attacked, and the middle class has dwindled, May Day has grown in popularity in the US. In 2010, with the passage of SB1070 by the Arizona Legislature, immigration reform and the rights of the undocumented became a May Day cause. Thousands marched in Phoenix and across the US.

Although immigration reform, pay equity, and economic and social justice are pivitol May Day issues, we must remember that May Day is not a Soviet holiday, not a Communist holiday, not a Latino rights holiday, not a women's rights holiday, not a gay rights holiday, not a black power holiday. May Day is a workers' holiday.

There are two types of people in the world--workers and owners. As long as the 99% willingly divide themselves with words and deeds into warring factions, we will not win this struggle. 

In the spirit of May Day, here is John Nichols of The Nation, speaking in Tucson this year, about uprising, the Occupy movement, and the importance of worker solidarity. Below are links to related videos.   

 

John Nichols of 'The Nation' on corporate media, solidarity, and the lessons of Wisconsin

Arizona Unionists Rally in Phoenix to Protest Anti-Labor Laws

Arizona Unionists and Democratic Legislators Speak Out Against Anti-Labor Laws

Arizona Unionists and Supporters Protest Proposed Anti-Labor Laws

Jobs with Justice, Occupy Tucson, and Union Workers march to save postal jobs

Carmona on SB1070 and the Supremes

by Pamela Powers Hannley

This week's Supreme Court and Senate debates/hearings on Arizona's infamous SB1070 anti-immigrant have been a real eye-opener. If you haven't been paying attention, here are a few stories...

Russell Pearce: I 'Absolutely' Believe Romney Called SB 1070 A 'Model'

SB 1070: Supreme Court Appears To Favor Arizona On Controversial Immigration Law

On Arizona immigration law, Justice Scalia and street protesters make same case

Is the Supreme Court About to Mobilize Latino Voters?

One bright spot was the statement released by US Senate candidate Dr. Richard Carmona, the 17th Surgeon General of the United States:

"This week, we are witnessing the results of political failure at the highest level. The federal government has failed to do its job despite years of promises. And in Arizona, overheated partisan rhetoric has blocked our ability to work constructively toward a reasonable solution."

"SB 1070 was an ill-advised attempt to respond to the larger problem of our broken immigration system. Since its passage, politicians on both sides have been too busy blaming eachother to take a look at what it actually does. As a deputy sheriff of a border county, I know that SB 1070 doesn’t provide the tools needed to enforce the law and fix the problem in Arizona. Instead, it has created suspicion and distrust between local law enforcement and members of the community -- making it harder for cops to do their jobs."

"It wasn't long ago that two diametrically opposed leaders -- President George W. Bush and the late Senator Ted Kennedy -- came together to try to solve this problem. They knew comprehensive reform was the only real path forward. There was even a time when Senator John McCain and Congressman Jeff Flake favored this comprehensive approach."

"The only workable solution is comprehensive reform that secures the border, allows individuals to emerge from an exploitative subterranean economy by creating a pathway to legalization and enacts the DREAM Act -- so children brought into our country through no fault of their own can become contributing members of society."

"Over the last few days, we have seen a lot of politicians finger-pointing and name-calling. But the reality is, they created this mess. And neither a Supreme Court ruling nor Congress voting on the validity of SB1070 will clean it up."

Quick recap of oral argument of SB 1070 today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard the final oral argument scheduled for this Term in Arizona v. United States. The Court will consider whether four key provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, are preempted by federal law.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who frequently portrays himself as an "original intent" constructionist of the U.S. Constitution, demonstrated this is a lie by taking a radical position unsupported by the language of the Constitution or precedents in his questioning of legal counsel today. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com recaps the oral argument from this morning. Argument recap: A choice between radical and reasonable?:

With Justice Antonin Scalia pushing the radical idea that the Constitution gives states clear authority to close their borders entirely to immigrants without a legal right to be in the U.S., seven other Justices on Wednesday went looking for a more reasonable way to judge states’ power in the immigration field. If the Court accepts the word of Arizona’s lawyer that the state is seeking only very limited authority, the state has a real chance to begin enforcing key parts of its controversial law — S.B. 1070 — at least until further legal tests unfold in lower courts.

In an oral argument that ran 20 minutes beyond the scheduled hour, the Justices focused tightly on the actual operation of the four specific provisions of the law at issue, and most of the Court seemed prepared to accept that Arizona police would act in measured ways as they arrest and detain individuals they think might be in the U.S. illegally. And most of them seemed somewhat skeptical that the federal government would have to change its own immigration priorities just because states were becoming more active.

At the end, though, the question remained how a final opinion might be written to enlarge states’ power to deal with some 12 million foreign nationals without basing that authority upon the Scalia view that states have a free hand under the Constitution to craft their own immigration policies. The other Justices who spoke up obviously did not want to turn states entirely loose in this field. So perhaps not all of the four clauses would survive.

 

SB1070 Senate Hearings

By Michael Bryan

As we near the time for arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Arizona's SB1070, the Senate has held a hearing on the law.

Testifying about the bill were recalled former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce (pro at 19:56), retired U.S. Senator Dennis DiConcini (con at 25:30), Arizona State Senator Steve Gallardo (con at 35:27), and Todd Landfried of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (con at 42:15). Questions begin at 49:05 with Schumer questioning Pearce.

Tellingly, Republican Senators Jon Kyl and John Cornyn both ducked out of the hearing leaving Pearce the sole supporter of the law in the hearing room. He was a bit sore about it, whining to the press, "I didn't get a phone call... I was disappointed. It's not just about supporting me, it's about supporting Arizona."

Kyl released a statement explaining his boycott of the hearing and labeling the hearing "strictly political theater." Governor Brewer also declined to attend and testify. One wonders why, if Kyl and Brewer considered the hearing political theater, they failed to make a curtain call: political theater is their profession, so given a chance to strut the boards before a national audience, why would they refuse the chance at a soliloquy?

UPDATE: (h/t to Bess1919) Apparently, one of Pearce's posse falsely accused Randy Parraz of shoving him after the hearing and was questioned by capitol police. Stay classy, Mr. Pearce.

UPDATE: Listening to Pearce's pressers following the hearing he made some claims that are wholly unjustified by the facts. He claimed that up to 9,000 Americans are killed per year by undocumented aliens. This clearly implies that a murder spree is on. The facts is that there are generally about 15,000 murders in the U.S. per year: Pearce is claiming that 3 out of every 5 murders are perpetrated by undocumented aliens? Bullshit. He also claimed that undocumented aliens commit crimes at three times the rate of "any other demographic". That's simply not true, either. Immigrant populations generally, and Mexican immigrants, including undocumented, commit crimes at a rate lower than any native-born demographic. Finally, Pearce claims to have met with DREAM students personally. I find that claim doubtful. Any DREAM students out there who can support Pearce's claim to have met with your personally, or even in a group?

Watch the hearing after the click...

Reminder: March for Justice against SB 1070 in Phoenix on Wednesday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network:

Phoenix to March Against SB1070 and Federal Deportation Programs
During SCOTUS Hearing

Who: A Wide Coalition of Organizations [including Somos America and the American Civil Liberties Union]

When: April 25th. March to begin at 3:00 pm Arizona Time.

Where: Opening Rally at Civic Space Park, 424 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix.

 

March: Highlighting Phoenix PD, Federal Courthouse, 4th Avenue Jail, Wells Fargo Tower, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and returning to Civic Space Park.

 

On April 25th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Department of Justice lawsuit against the state of Arizona's SB1070. At the same time, communities in Arizona will come together to participate in a march to protest against the state bill and call for an end to both state and federal policies that erode civil rights, promote racial profiling, and enable local law enforcement such as Sheriff Arpaio to use immigration policy to enforce their prejudice.

 

Carlos Garcia of Puente states, “With SB1070 Arizona declared a war of attrition on immigrants. What was started in Arizona quickly lead to the Arizonificaiton of this country, one that treats undocumented immigrants as criminals and treats all Latinos as undocumented.”    

 

Opal Tometi of Black Alliance For Just Immigration explains, "April 25th doesn't just mark a decision for the Supreme Court. The human rights violations now plain as day in Arizona create a moral dilemma for all of us. We will be marching because we refuse to live another day in Attrition. We ask that all those who believe you should not be judged by the color of your skin to join us in turning the tide from hate to a new day for human rights."

 

Diana Perez of Puente relates, "Maricopa County has been in a human rights crisis created by both state and federal policies that we've only seen spread in the past two years. On April 25th we'll be marching to say that we will not comply with the hate contained in SB1070. The Supreme Court should strike down 1070 and the federal government should re-evaluate its embrace of Arizona-style policies."

 

Facebook event at https://www.facebook.com/events/370620936316540/

 

###

 

Online: somosamerica.org  and www.aclu.org

March for Justice against SB 1070 in Phoenix on Wednesday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network:

Phoenix to March Against SB1070 and Federal Deportation Programs
During SCOTUS Hearing

Who: A Wide Coalition of Organizations [including Somos America and the American Civil Liberties Union]

When: April 25th. March to begin at 3:00 pm Arizona Time.

Where: Opening Rally at Civic Space Park, 424 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix.

 

March: Highlighting Phoenix PD, Federal Courthouse, 4th Avenue Jail, Wells Fargo Tower, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and returning to Civic Space Park.

 

On April 25th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Department of Justice lawsuit against the state of Arizona's SB1070. At the same time, communities in Arizona will come together to participate in a march to protest against the state bill and call for an end to both state and federal policies that erode civil rights, promote racial profiling, and enable local law enforcement such as Sheriff Arpaio to use immigration policy to enforce their prejudice.

 

Carlos Garcia of Puente states, “With SB1070 Arizona declared a war of attrition on immigrants. What was started in Arizona quickly lead to the Arizonificaiton of this country, one that treats undocumented immigrants as criminals and treats all Latinos as undocumented.”    

 

Opal Tometi of Black Alliance For Just Immigration explains, "April 25th doesn't just mark a decision for the Supreme Court. The human rights violations now plain as day in Arizona create a moral dilemma for all of us. We will be marching because we refuse to live another day in Attrition. We ask that all those who believe you should not be judged by the color of your skin to join us in turning the tide from hate to a new day for human rights."

 

Diana Perez of Puente relates, "Maricopa County has been in a human rights crisis created by both state and federal policies that we've only seen spread in the past two years. On April 25th we'll be marching to say that we will not comply with the hate contained in SB1070. The Supreme Court should strike down 1070 and the federal government should re-evaluate its embrace of Arizona-style policies."

 

Facebook event at https://www.facebook.com/events/370620936316540/

 

###

 

Online: somosamerica.org  and www.aclu.org

A preview of SB 1070 in the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hold its final week of oral arguments for this Term. Opinions in argued cases this Term are expected on Tuesday and Wednesday.

But the "big one" this week is oral argument of Arizona's infamous SB 1070 in Arizona v. United States (docket 11-182). The state’s immigrant control law will be defended by Paul D. Clement of the Washington law firm of Bancroft PLLC. Responding, and defending lower court orders that blocked four key parts of the state law, will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. The case will be decided by eight members of the Court, since Justice Elena Kagan is recused.

Lyle Denniston provides an exceptional preview at SCOTUSblog.com, Argument preview: Who controls immigrants’ lives?:

In 1903, a bronze plaque bearing the poem of Emma Lazarus was mounted on the Statue of Liberty in New York City’s entering harbor, and it used to be common for school children to memorize the most famous lines from hat poem: ”Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Now, some politicians and advocacy groups vie to out-promise each other with ways – sometimes harsh — to deal with perhaps 12 million individuals living illegally in the U.S. And this year, in particular, that is a dominant theme in the presidential and congressional elections campaigns. The Supreme Court, too, has been drawn into the controversy. With notable symbolism in this election year, the Court will conclude its hearings for the Term on Wednesday by examining what the Constitution says about who can regulate the lives of immigrants. Its final ruling is likely to emerge by early summer, when the election campaign will be in full swing.

Adding to the symbolism, the Court will be reviewing the constitutionality of an Arizona law — the first, and a trend-setter of sorts, among sharp crackdowns by state legislatures on illegal immigrants’ daily lives. Its shorthand title — “S.B. 1070″ — is now popularly known, much more so than its formal title, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” Its official goal, as passed by the legislature in 2010, is “attrition through enforcement.” By attrition, of course, it means forcing a reduction in the number of undocumented immigrants arriving or remaining in Arizona.

SCOTUS to hear SB 1070 appeal on April 25

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From SCOTUSblog.com April arguments:

The Supreme Court will conclude its oral arguments for the current Term with the major case on a state’s power to pass laws to control undocumented immigrants living in the state — Arizona v. United States (docket 11-182) — on April 25.  

11-182 — Arizona v. United States  — constitutionality of state laws seeking to control the everyday work and movement of undocumented immigrants living within the state.

The case will be heard by eight Justices. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself due to her work as Solicitor General of the U.S. when this case was in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mark your calendars. A decision is likely to be announced the last week of June.

Mike's 2011 Top Ten

Posted by Michael Bryan

I thought I would get in the spirit of reflecting back on the past year by taking a look at my posts over the course of 2011 with an eye to picking out a few of the 'best'.

What I found is that I hadn't done all that much :) It may or may not be news to some readers that I was pretty distracted by health concerns this year. I basically didn't post between July and November. I had a quadruple cardiac bypass in early August and was pretty much disabled in the months prior and subsequent to that event.

So, in thinking about things I'm grateful for this year, top of the list is, of course, my continuing survival and returning health, and the support and love of my family that got me through the crisis.

Here in the blogosphere, my gratitude goes out to the wonderful bloggers who have joined me here at BlogForArizona who continue to make this a lively and informative forum for political junkies of Arizona to come and get their fixes.

A blog is like a broadcast. Dead air is the enemy. This blog would absolutely no longer exist if smart and public-spirited folks like David, Meanie, Craig, Karl, and all our occasional guest authors weren't here keeping BlogForArizona on the air. This year proved to me that BlogForArizona is truly become a community. I'm grateful beyond measure to be a part of that, and grateful to all of you who read and comment and contribute to keep that community alive.

Now, for my Top Ten:

The year started out on a tragic note with the January 8th shootings. Everyone on the blog chipped in to keep up with the terrible news (Gabby, Our Thoughts Are With You). In the days following I got pretty intemperate about what that tragedy revealed about the state of American politics (The Hypocrisy of the Right-Wing on the CD8 Shootings).

Much of politics in Arizona over the course of 2010 was driven by Senate President Pearce, unfortunately. I weighed in on his horrible lies about immigrants (The Big Lie at the Heart of the Birthright Citizenship Attacks on "Anchor Babies"), and even got a bit whimsical when I made a video about the issue (Arizona Senator Pearce throws Down with a Mexican Anchor Baby Mama). I also fisked his statement when the 9th Circuit enjoined enforcement of several provisions of SB1070 (Arizona Senator Pearce Attacks the 9th circuit Court of Appeals). Hopefully, Pearce won't be in a leadership position of Arizona's government ever again.

I was appalled by the AZ GOP's utter incompetence and immorality in dealing with this year's difficult budgetary deficit (An Immoral Budget), and their appalling lies about having 'balanced' the budget (AZ GOP's Big Budget Lie).

An entirely manufactured crisis was Jan Brewer's unconstitutional and nakedly political attack on the Independent Redistricting Commission (Janet Wants Her Veto Back) by summarily removing its Chairperson, which I predicted would fail (Arizona Courts Constitutional Crisis Over IRC). Thankfully, I was right for once, and sanity prevailed.

Another ego-driven perennial windbag in Arizona politics had the starch taken out of his pink underwear by the Department of Justice (Arpaio, MSCO and the DOJ Civil Rights Division Findings. What's it All Mean?), and immediately took the fight into the mud (And Arpaio's Supporters Go There Publicly).

Finally, a true piece of shit who besmirched the face of Arizona's politics looks to be about to get what he so richly deserves (Andy Thomas is in Big Trouble). But as the ethics panel's ruling won't actually come until late January, so perhaps this story is really the first Top Ten of 2012. And that, in the "baker's dozen" tradition of Top Tens, is actually 11 posts :)

BlogForArizona was founded in 2003 as the DeanForArizona blog during the 2004 Democratic Primary season. So, Happy New Year and welcome to BlogForArizona's 9th year in publication!

 

 

 

BREAKING: SCOTUS grants cert on S.B. 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its list of orders this morning and had granted certiorari for the petition for review in Arizona v. United States, in which the state has asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision blocking enforcement of four provisions of S.B. 1070, its controversial immigration law.  The Los Angeles Times, UPI, the Associated Press (via the Washington Post), and the International Business Times all have preview coverage. 

NOTE: Jusice Elena Kagan has recused herself from this case due to her previous role as Solicitor General of the United States. The case will be heard and decided by only eight Justices.

UPDATE: "[T]he Justices on Monday took on the searing constitutional — and political — controversy over state power to strictly limit the way undocumented immigrants live their lives in the U.S.   Along with the politics-saturated but deeply consequential constitutional disputes over the new federal health care law and the role of federal courts in drawing up new election districts to protect minority voters’ rights, the Term that will run through late June is assured of being one of the Court’s most significant single years ever." Another landmark ruling in the offing : SCOTUSblog:

The Arizona case puts before eight of the Justices — former U.S. Solicitor General and now Justice Elena Kagan will not take part — that state’s highly controversial bill, known popularly as “S.B. 1070.”  That measure set a pattern among a number of states that have been growing increasingly impatient with what they consider to be the federal government’s lax enforcement of immigration controls, and the resulting harm that they believe illegal immigrants are doing to the quality of life for their citizens and legal residents.  The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state.  Other states are also passing similar measures.

Arizona’s governor, Janice Brewer, in taking the fate of S.B. 1070 on to the Supreme Court, is portraying the case as a major test of the sovereignty of the states to make their own social policies under traditional “police power” principles.  The federal government, which tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Court not to get involved in the case at this point, is treating the case as a test of whether states may adopt their own immigration policies that frustrate specific goals of federal policy.

With Justice Kagan not taking part, presumably because she had something to do with the issue in her former role in the Obama Administration Justice Department, there is the possibility that the eight participating Justices will wind up split 4-4 in the case.   That would have the effect of simply upholding a Ninth Circuit Court decision, but without opinion and without setting a nationwide precedent.  The practical effect of that would be that Arizona could not enforce four key provisions of S.B. 1070, blocked by both the Ninth Circuit and, earlier, by a federal District judge in Arizona.

* * *

In urging Supreme Court review, the state’s petition (Arizona v. United States, docket 11-182) contended that the bar to enforcement of those provisions “casts constitutional doubt on dozens of statutes enacted by other states.”  The petition sought to persuade the Justices that the state was making only modest efforts to join in cooperation with the federal government to enforce existing policy against illegal immigration.   The Obama Administration urged the Court to deny review, arguing that it was premature for the Court to get involved before other federal appeals courts have ruled on such state attempts to adopt similar laws.   The Administration contended that what Arizona has done is not to engage in a cooperative endeavor with the federal government, but to have its own immigration control policies — a field that the federal government contends is reserved to the national government. And the government argued that the state is using criminal prosecution in a field where the federal government has generally opted for civil remedies.

In a related immigration law matter: The Court issued a unanimous opinion today overturning a six-year-old policy of federal immigration officials that gave permanent resident aliens who committed crimes less chance of avoiding deportation than newly arrived non-aliens would have had before they were barred from admission.  

In the opinion by Justice Kagan in Judulang v. Holder (10-694), the Court said that the government need not treat those facing deportation exactly equally with those facing denial of admission, but it found that the current policy dating from 2005 was arbitrary, because it based comparisons between the two situations on arbitrary differences in what crimes are covered for deportees and for facing exclusion.  

At several points in her 21-page opinion, Kagan wrote that the policy was no less arbitrary than would have been a mere flipping of a coin to decide who among permanent resident aliens would be entitled to seek relief from deportation.  The decision apparently will force immigration officials to focus more closely on the specific details of each individual’s case for relief from deportation.

Federal preemption and S.B. 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considered at their private Conference Arizona v. United States, the high-profile dispute over Arizona’s recent sweeping immigration statute S.B. 1070. The Court could announce as early as Monday whether it will review the case.

The political issue in Arizona’s appeal is how much leeway states have to regulate immigration in light of the comprehensive system of federal immigration law. The legal issue is one that has repeatedly drawn the Supreme Court’s attention in an another immigration case from Arizona, and many other contexts, in the last few years – federal preemption. SCOTUS for law students: Preemption and the Arizona immigration law : SCOTUSblog:

The concept of preemption is fairly simple to state, but much more difficult to apply.  Federal law takes precedence over state law.  This principle is stated in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding .”

The challenge of defining preemption law – i.e., when a particular law is invalid because it conflicts with or is otherwise displaced by federal law – is dramatically demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s preoccupation with the subject. Since early 2008, the Court has decided at least ten preemption cases, and it is already slated to consider at least three more this Term. 

The critical question is when a federal law preempts a state law. It is not the case that there is preemption simply because a federal law and a state law relate to the same subject.  The clearest case is when Congress specifically says that it intends to preempt all state laws in a field; this is called express preemption.

The more difficult disputes involve what is called “implied preemption”:  when Congress has not made its intention entirely clear. Courts may find implied preemption in two different scenarios.  The first, which is sometimes called “conflict preemption,” occurs when there is (wait for it . . .) a conflict between federal and state laws that makes it difficult or impossible to comply with both. The second kind of implied preemption occurs when Congress passes a law that is comprehensive and leaves no room for state regulation; this is sometimes called “field preemption” because Congress has occupied the field.

The Arizona immigration law raises a number of these issues. The Constitution , in Article I, section 8, paragraph 4, gives Congress the power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The federal government has long asserted that the power to regulate immigration rests almost entirely with Congress and the executive branch and that federal immigration laws are intended to be comprehensive. At the same time, federal officials encourage state and local police to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement efforts.

Cooperation did not seem to be Arizona’s main motivation in passing the law. When Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation, known as S.B. 1070, in April 2010, she described it as “another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.” 

In seeking Supreme Court review, however, Arizona now argues that its law is an effort to cooperate with federal enforcement.

Four provisions in S.B. 1070 are in dispute. First, the law instructs Arizona law enforcement officials to try to determine an individual’s immigration status any time someone is arrested, as well as during a police stop or arrest if they have reason to believe that the individual may be an unlawful alien. Second, the law makes it a violation of Arizona law for someone to fail to register as an alien under federal  law. A third section makes it illegal for unlawful aliens to work or to try to obtain work. The fourth provision gives Arizona police the power to make warrantless arrests of anyone whom they have probable cause to believe has engaged in activity that would make them deportable under federal law.

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the Arizona law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the four provisions, finding that federal law likely preempted Arizona’s efforts. In April 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, agreeing with the federal government that the district judge had not abused her discretion in issuing the injunction.  One member of the panel, however, would have held that two of the four provisions were not preempted.  Arizona then filed a petition for certiorari in which it cited an urgent need to be able to enforce state law. The Justice Department has opposed Supreme Court review.

* * *

Although Arizona argues that S.B. 1070 represents an effort to cooperate with the federal government, the federal government counters that “cooperation” is a narrow concept that requires state and local law enforcement officials to operate within the framework of federal law. The state role is to provide information to help support federal enforcement.  What Arizona has done instead, the Ninth Circuit found, is to create its own, separate immigration policy[.]

The Supreme Court’s fascination with the problems of preemption in recent years does not shed a lot of light on what the Court might do with the Arizona case. . . Among the Court’s ten preemption rulings, though, is one that may be more relevant than others. Last May, by a vote of five to three (with Justice Kagan recused), the Court held that another Arizona immigration law was not preempted by federal law.

 In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the Court concluded that an Arizona statute which allows the state to revoke the business licenses of companies that hire and employ unlawful aliens did not conflict with federal law.  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that the particular provision of federal law in question intended to leave room for state enforcement.

Just how the Supreme Court will resolve the new Arizona dispute may become apparent soon. The Court could opt to decline review at this point and to instead wait for another opportunity to resolve the preemption conflict between federal law and state enforcement of immigration. Or the Court may feel that the moment is ripe to step into this important dispute between the states and the federal government.

Stay tuned...

The Buying of Democracy by ALEC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell aired this must-see report on Tuesday night about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the new report from People For the American Way into this far-right corporatist organization.

The segment includes an ad from the nonprofit immigrants rights organization "Cuéntame the ¡Latino Instigators!" http://www.facebook.com/cuentame?sk=app_201143516562748#!/cuentame?sk=info, regarding ALEC's role in authoring SB 1070 as "model legislation" for Sen. Russell Pearce. (Kris Kobach from the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is also credited as a co-author of SB 1070).

The People For the American Way report into ALEC is richly detailed. ALEC: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests In State Legislatures. Here is a portion of the summary:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, who helped build a nationwide right-wing political infrastructure following the reelection of Richard Nixon. In the same year, he helped establish the Heritage Foundation, now one of the most prominent right-wing policy institutes in the country. One year later, Weyrich founded the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the predecessor of the Free Congress Foundation. In 1979, he co-founded and coined the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell, and in 1981 he helped establish the ultraconservative Council on National Policy.

ALEC’s major funders include Exxon Mobil, the Scaife family (Allegheny Foundation and the Scaife Family Foundation), the Coors family (Castle Rock Foundation), Charles Koch (Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation), the Bradley family (The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation) and the Olin family (John M. Olin Foundation). These organizations consistently finance right-wing think tanks and political groups.

Members of ALEC’s board represent major corporations such as Altria, AT&T, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Koch Industries, Kraft, PhRMA, Wal-Mart, Peabody Energy, and State Farm. Such corporations represent just a fraction of ALEC’s approximately three hundred corporate partners. According to the American Association for Justice, over eighty percent of ALEC’s finances come from corporate contributions.

ALEC’s activities reflect its founding, funding, and control by corporate interests. According to the American Association for Justice, “the nuts and bolts of lobbying and crafting legislation is done by large corporate defense firm Shook Hardy & Bacon.” This firm plays a significant role in managing ALEC’s legislative and governmental advocacy programs.

* * *

The clout of corporations and corporate-backed groups comprising ALEC is unmistakable: Victor E. Schwartz, a Shook Hardy partner and head of its Public Policy Group, chairs ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force; Tom Moskitis, the American Gas Association’s Director of External Affairs, chairs the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force; Bob Williams, founder and senior fellow of the corporate-funded Evergreen Freedom Foundation, chairs the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force; Bartlett Cleland, director of the corporate-financed Institute for Policy Innovation, chairs the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force, and Emory Wilkerson, associate general counsel for State Farm Insurance, chairs the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.

Simply put, “corporations can implement their agendas very effectively using ALEC,” as stated by Edwin Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

You can download the full report (.pdf) here. http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/rww-in-focus-alec.pdf.

Highlights from United States v. State of Arizona (SB 1070)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Highlights from the opinion in United States v. State of Arizona, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf.

Posture of The Appeal

Before Arizona’s new immigration law went into effect, the United States sued the State of Arizona in federal district court alleging that S.B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it was preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and that it violated the Commerce Clause. Along with its complaint, the United States filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin implementation of S.B. 1070 in its entirety until a final decision is made about its constitutionality. Although the United States requested that the law be enjoined in its entirety, it specifically argued facial challenges to only six select provisions of the law. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992 (D. Ariz. 2010).

The district court granted the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining enforcement of S.B. 1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6, on the basis that federal law likely preempts these provisions. Id. at 1008.

Arizona appealed the grant of injunctive relief, arguing that these four sections are not likely preempted; the United States did not cross-appeal the partial denial of injunctive relief. Thus, the United States’ likelihood of success on its federal preemption argument against these four sections is the central issue this appeal presents.

Appeal was reviewed on de novo standard of review.

Introduction to Opinion

We stress that the question before us is not, as Arizona has portrayed, whether state and local law enforcement officials can apply the statute in a constitutional way. Arizona’s framing of the Salerno issue assumes that S.B. 1070 is not preempted on its face, and then points out allegedly permissible applications of it. This formulation misses the point: there can be no constitutional application of a statute that, on its face, conflicts with Congressional intent and therefore is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

[W]e conclude that the relevant provisions of S.B. 1070 facially conflict with Congressional intent as expressed in provisions of the INA. If that were not the case, as in Sprint, we would have next considered whether the statute could be applied in a constitutional manner.

Holding

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of S.B. 1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

Section 2(B) of SB 1070

• Congress explicitly required that in enforcing federal immigration law, state and local officers “shall” be directed by the Attorney General. This mandate forecloses any argument that state or local officers can enforce federal immigration law as directed by a mandatory state law.
• Through Section 2(B), Arizona has enacted a mandatory and systematic scheme that conflicts with Congress’ explicit requirement that in the “[p]erformance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees,” such officers “shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3). Section 2(B) therefore interferes with Congress’ scheme because Arizona has assumed a role in directing its officers how to enforce the INA. We are not aware of any INA provision demonstrating that Congress intended to permit states to usurp the Attorney General’s role in directing state enforcement of federal immigration laws.
• We agree that 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) demonstrates that Congress contemplated state assistance in the identification of undocumented immigrants.10 We add, however, that Congress contemplated this assistance within the boundaries established in § 1357(g), not in a manner dictated by a state law that furthers a state immigration policy.
• By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents. As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress’ delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA.
• [S]ection 2(B)’s interference with Congressionally-granted Executive discretion weighs in favor of preemption. Section 2(B)’s ‘unyielding” mandatory directives to Arizona law enforcement officers “undermine[ ] the President’s intended statutory authority” to establish immigration enforcement priorities and strategies. Crosby, 530 U.S. at 377.
• [S.B.] 1070 Section 2(B) “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” as expressed in the aforementioned INA provisions. Hines, 312 U.S. at 67. The law subverts Congress’ intent that systematic state immigration enforcement will occur under the direction and close supervision of the Attorney General. Furthermore, the mandatory nature of Section 2(B)’s immigration status checks is inconsistent with the discretion Congress vested in the Attorney General to supervise and direct State officers in their immigration work according to federally-determined priorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3).
• In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 2(B) would be valid, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same.

Section 3 of SB 1070

• Arizona argues that Section 3 is not preempted because Congress has “invited states to reinforce federal alien classifications.” Attempting to support this argument, Arizona cites INA sections outside the registration scheme where Congress has expressly indicated how and under what conditions states should help the federal government in immigration regulation. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1621-25, 1324a(h)(2).
• We are not persuaded by Arizona’s argument. An authorization from one section does not—without more—carry over to other sections. Nothing in the text of the INA’s registration provisions indicates that Congress intended for states to participate in the enforcement or punishment of federal immigration registration rules.
• In addition, S.B. 1070 Section 3 plainly stands in opposition to the Supreme Court’s direction: “where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Hines, 312 U.S. at 66-67.
• Section 3’s state punishment for federal registration violations fits within the Supreme Court’s very broad description of proscribed state action in this area—which includes “complement[ing]” and “enforc[ing] additional or auxiliary regulations.”
• The Supreme Court’s more recent preemption decisions involving comprehensive federal statutory schemes also indicate that federal law preempts S.B. 1070 Section 3.
• [We] conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 3 would be valid, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same.

Section 5 of SB 1070

• [W]ith respect to S.B. 1070 Section 5(C), we “start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1194 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (quoting Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485).
• [O]ur decision in National Center requires us to conclude that federal law likely preempts S.B. 1070 Section 5(C), since the state law conflicts with what we have found was Congress’ IRCA intent.
• [We] conclude that the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, combined with legislative history demonstrating Congress’ affirmative choice not to criminalize work as a method of discouraging unauthorized immigrant employment, likely reflects Congress’ clear and manifest purpose to supercede state authority in this context. We are further guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Puerto Rico Dep’t of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495 (1988).
• Here, Congress’ inaction in not criminalizing work, joined with its action of making it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, justifies a preemptive inference that Congress intended to prohibit states from criminalizing work.
• In the context of unauthorized immigrant employment, Congress has deliberately crafted a very particular calibration of force which does not include the criminalization of work. By criminalizing work, S.B. 1070 Section 5(C) constitutes a substantial departure from the approach Congress has chosen to battle this particular problem. Therefore, Arizona’s assertion that this provision “furthers the strong federal policy” does not advance its argument against preemption. Sharing a goal with the United States does not permit Arizona to “pull[ ] levers of influence that the federal Act does not reach.”
• By pulling the lever of criminalizing work—which Congress specifically chose not to pull in the INA—Section 5(C) “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” It is therefore likely that federal law preempts Section 5(C).
• [We] conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 5(C) would not be preempted, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same.

Section 6 of SB 1070

• Section 6 ... allows for warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe that an individual committed a removable offense in Arizona, served his or her time for the criminal conduct, and was released; and when there is probable cause to believe that an individual was arrested for a removable offense but was not prosecuted.
• Thus, the question we must decide is whether federal law likely preempts Arizona from allowing its officers to effect warrantless arrests based on probable cause of removability. Because arresting immigrants for civil immigration violations is not a “field which the States have traditionally occupied,” we do not start with a presumption against preemption of Section 6. Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1194.
• We first turn to whether Section 6 is consistent with Congressional intent. As authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1252c, state and local officers may, “to the extent permitted by relevant State . . . law,” arrest and detain an individual [ ].
• Nothing in this provision permits warrantless arrests, and the authority is conditioned on compliance with a mandatory obligation to confirm an individual’s status with the federal government prior to arrest. Moreover, this provision only confers state or local arrest authority where the immigrant has been convicted of a felony. Section 6, by contrast, permits warrantless arrests if there is probable cause that a person has “committed any public offense that makes the person removable.” Misdemeanors, not just felonies, can result in removablility.
• Thus, Section 6 authorizes state and local officers to effectuate more intrusive arrests than Congress has permitted in Section 1252c.
• [W]e are not aware of any INA provision indicating that Congress intended state and local law enforcement officers to enjoy greater authority to effectuate a warrantless arrest than federal immigration officials.
• Thus, Section 6 significantly expands the circumstances in which Congress has allowed state and local officers to arrest immigrants. Federal law does not allow these officers to conduct warrantless arrests based on probable cause of civil removability, but Section 6 does. Therefore, Section 6 interferes with the carefully calibrated scheme of immigration enforcement that Congress has adopted, and it appears to be preempted.
• Contrary to the State’s view, we simply are not persuaded that Arizona has the authority to unilaterally transform state and local law enforcement officers into a state-controlled DHS force to carry out its declared policy of attrition.
• We are not aware of any binding authority holding that states possess the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law — we now hold that states do not have such inherent authority.
• In sum, we are not persuaded that Arizona has the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law. Therefore, Arizona must be federally authorized to conduct such enforcement. Congress has created a comprehensive and carefully calibrated scheme—and has authorized the Executive to promulgate extensive regulations — for adjudicating and enforcing civil removability. S.B. 1070 Section 6 exceeds the scope of federal authorization for Arizona’s state and local officers to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law. Section 6 interferes with the federal government’s prerogative to make removability determinations and set priorities with regard to the enforcement of civil immigration laws. Accordingly, Section 6 stands as an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
• [We] conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 6 would be valid, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same.

Foreign Policy Arguments

In each of the above arguments, the court of appeals also included these foreign policy arguments:

• In addition to Section [  ] standing as an obstacle to Congress’ statutorily expressed intent, the record unmistakably demonstrates that S.B. 1070 has had a deleterious effect on the United States’ foreign relations, which weighs in favor of preemption. See generally Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (finding obstacle preemption where a State law impinged on the Executive’s authority to singularly control foreign affairs); Crosby, 530 U.S. 363 (same).
• Arizona’s law has created actual foreign policy problems of a magnitude far greater than incidental. Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 419 (emphasis added).
• Finally, the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules on top of the INA also weighs in favor of preemption.

Circuit Judge John Noonan emphasized these foreign policy considerations in his concurring opinion.

The dissent by Circuit Judge Carlos Bea was met with critical response from his colleagues in the majority opinion in numerous footnotes. Footnote 6 is representative of their tone:

We have carefully considered the dissent and we respond to its arguments as appropriate. We do not, however, respond where the dissent has resorted to fairy tale quotes and other superfluous and distracting rhetoric. These devices make light of the seriousness of the issues before this court and distract from the legitimate judicial disagreements that separate the majority and dissent.

After reading the dissent, I can understand the reason for their critical tone. It's opinions like this that make me wonder how some judges ever got appointed to the court. (Yes, I know it is politics).

Pima Dems Applaud Ninth Circuit Decision Declaring SB 1070 Unconstitutional

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Press release from the Pima County Democratic Party:

Pima Dems Applaud Ninth Circuit Decision Declaring SB 1070 Unconstitutional

Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers issued the following statement today:

“The Pima County Democratic Party applauds the Federal Appeals Court ruling that Arizona's reckless immigration law, SB 1070, is unconstitutional. It's the federal government's job to enforce federal immigration law, just as the Border Patrol is prohibited from enforcing state law. What's worse, it’s a cynical law written specifically to harass the law-abiding Latino community. We urge Congress and the president to finally tackle federal immigration reform in a way that fixes the problem, rather than simply fixing blame. It’s up to Washington D.C., to secure the border, punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants and provide a path to legal status for those here now, contributing to our society.”

###

Breaking: 9th Circuit refuses to lift stay order of AZ District Court blocking SB 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Breaking news report from the Arizona Republic, Arizona immigration law: Court refuses to lift stay:

A federal appeals court is refusing to lift a stay blocking major parts of a tough Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants from taking effect.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. Brewer asked them to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.

Link to Opinion. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf (87 pages).

Give me a chance to read it. There was only a partial dissent by Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The San Francisco Chronicle reports Appeals court blocks Arizona immigration law:

A federal appeals court refused today to let Arizona enforce the main provisions of its immigration law, which would require police to demand documentation from people they suspect of being in this country illegally.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with a federal judge's decision that the law would conflict with federal regulation of immigration. The Obama administration sued Arizona to stop the law from taking effect after the state passed it one year ago.

The law "interferes with the federal government's authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement," Judge Richard Paez said in the majority opinion.

He said the law has also harmed U.S. foreign relations, citing protests from numerous Latin American nations - notably Mexico, which has cited it in delaying a proposed agreement on responding to national disasters - and the United Nations secretary general.

In relations with other countries, "the federal nation must speak with one voice," said Judge John Noonan, who also voted against the measure.

Judge Carlos Bea dissented, saying Congress "intended state and local police officers to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration law."

The appeals court ruling affirmed the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of SB 1070 Secs. 2(B), 3, 5(C) and 6 issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in July 2010, and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court.

Russell Pearce: the man who wants to be shadow governor also wants to be shadow dictator of every city in the state

by Craig McDermott, crossposted from Random Musings

Russell Pearce may deride the U.S. government, saying that "states' rights" supercede any central authority, but he doesn't hold the same for Arizona's cities and towns in their dealings with the central authority of the Arizona state government.

First, his SB1070 would have shanghaied municipal police officers into his anti-immigrant purging force, no matter what the elected leaders of those municipalities thought their employees should be doing (you know, like preventing or investigating crimes in their jurisdictions).  It may still do so, but the law is winding its way through the courts.

Then, perhaps feeling that the City of Glendale is lax in fighting against the encroachment of Native Americans upon the Valley (yes, that's sarcasm.  Native Americans of one tribe or another were here long before the first settler with European roots.  Pearce is a small "n" nativist, not a capital "N" one.), Pearce has tried to interject himself into Glendale's legal conflict with the Tohono O'odham over a proposed tribal casino next to that city.

Pearce doesn't represent any part of Glendale (of course, that's a minor detail, considering that he doesn't actually work to represent his "official" constituents in West Mesa), nor is the legislature or the state government involved in the fight, but he still wants to meddle in the affairs of Glendale and the Tohono O'odham.

Finally, this past spring, he pushed through a bill, SB1108, that allows people to carry concealed firearms without a permit or even training.  Beside that, it included a provision requiring that legitimately confiscated weapons be sold to gun dealers, unless such action would violate "FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW."

He thought he had ensured a steady supply of low-cost product for local gun dealers.

Until a number of municipalities started passing ordinances requiring that confiscated weapons be destroyed (the "local law" segment of the above provision).

Now, he decries the "loophole" in the law (a law that he wrote and was the sole sponsor of) that allows cities and towns to determine their own procedures and governance, and has promised to "fix" the law so that cities and towns have no option but to put forfeited weapons back into public circulation.


So the man who doesn't help Mesa, even though he has been elected to represent part of it,  wants to interfere in  the local affairs of *other* cities? 

It's time for the voters of LD18 to make a change and elect somebody who will actually represent them.

Vote for Andrew Sherwood for State Senate.

 

3 Ways You Can Stop the GOP's War on the Children of Undocumented Immigrants

Who could possibly hate this baby? Oh, I know -- Republicans.

Last week, I wrote a piece for Change.org entitled 3 Ways You Can Help End the GOP's War on Undocumented Immigrants. In it, I identified three strategies that Right-wing fundies are using to wage a war on illegal immigration -- by attacking the rights of their citizen children. I think this subject is so important, I'm re-summarizing the post here. Learn more about how the GOP is targeting children in their war on illegal immigration, and participate in the linked petitions:

1) Birthright Citizenship: Top Republicans from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham are calling for Congressional hearings on the 14th Amendment. Their hope? Alter the Constitution to put a caveat on birthright citizenship such that citizenship is awarded based on the citizenship status of a child's parents. However, as I write in my post, the 14th Amendment was penned to eliminate the possibility that one group might be able to determine the citizenship -- and thus the political rights -- of another group. Prior to the 14th Amendment, citizenship did depend on the status of parents: the children of slaves were not considered American citizens, regardless of birthplace.

As Jeff Yang writes in his Asian Pop column this week, without the 14th Amendment, countless Asian Americans whose families entered the States as "paper sons" would find their citizenship in question today. Birthright citizenship is one of the few, unequivocably brilliant political ideas unique to North America; since its passage, it has helped ensure political and civil equality for all citizens. It's a travesty for Republicans to even suggest dismantling the 14th Amendment.

Act Now! We need to protect the 14th Amendment from hysterical nativism. Sign this petition targeting GOP lawmakers, urging them not to attack birthright citizenship in this country.

"Being brown is not a crime."

2) The SB 1070 of Public Schools: Here in Arizona, a virtually unknown piece of legislation has snuck its way through the State Senate, and is now being held in the State House. I charitably refer to this bill -- SB 1097 / HB 2382 -- as the "SB 1070 of public education". Just like SB 1070 deputizes local and state law enforcement to check the immigration papers of anyone who engages with police, SB 1097 deputizes school administrators to check the immigration papers of any child enrolled in public schools.

Why? Well, the idea is that public funds being used to educate non-citizen children costs taxpayers money, so Arizona Republicans (many of whom authored SB 1070) introduced SB 1097 to require schools to determine the number of non-citizen children enrolled as students, and to report that information to the state. Forget that in Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court determined that the state could not deny a child a public education based on immigration status.

The true effect of SB 1097 goes beyond the mean-spiritedness and misguidedness of the bill. If put into effect, SB 1097 would cause illegal immigrants to pull their children from public schools for fear of being identified and deported. But, since federal money to public schools is dependent on the number of enrolled students, this would actually cause Arizona schools to lose money. And we all know that less money means less teachers, fewer books, less extracurricular activities, and a poorer education for all of Arizona's children.

Act Now! SB 1097 is currently being considered in the State House as HB 2382. Sign this petition addressed to the Arizona State House, urging our legislators not to pass HB 2382.

I *heart* ethnic studies, too.

3) Attacking Teachers with Accents and Banning Ethnic Studies: In Arizona, the state department of education has fired hundreds of teachers with accents, after recruiting these teachers several years ago as part of English Language Learning classes. State legislators passed HB 2281, which bans the teaching of ethnic studies in public schools. While both actions have most directly affected Spanish-speaking teachers and Chicano Studies, the impact of these policies on teachers of all races and ethnicities is obvious.

The responsibility of teachers is to help students learn, by any means necessary. Sometimes that means connecting with students through a non-English language, sometimes that means engaging students with content that they find relevant to their own lives. A thriving classroom is one that is focused on the needs of students, and that can offer learning opportunities that speak to those needs. The banning of ethnic studies and the firing of teachers with accents renders the classroom less student-focused, thereby reducing learning.

More importantly, this applies to all students, and not just Latino students. Any student who wants to learn about American history from the perspective of Chicano Studies, African American Studies or Asian American Studies cannot do so if they are enrolled in an Arizona public school. They are forced to learn about their history through the lens of only one group -- that of the mainstream. Arizona has one of the largest Latino populations in the nation -- how does it make sense that this diversity is not reflected in the curriculum of public school classes?

Act Now! Sadly, the ethnic studies ban has passed in the Arizona State Legislature, and the teachers with accents have been fired. However, please sign this petition urging the current candidates for Arizona School Superintendent to make a public pledge that, if elected, they will work with the Legislature to reverse the ban on ethnic studies. Hey, it's a start...

Please share this post -- and my original post over at Change.org -- with your friends and families. Arizona is being used as a testing ground for divisive, misguided legislation. Already, some states are considering their own versions of SB 1070. If Arizona empowers school administrators to check immigration status or bans ethnic studies, it won't be a question of if similar legislation appears in other states, it'll be a question of when. We need to draw our line in the sand here.

Cross-posted: Reappropriate

Rachel Maddow covers Arizona's private prisons

by David Safier

As I write this at 6:18pm, Maddow just finished a lengthy lead story on the Kingman prison break and Arizona's private prisons. It pulls together all the threads as Maddow does so well, and adds details I hadn't read about.

We'll put up the clip when it's available. Meanwhile, if you want to see the segment on the show, tune in at 8pm when it will play again.

Mike chimes in: Here's the video...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Amazing piece of journalism.

A Battle Abrewing Over Birthright Citizenship

This is Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce. He LITERALLY hates babies.

I'm really not sure if this is pure political saber-rattling or a genuine debate the GOP is looking to engage in, but earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined other top Republicans in raising the question of birthright citizenship.

The whole debate stems from the Arizona illegal immigration debate, which has focused on punitive legislation to make life in the United States so heinous to undocumented immigrants from Mexico as to discourage border-crossing. SB 1070, of course, was intended to use the state and local police force to track down, detain and deport illegal immigrants by institutionalizing racial profiling of Arizona residents; according to federal judge Susan Bolton, the law had the unintended consequence of also legalizing harassment of the state's legal immigrants.

Arizona Republicans have bandied about other ideas that would use state laws to harass illegal immigrants in order to drive them out of the country. Former state legislator running for re-election to the Arizona Corporation Commission, Barry Wong, has proposed that the Commission (which oversees the state's utility policies) require electricity providers to check the immigration status of customers, and to cut power to any customer who cannot demonstrate that he or she is legally in the country. HB 2281 has banned the teaching of ethnic studies in the state's public schools; current school superintendent and Republican candidate for state attorney general Tom Horne was quoted as saying that the bill was intended to wipe out "ethnic chauvinism" he believed was being taught in a Southern Arizona Chicano studies program. The program offered optional classes to students that encouraged reading of Chicano authors and teaching of Mexican-American history. SB 1097, a bill that is currently being considered in the State House, would -- in essence -- deputize school administrator as immigrations officers empowered to request and verify the immigration documents of public school students, and to report the enrollment of illegal immigrant children in their schools. Failure to do so would result in loss of state money to the school.

Not surprisingly, State Senator Russell Pearce has sponsored many of the state bills targeting illegal immigrants. Pearce has annointed himself the state's primary champion against illegal immigrants since the shooting of his son, a Maricopa county sherriff, by men who turned out to be illegally in the country.

Along with SB 1070 and SB 1097, Pearce has now turned his attention to an issue described by a pejorative term popularized by anti-illegal immigrant activists in Arizona: "anchor babies". Pearce and his cadre of nativist politicians believe that America's Fourteenth Amendment, which grants American citizenship to any child born within the United States or its territories, provides an incentive for pregnant mothers to illegally enter the country so that they can give birth to their child. The child is granted American citizenship, so the theory goes, and than sponsors re-entry of its parents into the country or stays deportation proceedings.

The problem with the "anchor baby" argument is two-fold.

First of all, Pearce's hysteria over "anchor babies" is, frankly, preposterous. Children cannot sponsor the immigration of family members until they are 21 years of age. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can refuse to stay a deportation on account of an underage child with American citizenship. While statistics on how many children are born to illegal immigrants are hard to come by (I spent about half an hour on the CDC's National Vital Statistics System trying to figure out how to find the appropriate data), ABC reports that approximately 7,500 children are born to non-resident mothers nationwide (compared to 4.2 million total births). We're not talking about a pandemic, here.

Yet, Pearce would have us imagine that pregnant mothers are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in droves. Considering that thousands of able-bodied people (i.e. people who are not seven months pregnant) die in the deserts along the U.S.-Mexico border, it's hard for me to imagine scores of pregnant women deciding to embark on a two-week long hike through the harsh Arizona deserts with nothing more than a bottle of water, all in the vain hope that their children could eventually sponsor their re-entry into the United States... in twenty-one years.

Between the morning sickness, the bladder pressure, and the swollen ankles, most pregnant women I know have a rough time walking 50 feet, let alone 50 miles.

Russell Pearce believes this woman is capable of embarking on a two-week long backpacking trip through the Arizona desert in 100+ degree heat. Having actually hiked that wilderness, I call "bullshit".

But, on a more serious note, Pearce's attack on "birthright citizenship" is also alarming for the effect that it has on our basic understanding of citizenship in America. Citizenship by circumstance of birth was introduced as a means of granting citizenship rights to all children in America, regardless of race or ethnic background; it's no coincidence that birthright citizenship is included in the same amendment that established political equality for people of colour.

In truth, Pearce's proposal -- that citizenship be conferred to children based on the citizenship status of its parents -- is not new. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the status of parents influenced the rights granted to their child. Although America adopted the tradition of birthright citizenship from Britain, America did not historically grant citizenship to the children of black slaves regardless of birthplace. This practice was upheld in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which found that Scott was not a citizen of the United States by virtue of his race, despite having been born in Virginia. The race of a child's parents determined the race of a child (re: one-drop rules), which in turn determined whether the child could be granted political rights and American citizenship.

Yet, even in the mid-nineteenth century, America recognized the injustice of such a practice. With the Fourteenth Amendment, White men could no longer deny the citizenship of the children of Black slaves by being empowered to decide whether or not they qualify for protection under American federal law; simply by circumstance of birth, these children were rendered politically equal regardless of their parentage. We reiterated the importance of this basic understanding of American citizenship back in 1898 with Wong Kim Ark vs. United States.

Pearce is operating under a basic -- and inflammatory -- belief that illegal immigrants are not deserving of constitutional rights.  But Pearce's interpretation of the Constitution attacks legal and illegal immigrants alike, regardless of race or national origin. By virtue of not having American citizenship, Pearce apparently believes that non-citizens (legal or illegal) should not be awarded due process or protected from unwarranted searches and seizures (which, actually, explains a lot of his reasoning for sponsoring SB 1070). Pearce's suggestion that the federal government once more be allowed to decide who can, and who cannot, be awarded American citizenship hearkens back to a time when certain groups in this country were not protected by the law, and were considered three-fifths of a man.

In essence, Pearce doesn't believe that the rights awarded by the U.S. Constitution are actually rights. Rather, he sees the Bill of Rights as a "Bill of Privileges" -- or, more accurately, a "Bill of White Privileges".

Frankly, I believe that's not an America that I -- or anyone -- should want to be a part of.

Cross-posted: Reappropriate

Senator Kyl is an Embarrassment to Arizona

By Michael Bryan

Senator Kyl opened his mouth and allowed this to crawl out regarding the SB1070 ruling:

“I personally believe it was politically motivated,” Kyl told Fox. “Yes, it will be appealed, perhaps it’ll eventually end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, but it would be much preferable if the federal government just did its job in the first place so that states like Arizona don’t have to pass laws like this.”

 This from the policy leader and Whip of the GOP, the second highest position on the Republican side of the Senate, who is intent on blocking comprehensive immigration reform. Who, along with his delegation-mate Senator McCain, has pledged to hold hostage any reform to the unrealistic and impossible goal of completely securing the border. 

This from the Senator who not only voted to confirm Judge Bolton, but actually sponsored her nomination and recommended her to President Clinton. Who said of Bolton then:

"Well, there is one person in our state who’s a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that’s Judge Bolton. And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved, and she is right in the middle of this important litigation right now. They will be very sorry to see her leave in Maricopa County Superior Court bench. So, I have some mixed emotions in helping to nominate or to confirm Judge Bolton, but that’s how highly thought of she is."

Despite his previous faith in and support of Bolton, now she's a political hack because it has become politically convenient for Kyl to beat on the judiciary for preserving the constitutional order in the face of politically popular, but constitutionally problematic, state legislation. 

Kyl isn't acting like U.S. Senator; he's acting like a Tea Partier. And he's not even facing re-election this year...

What's most galling about the GOP's demagoguery on immigration is that it is so blatant, yet they are seldom called on it in the MSM. It is crystal clear that the GOP profits from not solving the problem, but rather by exploiting voters' feelings about it. 

You can generally tell what nefarious shit the GOP is up to by listening to what they accuse others of: Kyl lied that Obama told him that he was holding 'securing' the border hostage to comprehensive immigration reform. That is practically an admission that holding comprehensive reform hostage to 'securing' the border is the official GOP strategy. The GOP always accuses opponents of doing similar shady stuff that they are themselves are engaged in, the more ridiculous and specious the accusation the better. The allegations act to discredit the entire idea in the media.

Given opportunity to come to the table and negotiate real change, the GOP leadership, including Kyl, baulks and refuses to even begin the process of fixing our broken immigration system.

Harry Reid said:

“More than two months ago, Senate Democrats introduced a framework of ideas to fix our broken immigration system in a comprehensive way, and we extended an invitation to Republicans to work together on this important issue... We know that if we fail to act at the federal level, states and localities will continue to pursue a piecemeal approach to immigration that will not work. But instead of matching the leadership of Democrats to solve this problem and engaging in good faith negotiations, Republicans continue to engage in political grandstanding and polarizing rhetoric that encourages intolerance of our vibrant immigration population.”

Jon Kyl is a liar and a demagogue; in short, he is an embarrassment to Arizona and the office he unfortunately inhabits.

The Battle is Won, the War Continues

By Michael Bryan

 

With Judge Bolton's ruling enjoining enforcement of the core provisions of SB1070, the battle to stop Arizona from becoming a mini-sovreign (a tyrannical one) for the purposes of immigration is won, but the political and legal war between two visions of American immigration policy is just warming up. However, it is time to take down the battle banner that flew on this blog for the past several weeks. This is still 'El' Blog For Arizona until Arizona's insurrection is finally put in the political graveyard, but things are returning to a bit of normalcy as the election season gears up and the process of appeal to higher courts rolls along.

Arizona is likely to remain a central front in that war due to its geographic position and the political power of those determined to keep this issue at a boil to enhance their own electoral prospects in what might otherwise, and ought to be a very unfavorable year in Arizona for the GOP.

Thanks in large measure to the emotion and distraction created by their political gamesmanship on immigration, a party that should be looking at electoral defeats due to their gross incompetence and mishandling of Arizona's financial position is instead looking well-positioned to remain in power over all major organs of government. A Governor that lacked any mandate and was headed for political ignominy, now appears to be certain of her party's nomination and is strongly positioned for the general election. The Arizona GOP has pursued a transparently cynical strategy, and has succeeded beyond any expectations.

So what are the two visions of American immigration policy I alluded to? 

The vision espoused by the proponents of SB1070 is merely politically motivated hate- and fear-mongering. Seal the border. Find and deport all the aliens. Make it illegal for undocumented aliens to work, travel, or even exist in our state. That vision has all the sense, compassion, and logic one has come to expect from the crypto-fascists of the American right.

All the objective study of the issue indicates that immigration from Mexico is good for our economy, lowers the crime rate, enhances our quality of life, and injects needed people, energy, and cultural ideas into our nation's blood stream. If you listen to the anti-immmigrant right, however, (and it is increasingly hard to not hear them) you would come to believe exactly the opposite; including that wild-eyed Mexicans are prowling our border cutting the heads of any gringo who strays from the heard. 

It is exactly such hyperventilation and half-truths that betrays their real concern; not that immigrants are threatening our security and prosperity, but that the right's power is threatened in a state that is evolving demographically, economically, and politically away from GOP rule. They look at a state like Colorado that was for decades a GOP stronghold and is now solidly blue because that state's GOP lost touch with the real concerns of the citizens, and they have fever dreams of it happening here. And it will. But their desperate ploy to scare Arizonan's into continuing to vote for them looks likely to work... for now.

The other view - my own view and that this blog's authors - is that immigration is, like any other large and complex phenomenon, both a challenge and an opportunity. If we devise a rational immigration policy that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the harms, we can make our immigration policy work to everyone's benefit. We must reduce the demand for black-market movement of people and labor - because ultimately those who prosper from black markets are criminals. We must police the border more effectively and more intelligently - because there are genuine national security interests at stake. We must integrate the large pool of undocumented workers currently in the country into the legitimate sector of our economic and decide how give them a legal status that benefits both them and us - because regardless of the fascist aspirations of a few, this is not a nation that rounds up and deports 10 million or more people who have become integral parts of our communities.

'El' Blog For Arizona will continue to provide fact-based and fine-grained news, analysis and viewpoints on this controversy, but until Democrats come forward with a plan that can appeal to the broad majority of Americans who want to see a rational response to our broken immigration system, extremists like Pearce and Brewer will continue to control the terms of the debate. And that does no one any good at all.

Is Stuffing Lucrative Private Prisons with Immigrants the Real Motive Behind SB1070?

By Michael Bryan

Channel 5 investigates and makes Governor Brewer flee in terror from their questions about links between her key advisors and the private prison industry.

Hat tip to Man Eegee for the video link.

Feds' SB1070 Suit is Vital for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

By Michael Bryan

 

I was asked by The Hill to do a 500-word blogger face-off on the question, "Is the DOJ suit against Arizona wise, and will it help or hurt Obama's push for comprehensive immigration reform?" Frankly, at 856 words my opponent went way over his limit, but still failed to make any sort of coherent argument. Here's my argument:

"The federal lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of SB1070 is absolutely essential to any hope of comprehensive immigration reform. Congress cannot address America's immigration problems unless it remains in control of America's immigration policy. If SB1070 is allowed to stand, Arizona (quickly followed by the other states) will effectively wrest control of America's immigration policy from the federal government. The resulting chaos would be a disaster for America and end any hope of fixing our broken immigration system. For a full analysis of the federal lawsuit against SB1070, see BlogForArizona.com (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).

If unchecked, the passionate and misguided rush of many states, led by Arizona, to legislate their own preferred solutions to our national immigration problems will quickly lead to the creation of 50 different immigration policies, all conflicting with and undermining any effort to reform national policy. Bringing suit to prevent Arizona from creating its own immigration policy is therefore necessary to keep Congress in the driver’s seat. Without Congress behind the wheel (no matter how tardy or misguided you think their navigation), America’s immigration policy would lack any consistent direction as the states all scramble to seize the wheel.

Arizona’s SB1070 promotes a single-minded focus on what it terms “attrition through enforcement,” and discounts all other facets of immigration policy. Its solitary goal is to identify and detain as many undocumented aliens as possible in the hope of deporting them and of discouraging others from attempting to immigrate. Despite its allure to anti-immigrant demagogues, this hard-line immigration policy is not, and should not be, America’s immigration policy. Our nation’s policy must take into account a complex mixture of many, often-competing, goals; international relations, national security, trade considerations, labor policy, humanitarian responsibilities, and constitutional constraints are all essential considerations in immigration reform. 

It is easy and attractive to blame lax enforcement for America’s current immigration problems; if our “leaky border” were the sole cause of these problems, then they could be easily remedied by sealing the border and rounding up the “invaders.” Sadly, complex phenomena are seldom amenable to simple solutions. In fact, brutal fixes such as Arizona’s SB1070 invariably create more problems than they solve. Any remedy to our admittedly inadequate current policy requires careful consideration and a national perspective. Like it or not, only Congress has the legitimacy, institutional capacity, and constitutional authority to strike a balance between the competing claims of 50 state legislatures and the diverse goals of immigration policy.

Critics who denigrate Obama’s efforts to retain federal control of immigration need to explain their intransigence in cooperating on comprehensive immigration reform. Demanding the establishment of a “secure border” before any negotiations toward a new national policy can proceed is merely an excuse for obstructing any progress whatsoever. 

The states cannot fix immigration on their own. That way lies chaos. Obama is wise to stop Arizona’s folly before it can spread to other states."

SB 1070 Rips the 'Welcome Mat' Away From Legal Immigrants

By Jenn

 

This is a picture of me at the Tucson Festival of Books. SB 1070 would require that even here, while taking a picture with the wombat-cat, I could be "spot checked" for my immigration documents.

I am not Latina. I am not an illegal immigrant. All the same: SB 1070 terrifies me.

One of my biggest pet peeves about the national debate over SB 1070 is how the bill has been painted, by many who either support or oppose it, as an anti-Latino piece of legislation. Without a doubt, SB 1070 is intended to target illegal immigrants in Arizona, who arrive predominantly from Mexico; this can be deduced just from the preamble of the bill. It reads:

The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. 

However, SB 1070's passage won't just change the lives of illegal immigrants in Arizona. SB 1070 stands to seriously undermine the civil liberties of all Arizonans, regardless of whether or not we are (or look) Hispanic.

I am a Chinese-Canadian doctoral student at The University of Arizona, who is legally in the United States on a student visa. I am a well-educated, well-meaning, and contributing resident of Southern Arizona, who works in cancer and diabetes research. I pay state and federal income taxes to the United States of America. I own a house. I bring federal grant dollars to Southern Arizona via my work. I help raise the profile of the University as an academic institution through my research and teaching activities.

But, I am not a citizen or a permanent resident of the U.S.

I am in this country only at the mercy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. To maintain status, I must be exceptionally careful to play by their rules. I find that it's very difficult to convey the intricacies of navigating the American immigration system to someone who has never done so; but, imagine if the IRS had the power to detain or deport anyone who incorrectly filed their income taxes or who failed to maximize their deductions, and you'll get some sense of what it's like.

That's not to say that I resent the procedures and paperwork associated with being a non-permanent resident alien residing in the United States. As an undergraduate student, I once was interrogated by a U.S. Border Patrol officer for accidentally allowing one of my travel signatures (which verifies that I am a full-time student and am allowed to travel away from campus) to lapse just past the allowed time. Consequently, I was denied reentry to return to school from Winter Break. Seeing the frustration on my face because my signature was approximately 2 days expired, the Border Patrol agent retorted, "Being in the United States is not a right. It's a privilege."

As harsh as the statement sounds, it is true. Since that day when I was granted a tourist visa to return to school and have my papers signed (and then return to the border to re-enter with the proper documentation), I have treated my presence in the United States as a privilege, and have worked diligently to maintain my status.

The requirements to maintain legal status include a mandate that I carry my immigration documents whenever I am within American borders (8 USC Sec. 1304(a)). Failure to comply results in a fine or imprisonment. However, resident aliens like myself  are reluctant to carry our passports everywhere: these papers are our lifeline. If any of these papers are lost, we face a hefty fine and a 3-month waiting period to have it replaced, during which time we are unable to travel far from home (or conduct some of our daily business). As a resident alien, I simply cannot lose my paperwork. Consequently, I struggle with this inherent Catch-22: how do I reconcile what is required of me by federal immigration law against the threat of having these documents lost or stolen?

Furthermore, we are sometimes simply unable to carry these documents around. My documents consist of a passport (containing my I-94 card) and my I-20 (two or three sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper). None of these documents are conveniently wallet-sized; in fact, I carry mine in a dedicated document holder approximately the length of my forearm. Federal law requires me to have these papers on my person at all time: even while I'm jogging at 5AM, walking the dog, hiking, swimming, at the movies, barbequeing with friends, or patronizing a bar or club during a night on the town. If I am doing any of these activities, I am required to have personal possession of my immigration papers. Being found without them (such as, for example, if I forgot them at home, or if my passport doesn't conveniently fit into my swimsuit while I'm swimming laps) may be grounds for a misdemeanor charge under federal immigration law. 

This is where SB 1070 comes into play. In practice, SB 1070 would empower state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration law against legal resident aliens, and request proof that we have maintained our legal status. In essence, they are performing the work of U.S. Border Patrol agents, whom resident aliens expect to encounter while traveling. But, in this case, we now live in fear of being "spot checked" for our immigration papers on a daily basis, during routine encounters with state and local police officers. Any officer who finds us in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) could cause us to face misdemeanor charges and jeopardize our legal status.

Furthermore, in practice, SB 1070 would require that state and local police officers who have doubts about a suspect's immigration status (because they cannot present their papers or act "suspiciously") detain that suspect -- perhaps indefinitely-- until their immigration status can be verified federally. As a working graduate student and a legal resident alien, I am horrified by the prospect that a routine traffic stop might cause sudden imprisonment, without warning, for a day, a week, or longer as state or local police officers, virtually untrained in federal immigration law, struggle to figure out if my documents are legitimate (which they are). This threat of indefinite detainment would exist under SB 1070 for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and bonafide citizens of the United States.

If the purpose of SB 1070 is to eliminate illegal immigration, why is it that legal residents of Arizona -- both citizens and legal immigrants -- are facing harassment and deportation under this bill? How is it that I, as a Chinese-Canadian legal resident alien who calls Arizona my home -- and, who works and pays my taxes in this state -- am facing a culture of veiled suspicion and open hostility towards my very presence here? 

The message that Arizona sends with SB 1070 is that people like me -- highly-skilled foreigners who want to assimilate and work in America (and who are potentially on a path to citizenship) -- are not welcome here. SB 1070's intention is to curtail illegal immigration into this state, but in so doing, it also discourages legal immigrants from naturalizing and making Arizona our permanent home. SB 1070 sends the message to people like me that the services that we provide, the technologies that we invent, the jobs that we create, the education that we command, and the money that we spend in this state are simply not desired.

How long, I wonder, will it take for us legal immigrants to get the message? Being in America, and indeed, Arizona, is a privilege that we currently treasure -- but, given this intolerant legislative climate set by bills like SB 1070, how long will that continue to be the case?

Cross-posted: Reappropriate

The 9 State Amicus Brief for the Federal SB1070 Suit Is Nothing But Political Grandstanding

By Michael Bryan

 All you need to know about the amicus brief filed in support of Arizona by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox on behalf of nine states (including Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania) and the Northern Mariana Islands is that Michael Cox is running for Governor of Michigan... as a Republican. So is Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. And so is Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.

Imagine that. Complete coincidence, I'm sure.

The brief itself offers no insights to the court and barely makes a legal argument - its purpose is not to aid the court with additional information or viewpoints, it is only to allow Michael Cox and his pack of wanna-be Governors to show voters how committed they are to getting tough on immigration and to bringing SB1070-style legislation to their own states.

To illustrate just how devoid of original thought the amicus brief is, just look at the table of contents: the "Argument" section begins with "1. Senate Bill 1070 does not constitute a regulation of immigration". Seriously. It doesn't even pass the giggle test.

Cox's argument is that SB1070 does nothing but cooperatively enforce existing federal law, which is what the drafters are always claiming - when they are not bragging about doing the job the feds won't, or forcing the federal government's hand on immigration. It's rather disappointing that an amicus brief which purports to represent the view of 9 states and a territory can't even get beyond the discredited political talking points of Arizona's most boneheaded GOP leaders.

I was sincerely hoping that the brief would lay out a constitutional or historical examination of the limits  and traditions of state power in immigration enforcement. I was hoping I would learn something. I was rather disappointed.

Instead, there is nothing here other than a straw man refutation of the federal suit's preemption argument as it relates to the power of local officers to enforce federal law (which the federal suit never alleged in the first place) and the immigration status verification procedures required by SB1070. The amicis argue that the Federal Government hasn't any discretion but to respond to any state or local authorities' requests to verify the immigration status of any person in their jurisdiction. Therefore, the requirement that any person arrested in Arizona have their immigration status verified before release only demands that the feds do what they are required to do upon request by federal law.

That argument may be legally colorable, though without any nuance, but the amicis manifestly fail to address the large and specific number of other ways that SB1070 conflicts with federal immigration law that the federal suit alleges, nor does it address the transgression upon federal authority over foreign policy and trade, nor that SB1070 falls afoul the Commerce Clause. It's as if the authors got about 1/10th of the way through writing the brief and just gave up and turned in their unfinished homework.

No, the much-ballyhooed 9 state amicus brief isn't really a proper amicus brief at all - it's campaign lit for three GOP Governor wanna-bes. The court should reject this amicus brief because it doesn't actually seek to assist the court or express the viewpoints of the listed states - it only seeks to assist three ambitious and opportunistic Attorneys General into their respective Governor's mansions.

JACL Votes to Continue their Opposition to SB1070

By Jenn

 

Jim Shee, a 70-year-old American of Chinese and Spanish descent, claims he has been profiled by cops in Arizona twice since the passage of SB 1070 in the State Legislature.

In May, the board of the Japanese American Citizens League voted 8-6 to join lawsuits that have been filed challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's anti-immigrant bill, SB 1070. This past week, attendees of the JACL's national convention reaffirmed the group's opposition to SB1070, drawing comparisons between the bill and and the history of institutionalized racism experienced by Japanese Americans during World War II.

Some Japanese Americans at the JACL convention compared Arizona’s immigration law to Executive Order 9066, which ordered the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.

“The issue with JACL is as it was in 1941 that is that innocent people can be reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant,” said Floyd Mori, JACL national director. “In 1942 all Japanese Americans were suspected regardless of their citizenship, regardless of what they did, of being criminals, and they were sent to prison.”

Mori added that SB 1070 has nothing to do with immigration reform, but due process and equal protection rights.

SB 1070 requires that Arizona law enforcement officials uphold federal immigration laws. The law does not specify what police officers should do if a suspect is determined to be an undocumented citizen.

Immigration advocates say the law will only perpetuate racial profiling against people of color.

...

Those who supported the resolution challenging SB 1070 agreed with the resolution’s wording that, “JACL was founded during times of anti-Asian and anti-immigrant sentiment similar to the anti-Latino, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-undocumented sentiment seen in the 21st Century immigration debate.”

One of the most prominent faces of the JACL's opposition to SB1070 has come in the form of Jim Shee (pictured above), a member of Arizona's JACL chapter who is of Chinese and Spanish descent. Shee claims that since the passage of SB 1070, he has twice been pulled over by Arizona police officers and asked to "show his papers".

Jim Shee, an Arizona JACL member, is a plaintiff on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al. Shee, a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent, told the Pacific Citizen that he was pulled over twice in April and asked to produce his “papers.”

In the complaint, Shee says that he will be more vulnerable to racial profiling under the law.

“I see how current actions have alienated the Brown-skinned people in Arizona because of the persistent lies that our lawmakers insist on perpetuating,” said Shee.

Cross-posted: Reappropriate

Owner of Brooklyn Pizza Does a 180 on SB1070

By Jenn

I guess that singing frog puppet actually managed to convince one guy. Congratulations, Accidental Governor Brewer.

The AZ Star reports that Tony Vaccaro, owner of Brooklyn Pizza and Sky Bar over on 4th Avenue, has reversed his position on SB 1070:

Business owner defects from anti-SB 1070 campaign

After showing his support for a new anti-SB 1070 campaign last week, one Tucson businessman has changed his position.

Last Thursday the nonprofit humanitarian organization No More Deaths kicked off its "We Mean Business" campaign. More than 90 local business owners are demonstrating their opposition to the Arizona immigration law set to take effect July 29 by displaying "We Mean Business" signs in the windows of their establishments.

Restaurateur Tony Vaccaro, owner of Brooklyn Pizza Company and Sky Bar, both on North Fourth Avenue, originally supported the No More Deaths campaign, but changed his stance on SB 1070, after reading the 17-page document in its entirety. He has since removed the "We Mean Business" signs from his establishments.

In an e-mail sent to the Arizona Daily Star on Tuesday, Vaccaro wrote: "This weekend I actually took the time to read the official state version of SB 1070. I could not find any language in the law that I opposed. It appears to simply require the state to do the job of the federal government. We can let our venerable judicial system figure out if this is constitutional.

"Additionally, barring extreme situations, I do not believe that businesses should get involved in politics. That is for individuals, politicians and lobby groups. I feel that I have let some of my customers down by getting involved in the SB 1070 debate."

Sarah Launius, a spokeswoman for No More Deaths, said the organization has received telephone calls of support in the days since the "We Mean Business" campaign started.

"There have been a number of businesses that have sought us out saying they want to put up a sign," Launius said. "We've also heard from a number of community members saying, 'Thank you so much for presenting us a different side,' and they will change their shopping patterns to support the businesses that display our signs."

"We Mean Business"

For a list of companies participating in the "We Mean Business" campaign, go to www.nomoredeaths.org

Hey, Mr. Vaccaro -- we've all read the bill, too. And we've managed to find plenty of language in this misguided bill that we disagree with. How about that...?

Is anyone planning on arranging a boycott of businesses that aren't participating in the "We Mean Business" campaign? I know that I, for one, will be getting my pizza and over-priced martinis elsewhere.

Republican mayor says U.S. in a civil war

Posted by Craig McDermott

I haven't posted here too much recently because I mostly cover legislative matters, and the lege has adjourned.  However, this one is too good to pass up...

...While the neo-Nazi Mexican hunting squads "patriotic citizen anti-immigrant patrols" may not have made it to the area around Yuma as yet, Yuma is a lot closer than Fort Sumter.  Maybe MCAS-Yuma should be on alert...

From the Yuma Sun -

Yuma mayor at immigration forum: SB 1070 has created a civil war

America is in a civil war, said Yuma Mayor Al Krieger ­— and it's over SB 1070.


At an immigration forum Tuesday evening, Krieger and other panelists discussed the controversial law that will go into effect July 29. The law would make it a state crime to be in the country illegally, enforced by local law enforcement, a job currently done by federal law enforcement.

{snip}

Krieger said the definition of a civil war is when the states and federal governments differ (in opinion). “So we basically have an undeclared civil war today.”

Krieger apparently has confused "civil actions" with "civil wars".


Civil actions - the lawyers get thousands of billable hours

Civil wars - the morgues get thousands of dead people


Guess which one is going on right now?


Of course, perhaps this all should be taken with a grain a salt.

This is the same Mayor Al Krieger who used a speech given on Memorial Day. a day to honor fallen members of America's military branches, to deride gay members of the military as "lacy-drawered" and "limp-wristed." 

It could be that Krieger is just a loud-mouthed bigot looking to get attention any way that he can, and has found that spouting incendiary statements brings that attention to him.

How Does SB1070 Violate the Commerce Clause?

In my previous posts I examined the reasons given in the DOJ brief why SB1070 violates federal supremacy in immigration both generally, under field preemption, and specifically, under conflict preemption, and the general import of the suit.

This final post on the brief concerns the final argument of the brief: SB1070 violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. One could reasonably refer to this as a kitchen sink argument: the courts will likely never get to it, but there is a case to be made, so the drafters made it - why not?

The Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce among the states. The negative corollary of the Clause is thus to restrict the ability of states to legislate restrictions upon that same trade: that restriction is the basis of the Negative or Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Any time a state legislates regarding the movement of people or goods between states, there is a good chance that the Dormant Commerce Clause may be implicated. The harboring, transporting and concealing provisions of SB1070's §5 criminalizes the movement of undocumented aliens across the U.S. international border, within Arizona, and across Arizona's interstate borders. Those restrictions on international movement are likely violations of federal preemption of international immigration policy, but those restrictions of movement across Arizona's interstate boundaries with California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

In support of its position the Feds cite, among others, a Supreme Court precedent that struck down a Great Depression-era California statute which prohibited the transport of "indigent" persons into the state. Think of it as the legislative expression of the bigotry and hatred described in The Grapes of Wrath. The Court held that the Dormant Commerce Clause "prohibits attempts on the part of any single state to isolate itself from difficulties common to all of them by restraining the transportation of persons and property across its borders." Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). 

The choice of precedents is elegantly done. Not only does it admonish Arizona for trying to solve immigration alone rather as a member of a union, it hearkens back to a previous hard time when the least among us were scapegoated for the failures of the mighty. 

This may be the least of the Feds' powerful arguments that SB1070 is unconstitutional, but it may be the most illustrative of why SB1070 is a bad idea. If Arizona wants to address immigration in a fashion consistent with our form of government, they would do better to demand their federal representatives actually work toward realistic national solutions, not pander to the worst instincts of the electorate or block any progress unless its on their own terms. 

SB1070 ultimately is the perfect embodiment of a juvenile political culture that has taken root in the GOP generally, and the Arizona GOP especially. To those supporters of SB1070 who see this as a test of their political will, I say, "Grow the hell up. You've got a whole nation's attention with your tantrum. Now do something useful and really work toward comprehensive immigration reform."

How Does SB1070 Conflict with Federal Immigration Law?

By Michael Bryan

In the last post I discussed the general concept of preemption in the DOJ suit to enjoin the enforcement of SB1070 and how SB1070 falls afoul of field preemption. In this post I will discuss the various specific ways the Feds' brief claims that SB1070 conflicts with federal law and is therefore preempted.

Conflict preemption means that a state law directly conflicts with federal law by making compliance with both impossible, or by frustrating the purpose of the federal law.

The Feds suit alleges several specific provisions of SB1070 conflict with federal law:

1. criminalizes the mere presence of undocumented aliens in the state against the express policy of Congress.
2. impermissibly supplements federal criminal sanctions for registration violations
3. usurps the exclusive federal role in making removal determinations
4. the alien smuggling provisions directly conflict with federal provisions
5. the work sanctions provisions violate express policy choices by Congress.
6. the mandatory verification procedures will detract from federal priorities for those resources

Lets take each in turn.

1) Criminalizes mere presence

This is perhaps the most glaring conflict with federal immigration policy, but also the least obvious. You might recall that in recent sessions the state legislature took up bills that would make it a trespassing crime for an undocumented foreign citizen to be present in Arizona? But it never got passed or was vetoed. There's a good reason for that: it would certainly have failed a preemption challenge. Congress has considered whether to criminalize mere presence in the U.S. of undocumented foreign nationals and expressly decided not to make that a crime. Since the Congress has made that policy choice, Arizona doesn't get to overturn it.

So the drafters of SB1070 thought they might get what they wanted (criminal sanctions for mere presence) if they drafted the legislation in such a way that, in effect, it punished the mere presence of undocumented aliens without saying that's what they are up to. Thus was born the fiction that SB1070's §3 merely "mirrors" federal immigration registration requirements and creates a state crime based on any violation.

The states are simply not allowed to make a unilateral policy to criminalize the mere presence of undocumented immigrants in the state. The federal government has chosen to not make that a crime, and SB1070 directly conflicts with that policy.

2) Supplements federal registration sanctions

The federal government already has criminal and civil penalties for registration violations, i.e. failing to register or to carry proper documentation. SB170 purports to create new state criminal punishments for those same violations. Of course, the real purpose is to criminalize mere presence, but it also creates a conflict with federal law.

The Feds assert that registration violations are field preempted by the detailed and extensive federal legislation on the topic and are not amenable to state supplementation. New state crimes would intrude upon the control of prosecutions of these violations by federal prosecutors, which can have significant foreign policy and humanitarian considerations. In addition, because SB1070 applies only in Arizona, it disrupts the uniformity of sanctions depending on where an apprehension occurs.

3) Usurps removal decisions

Only federal personnel can determine if an alien is removable. But in their zeal to slap cuffs on as many aliens as possible, the drafters of SB1070 included in §6 the ability to make warrantless arrests of aliens who have out-of-state convictions that would make the alien removable. This creates a problem in that even immigration lawyers,federal specialists, and judges have difficulty with such removal analyses. Expecting untrained officers to make such determinations will result in the arrest of a whole lot of aliens that are not actually removable, and intrudes upon the exclusivity of federal removal decisions.

4) Alien smuggling provisions

SB1070 isn't just about 'show me your papers' it also creates some new state-level crimes concerning alien smuggling. The problem is that those crimes are not consistent with federal smuggling crimes.

In the federal law, a transportation provider can be charged with transporting an alien in furtherance of an illegal entry. SB1070 makes knowingly providing any commercial transport to an undocumented alien a crime, even if it is not in furtherance of the entry. Thus commercial carriers are on the hook for criminal liability if they carry anyone whom they have reason to believe is undocumented anywhere in Arizona. Not only is that in conflict with federal law, it stupidly and needlessly creates a huge incentive for commercial carriers to discriminate against all aliens and immigrants from fear of criminal charges.

In addition, under the federal law, Congress made a considered decision not to make undocumented aliens themselves criminally liable for participating in their own smuggling. SB1070 does just that, likely creating another point of preemptive conflict.

Finally, the transport provisions of SB1070 are not limited to Arizona's international border, thus affecting interstate commerce at Arizona's borders with other states, possibly implicating the Commerce Clause, which I will discuss in a later post.

5) Work sanctions

SB1070 also creates new criminal sanctions for undocumented aliens seeking or engaging in work. Again, Congress carefully considered whether criminal sanctions should apply to aliens working without authorization in this country and decided for humanitarian reasons not to do so. The anti-humanitarians in the Arizona legislature disagree and decided to pursue their own policy by imposing criminal sanctions on working and seeking work. This glaring contravention of federal policy is another possible point of preemption.

6) Mandatory verification

SB1070 requires verification of immigration status in some circumstances when reasonable suspicion exists to question that status, but also before the release of any person arrested, even those who are obviously American citizens. This will result in a tidal wave of requests. DHS has a system called LESC to allow government agencies to make such verification requests, but the priority for its use is identifying dangerous aliens who are a threat to national security or pubic safety, for background checks for gun permits for foreign nationals, for clearances to access secure areas, and for employment in sensitive facilities or industries. The sheer volume of requests from Arizona, and possibly also from the some 18 other states contemplating similar legislation, will force the federal government to divert resources away from its' chosen priorities or to shift substantial resources away from other activities to meet the demand.

In other words, while LESC is dealing with verification of the immigration status of every idiot who gets popped for shoplifting, they won't be able to respond in a timely fashion to prevent a truly dangerous criminal aliens being released, being allowed to carry a gun, or being granted access or employment that poses a security risk to American interests. That's not only stupid, it is a serious preemption issue.

In my next post I will wrap up the Feds arguments with how Arizona's brain(-damaged)-child violates the Passive Commerce Clause and impacts foreign policy.

How Does SB1070 Interfere With Federal Immigration Law Enforcement?

By Michael Bryan

In my last post I promised to attempt to explain the issues raised in the SB1070 suit. The heart of the argument in the Fed's brief seeking an injunction of enforcement of SB1070 is that Arizona's legislation is preempted by federal immigration law.

What is preemption? Preemption is a doctrine designed to maintain the constitutional provision popularly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which declares that federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land, and that any conflicting state laws must give way.

Preemption doctrine can operates in several ways, but the one which mainly applies to SB1070, is called "field preemption". Courts will consider state laws concerning certain topics in which the federal government's interest is dominant off limits to state lawmakers, except in very limited circumstances. Examples of such preempted topics include foreign policy, immigration and naturalization; in fact, immigration and naturalization are some of the clearest examples of field preemption because the U.S. Constitution actually specifically grants them to the Federal Congress in Article I, Section 8, clause 4 ("establish a uniform rule of naturalization") and clause 3 ("regulate commerce with foreign nations"). 

Pursuant to those powers, the Congress enacted the comprehensive legislative scheme known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, sometimes referred to as the Immigration and Naturalization Act) which empowers federal agencies to administer and enforce these federal laws. 

Supreme Court cases have long clearly recognized the primacy and exclusivity of the federal power over immigration, stating in multiple cases that immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power. 

The Feds contend that SB1070 impermissibly intrudes on the field preempted topic of immigration generally by attempting to create a state-level immigration policy. You might ask, "Well, doesn't SB1070 just require state law enforcement officers to enforce federal law?" That's the crucial question and the drafters and promoters of SB1070 have certainly attempted to give that impression, perhaps because they knew they would eventually have preemption problems.

The answer from the Feds analysis of SB1070 is a resounding "NO". They allege that the drafters seek to override the carefully considered Congressional formulation of immigration policy goals and priorities and replace it with an Arizona-only policy of "attrition through enforcement" which places the goal of incarceration and removal above any other goal.

"Attrition through enforcement" is not some cute characterizaton the Feds' coined to knock SB1070, it is the stated goal of the bill in its own preamble:

"The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."

Whoops.

Arizona's new immigration policy under SB1070 is to create the maximum reduction of the number of unlawfully present aliens to the exclusion of all other priorities. The Feds point out that this is very likely to disrupt federal enforcement priorities and to divert federal resources away from other competing goals set by the Federal government. In the brief, SB1070 is called "an unparalleled and explicit effort to establish a state policy that intensifies enforcement of particular federal immigration laws, while ignoring key goals of others, thereby contravening federal foreign policy prerogatives."

In the brief, the Feds even cite the minutes of Arizona legislative committee meetings during the formulation of the bill and public statements of key legislative players to demonstrate the intent of the bill is to reorder immigration priorities, not assist in enforcement. (pages 15 and 32 if you would like see for yourself). They hoist the bill's crafters and sponsors by their own petards (or is that retards in this case?). 

In my next post on the SB1070 suit I will go into more detail about exactly how the Feds allege that federal priorities and resources will be subverted by the specific provisions of SB1070. This aspect of the Fed's argument begins to touch upon another species of preemption, "conflict preemption," which is just specific ways in which the state law will conflict with the objectives of federal law. 

One of the key conflicts cited is that while SB1070 focuses on abetting the maximal removal of aliens who are merely present unlawfully, there are multiple competing interests at play in the federal government's administration of immigration enforcement which such a ham-fisted approach will disrupt. 

An important Fed argument is that DHS and ICE give priority to the removal of aliens deemed a threat to public safety and national security, and swamping the enforcement system with sad sacks looking for a job to remit some cash back home will seriously hamper that effort. While this argument is only a small component of the overall conflict preemption argument, I think this argument will have considerable political appeal and will likely feature prominently in the political defense of the suit.

Summing up: The Constitution and long-established Supreme Court precedents recognize that immigration is exclusively a federal concern. Arizona's attempt to create a "attrition through enforcement" immigration regime in Arizona cannot be permitted if the federal government is to maintain its historic exclusive control of immigration. Arizona's law does not seek to cooperate with federal enforcement, but rather to supplant the carefully calibrated administration of INA with the preferences of Arizona's legislature. For this reason alone, Arizona's SB1070 must be enjoined from enforcement. 

There are more arguments in the Fed's brief, but this is the cornerstone, and likely is strong enough alone to kill SB1070 stone dead. The wonderful irony and poetic justice is that the framers and sponsors of the bill gave the Feds all the ammunition they needed with their over-heated rhetoric and hubristic pronouncements in committees and in the press. In making their case that the federal government wasn't doing their job, so they would step and do it for them, they have likely sealed the fate of their bill and doomed it to being struck down as an impermissible preemption of federal law.

The Import of United States v. Arizona (the Show Me Your Papers Suit)

By Michael Bryan

Apparently unlike many of the folks in the media who now are opining about the Fed's suit enjoining enforcement of SB1070 (judging solely from the lack any apparent factual basis for many of the opinions on display), I have actually read the complaint and the brief. I am now working my way through the attachments, including multiple declarative statements by top federal officials and some here in Arizona. When Arizona answers, I will read that, too. 

What the Fed's concern boils down to is that Arizona has created its own system of immigration focusing on "attrition through enforcement" that conflicts with, and negatively impacts, federal immigration policy as carefully crafted by Congress and the Executive to meet various, and often conflicting, national goals. Arizona's rash legislation also invites emulation by other states eager to impress their own priorities on immigration policy in their own jurisdictions. 

In follow-on posts I will discuss the many federal pre-emption doctrine, Negative Commerce Clause, and foreign policy supremacy issues the Fed's brief raises. Suffice it to say, I will be absolutely scandalized and floored if the 9th Circuit court does not act quickly to maintain the constitutional order and suppress Arizona's over-reaching. SB1070 is not just rallying Arizona's law enforcement agencies to the task of assisting with immigration enforcement; it's a Constitutional challenge of federal authority as systemic as that advocated by the most rabid state nullificationist.

The race-baiting, unreasoning intolerance, xenophobia, and fear-mongering by proponents of SB1070 is, of course, sickening. But what I am finding most annoying are those Democrats and Republicans who do not support SB1070, and should be working to stop it, who are saying that this suit is "premature" (like, ironically and irresponsibly, both Arizona's Senators), or is a "distraction" (a sentiment voiced by Representatives Giffords and Kirkpatrick, so far). They are all dead wrong and covering their political asses. 

It's sad, and frightening, that some of our federal officials won't stand up for their own Constitutional authority and primacy of the very government of which they are a part. God forbid there should be a politically "popular" attack on a more structurally vital part of the federal government's authority: don't look to this bunch of spineless finger-wagglers to stand up for the rule of law, or even the prerogatives and legitimacy of their own offices.

This suit implicates the heart of our constitutional order: Federalism and Federal supremacy. At stake is who will politically control American immigration policy and the conduct of bilateral international relations - the federal government, or some yahoo, incompetent, Know-Nothing, faux-populist state legislators elected in party primaries by a few thousand panicky, racist, party hacktivists in non-competitive districts, like Russell Pierce or Kirk Adams. You might intuit my preference...

Arizona's politicians are scared shitless of immigration issues this year, as they have been in election years for many years now. What scares them even worse this year, and has Democrats like Gabby and Kirkpatrick paying lip service to the worst fear-mongering framing of the immigration issue, is that polls indicate broad support for SB1070. But what do those polls really indicate? What are people actually expressing support for? Are the details and implications and side-effects of SB1070 actually explained to those surveyed? Of course not. 

Voters are surveyed on either the extremely limited, biased, or flat-out wrong depictions of the bill in the media, or asked if they support the most prominently discussed aspect of the bill - officers inquiring into suspects' immigration status if they are suspicious. Everyone supports that. Officers already have that ability, as well as systems in place to report possible immigration violations to Federal authorities. No surprise then that support for this common-sense law-enforcement tool is deep and bi-partisan. 

What is not asked is if people support criminalizing the mere presence of undocumented immigrants in the state, or creating new crimes for use of any public transport or seeking work by undocumented immigrants (including criminalizing providing any transportation service or work, which is far more than merely mirroring federal law), or making verification of the immigration status of every person arrested in the state, including Americans, mandatory before release. Or ask them if they think that the Arizona state legislature should be dictating America's immigration policy. Or if it would be OK if every single state had its own immigration policy. Ask those questions and you are likely to get a much different response from voters. 

Unfortunately, too many of our politicians are refusing to be advocates of good policy choices, or educators of the public they serve, but are merely panderers seeking nothing greater than preserving their jobs and avoiding any controversy.

It's a laborious task for a writer, and frequently for the reader, to expound upon constitutional issues for a lay audience. I'll give it shot and work through the issues presented by the Fed's brief over the coming days. I urge you to download and read at least the complaint yourself. The complaint frames the government's argument, but doesn't go into great detail or cite to legal authority.

For now, I will just express my concise opinion of the issues presented by the suit: this is not even a close issue. SB1070 clearly encroaches upon federal authority over immigration and the conduct of foreign policy, both in general, and in several particulars. The enforcement of SB1070 will irreparably harm American foreign policy and administration of the immigration laws and will be enjoined by the court before it comes into effect on July 29th. There isn't a doubt in my mind. Which generally means I'm wrong. But there is always a first time...

Update 7/8/10: How Does SB1070 Interfere with Federal Immigration Law Enforcement?

Unintended Consequences

By Michael Bryan

On Friday night you decide to drive to the grocery store to get some arugula for your dinner salad. Your spouse was supposed to buy some at AJ’s while shopping yesterday, but it got left off the list and the damn salad just doesn’t work without a bitter green base. So you get in the car in a bit of a huff and off you go to Trader Joe’s.

You speed just a bit more than normal: you are traveling at 52 in a 40 MPH zone. You groan as you notice the patrol car’s emergency lights in your rear-view mirror and pull into the nearest parking. You get out your wallet and your packet of registration and insurance information, roll down your window and put your hands in view on the steering wheel as you have learned makes police officers most comfortable during traffic stops.

“Do you know why I stopped you?”

“I was going a bit fast, I’m afraid, Officer.”

“Can I see your license, insurance and registration, please.”

“Of course, Officer.”

You shovel over your papers and sink into the seat with a groan as the officer heads back to his patrol vehicle to write you a speeding ticket. What a goddamn inconvenience! It’s not like you were endangering anyone. Now you are looking at a fine or one of those bloody-stupid classes. You are deeply annoyed, but resolve to try to not take it out on the officer: he’s just doing his job.

The officer comes back to your side window and says, “Were you aware your driver license is suspended?”

“What? My license is suspended? Since when?”

“It would appear that you failed to respond to a red light camera violation and your license was suspended.”

A spasm of annoyance crosses your face. That’s what you get for taking legal advice from your crazy brother-in-law. Due process violation, my ass. “Just ignore it, they can’t do anything about it,’ my ass. Dammit! I should have known better.

“I see. Am I going to get a ticket for that?”

“Actually, that is a criminal violation and I will have to cite you for it, yes.”

You feel a little chill down your spine at the word ‘criminal’. I’m going to have a criminal record because of this bullshit? I’m going to kill my brother-in-law!

“I understand officer. I’m very sorry about this.”

“Could you step out of the car please?”

“Why?”

“Please exit the vehicle.”

You are a little annoyed, but decide not to make the officer’s day any harder. You step out of the vehicle.

“Please turn around. You are under arrest.”

“What? Really? Is that really necessary, Officer?”

“Yes. I’m afraid I have to verify your immigration status before releasing you, and cannot do so until tomorrow morning at the earliest.”

You reluctantly turn around and you feel the cold and weight of the officer’s cuffs as he fastens them around your wrists. He nudges you toward his patrol vehicle.

“My immigration status? What are you talking about? You have my drivers license. I’m a U.S. citizen. I’m not even Hispanic! I have a Boston accent!”

“I’m sorry. Your immigration status can only be verified by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and their liaison facility is closed for the evening. I have to take you to jail until your status can be confirmed tomorrow.”

The officer opens the rear door of his patrol vehicle and protects your head and he places you in the rear seat.

“That’s insane! Why would ICE have any record of me? I’ve never left the country. I don’t even have a passport. Why can’t you just give me a ticket?”

“Arizona’s statutes now require all persons who are arrested to have their immigration status verified before release. Any criminal violation now requires me to verify the arrestee’s status.”

“But I thought the news said that my Driver’s License was proof of my citizenship?”

“I’m afraid not. If I suspected that you were in the country illegally but you hadn’t committed any crime, I could accept your license as proof and let you go. But if a person commits a crime and I arrest them, which includes giving a person a criminal citation, then I have to verify your immigration status through ICE, even if I believe you to be an American and have no reason to suspect an immigration violation. Because I can’t do that right now, I have to take you jail until we can verify your status. Most likely ICE will just say they have no record of you, and then we’ll release you.”

“You have to be kidding me.”

“Unfortunately not. Do you need to make a call to have someone pick up your car or let your family know what’s going on? Or maybe you want to call your state legislators? You know, this sort of thing takes up an incredible amount of my time. You know how long it takes to process a prisoner into the county jail?”

“I guess I'm going to find out. I certainly would like to use the phone, please.”

It dawns upon you that you are collateral damage of the unreasoning frenzy to respond to undocumented immigration with poorly drafted, draconian legislation. What would have been a minor annoyance and perhaps a court appearance, has become a major incident.

You end up spending all weekend in jail because ICE wasn’t able to respond to the request for any record of you until Monday afternoon.

Welcome to the GOP’s vision for Arizona.

You Think SB1070 Is Stupid Now? You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet...

By Michael Bryan

Many folks are understandably upset that SB1070, the "show me your papers" law, will lead to racial profiling and widespread harassment of Arizonans who happen to be Hispanic. While that may or may not be true - whether that happens largely depends on the agenda and inclinations of the individual officers in the field and the political agenda of the leadership of some police agencies (i.e., Sheriffs Arpaio and Babeu)- that is not the most salient reason why Arizona's citizens should be concerned about SB1070. 

The real reason for concern is that SB1070 will mandate that any citizen is arrested for any crime, including misdemeanors, cannot be released until his immigration status is verified - even if he has identification that says he is a citizen.

You read that right: American citizens accused of any crime will languish in jail while authorities try to get La Migra to verify their status - or in practical terms, verify that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hasn't any record of that citizen. 

Here's the operative language from the pending A.R.S. 11-1051:

"Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to United States code section 1373(c)."

AZ POST (Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training Board) has finished reviewing the SB1070 package of legislation and determined that Arizona's officers will be trained that the law means exactly what it says: every person arrested must have their citizenship status verified by the Federal government before they may be released. It doesn't matter if the arrested person has what SB1070 deems "presumptive identification", such as an Arizona Driver License, Arizona ID, or tribal enrollment card; those IDs do not verify citizenship - only ICE can do that. 

Presumptive IDs will keep you out of dutch if you haven't committed any crime or just have a civil traffic violation, but once you are arrested for any crime, even a misdemeanor like driving on a suspended license, drinking in public, or trespassing, your ID is irrelevant and ICE must verify your immigration status. Even if you aren't an immigrant. Welcome to the wonderful world of poorly drafted legislation.

If every arrestee in Arizona has to be verified by ICE before release, that means hundreds of thousands of people a year in Arizona will have to be cleared by ICE. Most of them will be American citizens who haven't any ICE record. American citizens who would normally be given a appearance ticket and released may instead sit in jails across Arizona for hours, or even days, as authorities attempt to verify their immigration status with an ICE bureaucracy that is completely unprepared to meet the demand. With the Federal government none too keen on Arizona's little foray into immigration enforcement, who knows but that they may just stop answering the phone when the caller ID shows an Arizona area code?

Not every police agency in Arizona agrees with AZ POST's plain-meaning interpretation. Already, a few Phoenix Metro-area police agencies have indicated that they do not believe that every arrestee must have their status verified by ICE before release and plan to only verify status on people whom they actually book into jail, not those who would normally be cited and released at the scene. That's still a heck of a lot of folks.

Of course, ICE will not have records of American citizens. But they also won't have any record of undocumented aliens who have never had contact with ICE. Given the prevalence of identity theft, it may be challenge for authorities to tell the difference between those two groups. A lot of people who are here illegally are simply not going to be detected by a cursory check with ICE, which will quickly become the norm. 

In short, the only folks that status verification is likely to catch are those who repeat entrants that ICE has encountered before and people who have over-stayed their visas. The price that we pay for this rather loose net? Putting the vast majority of arrestees who are American citizens through a lot of inconvenience and delay and costing the taxpayers a whole heap of money to house those folks in our county jails while they are waiting to be verified instead of citing and releasing them. 

As a short-hand for the scale of the issue consider that Tucson police made over 50,000 criminal arrests last year. Currently, most of those folks get an appearance ticket and are released at the scene. SB1070 will probably make that impossible. Booking a person into jail costs the city $200. You can do the very scary math, and consider that scale of expenditure across the entire state during a recession. SB1070 is a major unfunded mandate on Arizona's cities and counties.

Another group that will feel the pinch with the day-to-day practicalities of enforcing SB1070 is citizens of surrounding states traveling in Arizona. Most of them won't even have the dubious protection of presumptive identification since many of their states' driver's licenses don't qualify under SB1070. The result will be a lot of needless arrests and a lot of jail time served by out-of-state arrestees who otherwise would have just received an appearance ticket. If I were them, I might just stay home or decide to spend my tourism dollars elsewhere.

The practical considerations of enforcing this very poorly drafted, and poorly considered piece of legislation are daunting - and far more damaging to our citizens' freedoms and well-being than the threat of systemic racial profiling, or of undocumented immigrants living and working in our communities, or of rogue police officers (or fear-mongering politicians in police uniforms) seeking to bash those undocumented immigrants for political gain rather than keeping our communities safe from crime. 

Well, OK, maybe that last one is a serious threat to our way of life.

Jan Brewer's new motto: "Damn the facts, full distort ahead!"

Posted by Craig McDermott

Of course, her disregard of the facts could torpedo her run at a full term as governor...

EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic published an interesting column in Thursday's paper about Jan Brewer's tendency to spout bigoted but baseless (my term, not his) stereotypes and fabricated statistics (also my term - he used "exaggerated") when discussing immigration.

The example he cited involved her saying, during a debate between the R candidates for governor that the majority of undocumented immigrants were engaged in narcotics trafficking and extortion and that they are responsible for a massive crime wave in Arizona.

As this Think Progress piece from writer Andrea Nill points out, during a period in Arizona's history that has seen an increase in undocumented immigration, there has been an actual decrease in crime in AZ.

Oops, Jan.

This falsehood was pointed out by dark horse R Matthew Jette, but to no avail.

Jan stuck by her misfiring mouth, and continued to spout the same stuff.

In Montini's piece, he began by predicting that Brewer will win the November election because of SB1070.

I'm not so sure (I know, it's not exactly shocking that a Goddard supporter would disagree with Montini's point. :) ).

While the bill was fronted in AZ by nativist demagogue Russell Pearce, she has made it hers, and by doing so, has locked up the support of a significant part of Arizona's electorate, the nativists.

*That* has all but guaranteed her the R nomination, especially since the other contenders are falling fast (Dean Martin has almost no money and won't be getting any any time soon, Buz Mills can't even get the endorsement of the NRA, and he sits on the Board of Directors of it) or never were a factor in the first place (Jette would be a legit dark horse in most other states; in AZ, however, his reasoned yet honest approach will net him less than 5% of the primary vote - Rs will consider his calling out the numbers and stereotypes spouted on the immigration issue as the equivalent of shouting "the emperor has no clothes!" and will close their ears).

However, for SB1070 to guarantee Brewer's win in November's general election, the lege should have passed it and she should have signed it in early October.

Not late April.

As it is, people will have had the time to actually understand the effect of SB1070 on *everybody*, not just those "durn Mexicans."

By the time early ballots go out in October, the law may have (and should be) blocked by a federal court because of its unconstitution overreaching.

At which point, Terry Goddard's approach of going after the cartels and hitting them where it hurts - in the wallet - a less showy but far more effective - and legal! - tactic will look good to the vast array of independent voters in Arizona.

Especially when Brewer's side of the issue is marked by neo-Nazis going on Mexican hunts armed anti-immigrant "patrols" in the desert.

Later...

The "SB1070 supporters = Nazis" analogy is a strong one, but not an overdone one

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Not by a long shot...

Many of the more vocal opponents of Russell Pearce's SB1070 (the "show me your papers" law) have likened him, Governor Jan Brewer, and the other supporters of the law to the Nazis.

Brewer finds this analogy so offensive that it caused her to stick her foot in her mouth, inflating her father's record of service during WW2 in order to bask in some reflected Nazi-fighting glow.

The analogy is such a powerful one that even Pearce himself has taken to "disavowing" any connections to white supremacists or Neo-Nazis. Of course, given his history of anti-immigrant rhetoric (Operation Wetback, anyone?), nativist legislation (SB1070 and many, many, more), and "curious" campaign activities (like emails touting a white separatist website), Pearce's protestations seem more pro forma than substantive.

Even Jewish commentators have objected to the analogy, mostly expressing the idea that the "Nazi" analogy and related rhetoric is overheated in this case and only serves to minimize the evil of the Nazis and the Holocaust.

While I understand the commentators' reluctance to give credence to the analogy (and also why Pearce and Brewer don't want to be equated to the greatest evil of the 20th, and perhaps any other, Century), it fits.

The Nazis started slowly, and legislatively, enacting a series of laws meant to demonize and isolate Jews and other "non-Aryans" from German society, economically, legally, and socially.

To whip up public support for the ever-stronger anti-semitic laws, the Nazis ratcheted up their rhetoric, blaming Jews for all that ailed Germany in the post-WWI era, economically, socially, and intellectually.

There were laws to remove Jews from Germany's civil service, restrict the number of "non-Aryans" in schools (both as students and as professors), forbid Jewish physicians from treating non-Jewish patients, and more, culminating in laws revoking the citizenship of Jews.

And that was just the start, when the Nazis were still attempting to put a civil face (of sorts) on their pogrom.

Here in 21st Century Arizona, the state's nativists, led by Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer (and Joe Arpaio and Tom Horne and Colette Rosati and Ron Gould and so many others), have trod a similar path, starting with laws restricting, underfunding, or even defunding English Language Learner classes in AZ's public schools, blocking the poor from taking advantage of public services and benefits unless they prove their U.S. citizenship first, banning ethnic studies courses, removing teachers with accents from classes, and the now-infamous SB1070 "show me your papers" law.

Now Pearce wants to follow up his recent successes with moves to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrant parents and to force the children of non-citizen parents to pay tuition to attend Arizona's public schools.

Combine that with an escalating anti-immigrant (mostly anti-Hispanic immigrant) rhetoric (like blaming undocumented immigrants for crime in Arizona, even though actual statistics show that those claims are false), such as that which resulted in demands that the faces in a mural at a school in Prescott Valley be lightened because they weren't white enough.

Update: During the writing of this piece, news started hitting the internet that the decision to force the artist to lighten the faces has been reversed. Apparently, being the epicenter of worldwide outrage over a blatantly bigoted decision was too much for the powers-that-be in Prescott. (Further background from Prescott eNews here)

The laws, proposed and enacted, and the rhetoric both demonize and isolate Arizona's immigrant community, just as the Nazis' Nuremburg and eugenics laws did more than seven decades ago.

I understand the reluctance of many observers to accept the Nazi/SB1070 analogy - no one wants to believe that their friends and neighbors (or even themselves) are capable of great evil.

And to be sure, Arizona's nativists haven't racked up the body count the way that Germany's Nazis did.

Yet.

One should remember that the Nazis were in power for more than a decade before their "Final Solution" of assembly-line efficient genocide was fully up to speed; Jan Brewer ascended to the Governor's office less than a year-and-a-half ago.

And one should not confuse "lack of time" with "lack of desire."

Jan Brewer wants to "rebrand" Arizona's image

Posted by Craig McDermott

Arizona's unelected governor, Jan Brewer, has finally realized the furor over the police-state bill that she signed into law, SB1070, won't die down. Arizona's image across the country and the world has become that of a virulently redneck place where minorities and outsiders are only welcome in our prisons and jails.

So in typical Jan fashion, she's forming a commission of business types and giving them some of the state's ever-more scarce financial resources ($250K!) to get the message out that Arizona really is a swell place to visit, gosh darn it.

From the AZ Republic article -

Acknowledging that Arizona has developed a serious image problem because of its tough new immigration law, Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders said Thursday that they will launch a new effort to stanch the flow of lost trade and convention business in the state.

{snip}

A new task force is charged with rebranding and repositioning the state as a unique destination spot.

That is sure to be a tough task after weeks of talk-show comedians, celebrities, politicians and others making Arizona a punch line, calling the law racist and drawing comparisons to fascism and Nazi Germany.

{snip, for the big whopper of the piece}

The governor said much of the furor is caused by what she characterized as "mistruths" about the new law.

As an example, Brewer said it has been erroneously reported that the new immigration law would allow racial profiling and that visitors can't come to Arizona without ID or they'll be arrested.

"You aren't going to be asked for ID unless you first commit a crime," she said.

To address the lie first - SB1070 contains the following section:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON...

That section was adjusted with the passage of HB2162 with this language -

For any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE...

Not really an improvement that. The law has gone from "arrest immigrants and tourists for asking a police officer for directions or the time of day" to "arrest immigrants and tourists for merely being in the vicinity of a noise ordinance or sign code violation (think that there will be any of those in an election year?)".

No crime has to be committed by a person for the police to demand to see their papers, they only have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Victims, witnesses, and even completely uninvolved bystanders are at risk for arrest. And the kicker is, if the law enforcement officer understands that and doesn't demand to see the papers of everyone he has contact with, he will get sued by anybody who so desires. In short, the law is written in such a way as to condition law enforcement officers to go after everybody, even if it is counterproductive to public safety or justice.

Anyway, if Jan and her clan want to improve Arizona's image, here are a few suggestions to her from someone who is sick of starting conversations with outsiders with "Hi, I'm from Arizona, and no, we aren't all nuts" -

1. People won't boycott AZ over bigoted police state laws if you don't sign them in the first place.

Duh.

2. Quit enacting laws like the "anybody can carry a concealed weapon without training or a background check" law. Not only do outsiders think that we are bigots, they think that we are bigots who are heavily-armed and trigger-happy. And who can get our drunk on earlier than ever before.

3. Stop lying about the problem, and instead focus your energy on fixing it.

Later...

Here and there...

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Just a mish-mash of (mostly) lege-related stuff...

...Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed HB2462, Rep. Ed Ableser's proposal to rein in predatory towing companies. In her veto letter (linked above to the word 'vetoed'), she cited a few reasons she was opposed to this bill, including that she felt that it added responsibilities to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) while not funding those new activities. What she didn't cite, in the letter anyway, was the fact that Rep. Ableser is known as one of the most progressive members of the Democratic and is vocal about his positions.

Including his opposition the Brewer's proposed sales tax increase (voting closes next Tuesday).

According to sources, one of the big motivations behind the veto was Ableser's vocal opposition to the tax hike because of its regressive nature.

Now to be fair, it probably wasn't her only reason for the veto - most Ds voted against the referral of the sales tax increase to the ballot, but there have been a *few* D-sponsored bills signed by Brewer.

Still, an aroma of "payback" is surrounds this veto.

...There's also a whiff of hypocrisy surrounding it, too.  In her letter vetoing the bill, Brewer also cited a concern for maintaining local control of local matters.

 

This the same day she signed HB2281,  barring local school districts from offering ethnic studies courses to their students.

...There is a rumor that there will be yet another special session of the lege (8 and counting so far). The plan for this one, if it goes off, will be to pass some version of the Republicans' corporate bailout bill (HB2250 in the regular session).

They'll want to do this ASAP, in order to maximize corporate spending on their campaigns, but this move may be bad tactically. They should have passed this *before* passing SB1070, Russell Pearce's "show us your papers" anti-immigrant bill. If they had, their corporate tax cuts would have been lost in the uproar over their scheme to suspend Bill of Rights protections for people with brown skin.

Now, the AZ lege is under a nationwide microscope, and anything they do will be dissected.

If more of the Rs had attended last week's Project Civil Discourse Town Hall on the sales tax (only House Republican leader John McComish was there), they might be rethinking their plans.

While there was a variety of perspectives on the sales tax proposal, one thread seemed to run through all the comments, whether supporting or opposing the referendum - almost nobody trusts the legislature to handle things properly.

...The Arizona Democratic Party has come out in opposition to the calls for a boycott of Arizona over SB1070. They feel a boycott will hurt the average Arizonan, most of whom have nothing to do with the bill, and prefer to rally support and change the composition of the legislature. (my paraphrase, so if any nuances have been missed, the fault is mine)

I understand the reasoning and even would agree with it, except that this is Arizona.

Here, the Republicans refuse to hear any of the voices raised in protest to their anti-immigrant law, but they will hear (and have heard in the past) the sound of closing wallets.

Until the ADP implements a "30 District" strategy to contest every seat in the lege and sticks with it, and either gains control of one or both chambers of the lege (or at least makes the Rs learn that they can't take control of the lege for granted), the Rs aren't going to change.

As such, while I agree that a boycott will have negative effects on many Arizonans that weren't involved in the passage of SB1070, those effects will be less bad than the effects of the law if it goes unchallenged.

...It looks as if even national Republicans are embarrassed by their Arizona counterparts. In what comes as a bit of a surprise, the GOP has bypassed Phoenix and awarded its 2012 convention to Tampa, Florida.

Tampa???? Phoenix was stood up for Tampa?? Thank you Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer...

Hmmm....wouldn't it be sweet if the Democratic National Committee now decides to hold its convention here? You know that the R whackjobs would crawl out from under every rock in the Southwest to make their presence known...colorfully...in front of half the TV cameras in the known universe.

Just randomly musing... :)

...Yesterday, I got a dirty look from a signature collector for one of the three Democrats who recently jumped into the race to challenge for John McCain's Senate seat. When she approached me for a sig, I advised her that I couldn't sign the petition because I had signed another candidate's paperwork (Rodney Glassman). The dirty look came when I further advised her that she and her candidate should have begun collecting sigs months before the deadline, not three weeks before.

The sad part is that I was trying to be helpful. I think a couple of the candidates are interesting, even intriguing. However, a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat can't make the run/don't run decision on the spur of the moment, and it looks like these three did so.

May 2010 is the time to start building the foundation for a 2012 run at Jon Kyl's seat, not for a 2010 run at John McCain's seat.

Later...

The Blight and the $Bite$

We are renaming Blog For Arizona, El Blog For Arizona in protest of SB1070. The name will remain until this hateful law is repealed or, more likely, struck down as unconstitutional.

We at El Blog For Arizona are going to be standing firm against SB1070 and the prejudice and hatred it embodies. It's the wrong approach to managing immigration in a free country, it enshrines in law the worst aspects of our nation's history of intolerance, and it is a blight on the image of Arizona among our fellow Americans and the world. We intend to stand firmly and unequivocally against this hateful and foolish law.

Now for the bite: if you want a source of news that will doggedly cover this story, we're it. We here at Blog for Arizona are asking you to support the work we're doing my making a contribution right now.

Writing on a blog is a labor of love, but it's definitely labor. Especially laborious are the value added posts -- weekly calendars, campaign updates, press releases -- which are turning us into Arizona's first choice for Arizona's Democratic campaign news. That labor will become more intense as the campaign season continues and as the national debate SB1070 has created heats up.

We know we have loyal, regular, long time readers. We appreciate your patronage and support. Please consider including a small donation as part of that support. We also know people in the media and in political circles read us and rely on us. We're asking you to help us continue doing what we're doing.

If you can send $5, $10, $20, or more our way, it will help us continue our work, improve our coverage, and directly remunerate our writers for the hard work of helping to keep you up to date on Arizona's politics. Every donation of $20 or more is eligible to receive a complimentary Blog For Arizona bumper sticker as a token of our appreciation. Just include a note with your donation that you would like a bumper sticker and an address to send it to.

You can also support our efforts with your purchase of any of our fine promotional merchandise at Cafe Press.

Please note that while this request remains at the top of the main page, new posts will continue to appear below.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your generous donation.

Best Regards,
Michael Bryan
Editor in Chief, El Blog For Arizona