Federal Judge Upholds New AZ Law Banning Ethnic Studies Classes

An Arizona law that ended ethnic studies courses in Tucson schools has been largely upheld as constitutional by a federal judge.

The 'largely' comes from U.S. Circuit Court Judge Wallace Tashima voicing concern that the part of the law that prohibits courses designed for particular ethnic groups was vague.

Tashima ruled that the provision’s wording was “broad and ambiguous,” raising serious constitutional concerns that threaten “to chill the teaching of legitimate and objective ethnic studies courses.”

Still, Arizona Atty. Gen. Tom Horne this week called the ruling on HB 2281 a “victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”

Horne, who wrote the law, and those who support it said the Mexican American Studies Program in the Tucson school system promoted resentment toward a race or a class of people and advocated ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of people as individuals.

Defenders of the program rejected that characterization and said it taught often neglected aspects of U.S. history and inspired Latino students to excel in school.

Trustees of the Tucson Unified School District discontinued the program in January 2012 after state officials determined the program violated the new law.

Needless to say, Mexican-American activist groups are vowing to appeal.Let's at least not be hypocritical in acknowledging where the objections are coming from.

I have no knowledge of what the courses in Tucson are like. But based on what I've seen in California, where courses in Chicano studies are developed with the active aid and input of of racist groups like La Raza, I'm going to make a cautious assumption that the material the Tucson Board found objectionable was fairly similar.

The difference between those of these courses I'm directly familiar with other courses of this type (say, Asian Studies for example) is readily apparent when you look at the course material. While a student might study Chinese history in America, Japanese culture or similar items in Asian Studies, the emphasis and basis of every Chicano or Mexican American studies course I'm familiar with is on racial solidarity, cultural superiority, resentment of 'anglos' and the mythic possibilities of regaining Aztlán from them some day. You won't find these courses teaching, for example that there are more Medal of Honor winners with Hispanic surnames than any other ethnic group in America or that the tyrannical Aztec culture idealized in these classes was one where basic technology like the wheel, the use of sail to move boats and the working of metals somehow never occurred to anyone, and where cannibalism and human sacrifice were practiced avidly.

But in spite of that, I totally agree that the law, known as must not discriminate and must be clear cut and ethnically neutral. I have no problem with banning all 'ethnic studies classes and breaking them down to individual classes as necessary...History of Mexico 101 for example, or East Africa History and Culture 1A.

Among the other benefits, it might put a lot of racist radicals who've used 'ethnic studies ' as a hustle to get tenure and six figure salaries from the taxpayers looking elsewhere than the rape and pollution of young minds for their livelihood.

-Selah-

Hissy Fit! After SCOTUS Ruling, Obama DHS Will No Longer Assist Arizona On Immigration-Status Checks

Supreme Court? Rule of law? Whatever do you mean?

In what can only be described as full tantrum mode, the Department of Homeland Security has unilaterally announced that it will no longer cooperate with the Arizona law enforcement in checks on immigration status:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

In other words, when Arizona law enforcement officials attempt to enforce the part of the law that coincides U.S immigration law that the Supreme Court upheld today, the agents at ICE will either refuse to answer the calls or tell the Arixzona authorities to release them..regardless of whether they're illegal aliens or not:

On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.

I have a feeling this is grounds for a counter suit. If anything else, it proves, unfortunately that Scalia may have been right in his dissent today.

The 10th Amendment says explicitly that all powers not reserved by the Federal Government belong to the individual states. If the Federal government deliberately refuses to exercise powers it supposedly reserved and ignores federal law to boot, sovereign states ought to have these rights restored to them.

Simple as that old saying, 'what you don't use, you lose.'

SB 1070: Scotus Upholds Part Of Arizona Law, Strikes Down Other Parts

The Supreme Court ruled today on Arizona's SB1070, upholding a key part of the law but striking down others as an intrusion on federal powers.

The part of the law requiring suspected illegal aliens to provide law officers with proof of status - the so-called 'show me your papers' clause - was upheld by the Court as constitutional and a legitimate exercise of a state's powers to enforce the law.

The Court struck down the provisions making it a crime for illegal aliens without work permits to seek employment, to fail to carry registration documents, and to allow the arrest of anyone believed to be an illegal alien and subject to deportation.

The decision was something of a mixed bag. Five justices - Justice Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor - voted to strike down three provisions. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas wanted to allow the entire law to stand while Justice Samuel Alito would have struck down one unnamed provision and kept the rest of the law intact. Justice Kagan was forced to recuse herself.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion:

"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."

That's really the crux of it. Asking someone to show papers or ID is an exercise in law enforcement that's in sync with federal law. The three provisions the Court struck down are expansions of it.

Justice Scalia, with his characteristic wit made the case in his dissent for Arizona's law on the basis of state sovereignty, writing, "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state."

So in the end, the ruling on SB1070 merely kicks the can down the road.

The real problem is that for political reasons the United States has been failing to enforce it's immigration laws for some time on a selective basis when it comes to primarily Latino aliens coming through our southern border. It is a federal problem that will take federal legislation to solve. Even if illegal alien migration wasn't a key part of wrecking the budget of several U.S. States, it simply isn't viable from a security standpoint in a post 9/11 world.

Or to take Justice Scalia's point to it's logical conclusion, if the United States can't secure it's territory, there's no reason to refer to it as a sovereign state.

Supreme Court Seems Inclined To Uphold Most Of Arizona Immigration Law

Live arguments continued today in the Supreme Court chambers on the Federal suit against Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070.

Surprisingly, the majority of justices seem inclined to rule that most portions of the law are constitutional.

There are four main parts to the law:

• Requiring police to verify the immigration status of everyone they stop who they reasonably suspect may lack authorization to be in the U.S.

• Authorizing police to arrest any foreign citizen they believe has committed a deportable offense.

• Making it a crime for foreigners to fail to carry registration documents.

• Making it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek or perform work.

Each of those provisions involves a separate legal analysis, meaning that the Supreme Court could end up upholding some of the provisions but not others.

Most of the justices appear to have no real problem with the first two parts,and even some of the court’s left leaning justices, though expressing concerns wondered whether Arizona could actually be prohibited from checking the immigration status of individuals within its borders, since this mirrors federal statutes. As questions to the Obama Administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli indicated, he's not doing much of a job of making the case on those parts of the law.

When even the Wise Latina, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ( who by the way, uses the term “illegal aliens,”) chides Verrilli for giving confusing answers and says his arguments 'aren't selling very well', you know the Obama Administration is in trouble on this one.

The last two parts of the law are a bit more problematic, since they establish new state crimes. Requiring foreigners to carry paperwork is the less dicey of the two, since a peace officer could simply require someone whose status was in question to bring his paperwork at a later date, or simply perform an immigration status with the Federal government, something that's routinely done anyway in arrest situations and takes about ten minutes.

The last part, making it a crime for an illegal alien to seek or perform work is one that might have trouble flying. In the immigration law of 1986, Congress specifically decriminalized this aspect, and most of the focus has been on penalizing employers.

If even the first two parts of the law pass muster with the SCOTUS, it will be a major victory for the State of Arizona, since those constitute the heart of SB 1070.

As a special added twist, Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagen had to recuse herself from this case since she worked on the original suit as Solicitor General prior to joining the Court.

One thing to consider. Just as he did with the arguments on ObamaCare, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has given a less than stellar performance. And just like ObamaCare, it's worth considering whether this was deliberate.

The Scotus ruling is due in June. Imagine they uphold the key provisions of SB 1070.

Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer have already threatened the Court that they will attempt to intervene legislatively if the Court doesn't 'rule right'.

It's doubtful they have the votes to overturn a ruling, but if they go through the kabuki outrage anyway, it gives President Obama another nice, divisive issue to run on that obscures his idsmal record of incompetency, doesn't it?

Democrats Threaten Supreme Court If It Doesn't 'Rule Right' On Immigration Law

Now, this is something interesting.

As you know,our government has three branches....the legislative, to make law and approve funding, the executive to implement it and the judicial to rule on any questions of legality.

Our Supreme Court rules on any constitutional questions that come up in the ways laws are written implemented and enforced and is supposed to be the final arbiter in such matters. But not according to the Democrat movers and shakers in the Senate!

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law that essentially mirrors US. immigration statutes but allows state law enforcement personnel to inquire about someone's immigration status in the course of other police business, like a traffic stop if they have probable cause to believe someone might be an illegal alien.

As you can imagine, the Obama Justice Department sued to quash this, but the state of Arizona appealed and SCOTUS has agreed to hear arguments on the matter and rule.

What's absolutely unprecedented is a threat by Senate Democrats if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn S.B. 1070 to 'overrule' the Court by bringing legislation to overturn the law, thus bypassing the ruling:

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign.

It's appalling that Senators who swore an oath to protect the Constitution would be so dead set at scoring political points that they would egregiously violate it in this fashion...especially when it comes to essentially threatening the Court's function if they don't 'vote right'.

As far as S.B.1070 goes, it's essentially a 10th Amendment argument. That amendment says that all powers not specifically reserved by the federal government or prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

The Obama Administration's argument is going to be that enforcing immigration statutes is a power reserved by the federal government, and that's that. Arizona's argument is going to be that S.B. 1070 merely clarifies that Arizona law enforcement is assisting in enforcing existing federal statutes, with a side argument perhaps that since the federal government is not enforcing these laws and violations of the immigration statues have resulting in significant cost to Arizona's finances and to public safety, they are within their rights to take steps to cure the problem.

If I had to bet, I'd probably say that the SCOTUS would come down on th eside of the federal government, but I could very well be wrong.

What's unmistakeably wrong is sitting senators threatening the Supreme Court while their in deliberation on a pending matter.

Federal Judge Blocks S. Carolina's Illegal Imigration Law

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled in favor today on granting an injunction sought by the Department of Justice to block South Carolina's new laws on illegal immigration, which were set to go into effect January 1t 2012.

The new law requires law enforcement to check the status of anyone they detain or stop in th ecourse of regular police business and have reasonable cause to suspect is in the country illegally.

Gergel also denied the state's request that he suspend all court hearings on the case until the U.S.Supreme Court rules on the Justice Department's suit against Arizona's similar law. That decision is expected in six months or less.

Judge Gergel is an Obama appointee, supported by RINO Lindsay Graham.

Of course.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Supreme Court To Decide Arizona Illegal Alien Bill...Justice Kazan Recuses Herself

Arizona's SB1070, the law that allows police to check the immigration status of people they have reasonable cause to suspect of being illegal aliens during unrelated business like traffic stops is going before the Supreme Court.

The law,which also requires immigrants to carry their papers at all times and bans people without proper documents from soliciting for work in public places was challenged by the Obama Administration's Department of Justice and has had its key provisions held up by an appeals court decision by Judge Richard Paez, a Clinton appointee.

The Court will hear the case in April and a ruling is expected by July..right around the time ObamaCare is due for a ruling.

Since the Arizona law mirrors existing US immigration law of long standing, the only real grounds for challenging its constitutionality is the argument that SB1070 infringes on the federal mandate to enforce immigration policy. But since Arizona's law enforcement personnel would in fact be enforcing laws that mirror the laws the feds are supposed to be enforcing but aren't, I don't see how you make a logical case for that unless you are inherently biased.

In an interesting sidelight, Justice Elana Kagan has recused herself from rendering judgment on this case because of her involvement with it as Obama's Solicitor General. I have to wonder if this is a precursor to her recusing herself from the ObamaCare case as well, for the same reasons.

A number of states have laws pending similar to Arizona's that will also be affected by how this goes.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Arizona Shooter Loughner Found Mentally Incompetant To Stand Trial

No surprise here.

Jared Loughner, the gunman who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others at an Arizona political rally has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial by a federal judge.

Loughner wounded 18 people in the January 8th shootings, six of whom died.

What's at issue now is whether Loughner should be forced by court order to take drugs and psychiatric treatment that might help him regain competency so he can face trial, and the judge is asking for an evaluation before making that decision.

U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns' ruling means Loughner can be held for up to four months before another hearing to determine if he's competent to stand trial. If Loughner refuses to take medication voluntarily, the judge could order him to be forcibly treated.

Loughner will remain in custody either way, until he is judged fit to stand trial or "until he is no longer a danger to himself and others" to revisit the oft-used legal phrase.

Remember when the Angry Left regarded Lougher as a Tea Party activist under the orders of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio? Talk about crazy...

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Arizona Passes Law To Require Proof Of Citizenship To Appear On Presidential Ballot

@!!#!!...oh well, I wasn't going to carry Arizona anyway...



The Arizona State Legislature has passed a law requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.

"It's essential that we bring back the integrity to the office," Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said.

The bill requires all presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona secretary of state with documentation that proves they are natural-born citizens, as th eUS Constitution requires..

The documents listed are either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.

Without those required documents being submitted to the secretary of state, the candidate would not be listed on Arizona's ballot.

There are a number of other states with similar legislation in process.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Department of Justice sues the State of Arizona over this one.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Enforcement Of Arizona Immigration Law

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today to block enforcement of Arizona's illegal immigration law, SB 1070.

The Obama Department of Justice had sued the state to prevent implementation of the law.

A key provision of SB 1070 empowers police officers to ask for immigration papers if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person they have stopped, detained or arrested during the course of normal police business or investigations is in the country illegally.

The Obama Administration's key argument was that the power to enforce and regulate immigration lies with the federal government and that the Arizona law was illegal on that basis.

Last July a District Court judge enjoined enforcement of the law, and today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

Judge Richard Paez, writing the decision, said, "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 [Homeland Security] agents."

"Congress has created a comprehensive and carefully calibrated scheme" Baez wrote, "and has authorized the Executive to promulgate extensive regulations for adjudicating and enforcing civil removability."

One fascinating part of the decision by Judge Paez involved the effect of US law on relations with other countries.

He wrote that the Arizona law, could have a "deleterious effect on the United States' foreign relations" and noted that several foreign leaders, including the Presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala have publicly criticized the law.

Baez wrote that the law "thwarts the Executive's ability to singularly manage the spillover effects of the nation's immigration laws on foreign affairs."

I love that turgid phrase, 'spillover effects'. So our laws are now subject to review by foreign countries and they have a voice in repealing the one they don't like?

Many countries disapprove of capital punishment, including most of the ones named above. In Judge Paez's view, does that mean we should repeal it? And if that's true, why not extend that principle to its logical destination? Why not respect the views of those countries that follow sharia law and repeal most of the statutes governing women's rights?

SB 1070 was crafted to practically mirror current US immigration law, which many 'sanctuary cities' and jurisdictions are not enforcing. The next step for the Arizona law would be the US Supreme Court, provided they're willing to hear it.

My personal guess is that they will avoid this particular hot potato, but we'll see.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

On Illegal Immigration..Governor Brewer Personalizes The Debate

The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, is on record as vocally opposing Arizona's new immigration laws and supporting the repeal of SB 1070,

Arizona 's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were
sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the
gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to
ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees
couldn't be ejected?

Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to
provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?

And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"

- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

I'd love to see Sarver's response to this, wouldn't you?

(h/t, Joyce C)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Supreme Court To Rule On Landmark Immigration Law

Back in 2007, the State of Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which mandates stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens, and requires them to check the federal government's E-Verify database to make sure their new hires are authorized to work in the United States.

It was signed into law by then-Governor Janet Napolitano, who's now President Obama's head of the Department of Homeland Security, which administers immigrations laws and E-Verify.

At the time, she said it would impose the "business death penalty" on employers caught a second time hiring illegal workers, and blamed "the flow of illegal immigration into our state … [on] the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor."

For that matter, even President Obama, when he was a candidate, called for a crackdown on employers who hired 'undocumented workers'.

Ah, but that was then, and this is now.

The Obama Administration is arguing before the Supreme Court to have the Legal Arizona Workers Act repealed as unconstitutional because it conflicts with The Fed's exclusive control over immigration enforcement.

However, a federal judge in Phoenix with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. "The power to regulate the employment of unauthorized aliens remains within the states' historic police powers," wrote 9th Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder.

So the Supreme Court will rule on the states versus feds conflict on immigration for the first time in over 3o years.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act made it illegal for employers to hire "an unauthorized alien", but also added a provision that "preempts any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ … unauthorized aliens."

The State of Arizona is arguing that the law should be upheld because it was a "licensing" measure. Employers who are convicted twice of knowingly hiring illegal workers can lose their licenses to do business.

This is going to be an historic ruling, simply because there are so many similar pending laws nationwide on the matter. If the State of Arizona wins, there are going to be a lot of states and even cities and counties who will likely go forward with similar measures.It will also undermine the chief argument the Obama Administration has against th eother Arizona Immigration law, SB1070.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was the U.S. solicitor general last year and argued in favor of repeal on the Arizona law before the court last year. She has quite correctly recused herself from ruling on the current case, which is Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting.

That means a tough haul for the plaintiffs. They will need to convince five out of eight justices to knock down the Arizona law.

(via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Amnesty For Illegal Aliens By Executive Order?

If Obama is capable of holding border security hostage for amnesty votes, why wouldn't he create amnesty for illegal aliens by decree? Via Michelle Malkin , Numbers USA has the story:

Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.

Would Obama try an end run around Congress like this? Absolutely. Like his lawsuit against the State of Arizona, it's designed to endear the Democrats to the pro-Amnesty constituency. The lawsuit may be tossed out of court and the Executive order might be overturned successfully by legislation if the Republicans take back Congress, but this is about political positioning and branding.

And the will of the people be damned.

Via: Memeorandum

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama Administration To Sue Arizona Over Illegal Alien Law

Lessee now...the last time I looked, we had an occupation in Iraq to wind down, major problems in Obama's war in Afghanistan, Iran, a huge oil spill in the Gulf, 9.7 percent unemployment across the country and a government so mired in debt that the Democrat Congress isn't even going to bother submitting a Congressional budget this year.

So what does Obama do?Declare war on Arizona:

Obama administration sources tell ABC News that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its immigration law, likely next week.

The suit has been expected for some time now. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American television interviewer that the president had told the Justice Department to file the suit on the basis that it's the constitutional responsibility of the federal government -- not states -- to set immigration policy.

"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy," Clinton told the interviewer on station NTN 24. "And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.

Some commentators like the Weekly Standard's John McCormack evidences some surprise at this move. The law was well constructed to survive a court challenge, and as he points out for the most part previous state immigration laws have been upheld anyway so there doesn't seem much substance to the suit. Aside from the Arizona law's huge popularity nationwide, the Feds will also have a problem with the argument that only the feds are allowed to enforce immigration laws when Arizona brings up the federally offered Basic Immigration Enforcement Training (BIET) for local law enforcement, an online program that teaches them how to enforce the federal statutes that SB1070 mirrors.

If the locals aren't supposed to enforce federal immigration laws, why are the Feds teaching them how to do so? And if SB1070 is discriminatory and leads to 'profiling' then the federal laws are discriminatory too.

It's going to be a difficult legal argument to pull off..but a successful legal outcome isn't the reason for the suit. Just like everything else withthis president, it's all about politics.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Democrats have almost entirely lost the majority of White, senior, middle class and independent voters beyond all redemption.

With the midterms coming up in a few months, the Democrats are desperately trying to mobilize the youth and minority vote to counteract this.

No matter how the court challenge goes, the very fact that it's being launched is designed to secure points with what I will politely refer to as the pro amnesty constituency and get them to the polls to pull the lever for the Democrats.

Seen from that standpoint rather than law, justice or what might ultimately be best for the country, the move makes perfect sense.

(hat tip, memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Did You Think Those National Guard troops Were Sent To Help Enforce Our Border? Guess Again..

In an effort to quiet his critics, Obama had announced yesterday that he was sending a paltry 1,200 National Guard troops to the border region.

Now, even though the number is far short of the manpower needed, the natural inclination would be to assume that these troops are being to sent to help out our overwhelmed Border Patrol with illegal aliens and drug cartel violence, no?

No way, Sucker.

The 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama is dispatching to the U.S.-Mexico border will provide intelligence, reconnaissance and other "back office" support, but one thing they won't be doing is helping a beleaguered Border Patrol and local law enforcement nab illegal immigrants and smugglers flowing into Arizona.

Speaking at a press conference in the White House East Room Thursday, the president said the Guard won't be on the front lines but will be offering vital support roles. {...}

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual, speaking to journalists Wednesday in Mexico City, said the troops will serve as a bridge until the American government can get more agents on the border. He emphasized that the troops won't be working on the front lines or interacting with people crossing the border.

"It's much more back office functions of receiving reports that are coming in from other intelligence entities," he said. The troops will "review and analyze" intelligence, then "feed that to the people who are actually the presence on the border itself."

Now here's something interesting about our Ambassador to Mexico's remarks. Both his statement and the one at Obama's presser came after this official response by the Mexican government:

Washington D.C, May 25th, 2010

Regarding the Administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the US Southern border, the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.

Additionally, the Government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen US operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws.

Now, bowing and scraping to Hu Jintao of China, the Japanese Emperor and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is bad enough. But Mexico?????

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Rep. Kennedy Likens AZ. Law To Slave Trade

Just what we need...another Kennedy lecturing the nation on moral superiority!

CNSNews.com asked Kennedy (D-R.I.), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs, for his thoughts on the criticisms Calderon made of the Arizona law while in Washington, D.C. last week.

“Well, he’s right on,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com. “I mean, it violates the spirit of our own Constitution.

"So, you know, we had a tragic history in this country," said Kennedy. "The most shameful parts of our history were when we had our slave trade, when we, when we, the Trail of Tears--what we did to our Native Americans. And, you know, the proudest moments in our history are when we had the Civil Rights Act, when we moved forward on integration and expanding the opportunities for all of our citizens."

"So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction," said Kennedy. "It’s beneath us as a people.”

Definitely a chip off the sordid, rotten old block.

I doubt Rep. Kennedy has even bothered to read the Arizona law, or to observe how it mirrors US laws that have been on the books since the 1940's.Nor does he seem to understand that illegal aliens are neither a 'race' nor immigrants.

But then, with Patrick Kennedy's activities abusing TSA employees, late-night stops in the Capitol driving under the influence, and his problems, according to HuffPo, with alcoholism, bipolar disorder and an addiction to prescription drugs it's no wonder he would find the time to do anything but bloviate into any convenient microphone.

And in fact, since his other activities have been keeping him so busy, it's no surprise that he's decided not to run for re-election, so as to concentrate on them full time.

Bonus riddance ut a vacuus fossor

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Advice For Democrats On The Arizona Bill - Reading Is Fun!

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has some wicked fun at the expense of Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano..all of whom claim to have not read Arizona's illegal alien bill, SB1070.

The law is all of ten pages, so I can almost guarantee that they've all read it, if for nothing more than to find a loophole to have th eObama Justice Department attack it. But by claiming plausible denial, they get out of having to deal with facts and name specific language they disagree with - a tough one, since SB1070 almost mirrors existing US law on the matter of requiring non-citizens to carry their paperwork with them at all times and to present it on demand to law enforcement.

This kind of nonsense endears them to the 30% of Americans who oppose this bill - The hard Left Democratic Base.

Anyone who's paying attention knows this isn't about 'immigration reform'. It's about amnesty and a new group of poorly educated and easily manipulated voters for the Democrat agenda.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Mexico's President: Triple Deep Hypocrisy On Illegal Aliens

Mexico's President Calderon not only has unmitigated gall, he's one rude jerk...and not particularly bright to boot.

When was the last time you ever heard of a head of state given the honor of addressing a joint session of Congress who took the occasion as an opportunity to bash his host country's laws?



Even worse, you can see the Democrats giving Calderon a standing "O"..as well as Obama and the Attorney General whose job it is to enforce our laws, Eric Holder.

If they had any honor whatsoever, they would have walked out on him.

Then, to add insult to injury, Calderon goes on CNN's 'Situation Room' with Wolf Blitzer and provides a couple of juicy soundbites, with Rush Limbaugh doing a masterful job of showing up Calderon's blatant hypocrisy:



Mexico's immigration laws include zero tolerance for illegal aliens, and illegal aliens from Guatemala, El Salvador and other points south are frequently brutalized, robbed and raped before being thrown back across the border. Even most of Mexico's legal immigrants to the USA wouldn't be admitted to Mexico under their own immigration laws:

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

...

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

And this President of a corrupt, failed narco-state whose country is responsible for our illegal alien problem has the nerve to come here and accuse America of racism?

And we permit it?



(hat tip Ace

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Why Arizona Drew A Line...

Kris W. Kobach is a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City who was also the US Attorney General's chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003. Here, he writes a reasoned defense of Arizona's new immigration law, which he helped draft. And here is the entire piece as it appears in *gasp* The New York Times no less, along with a few comments by yours truly:

On Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

The professor is exactly right. All SB 1070 does is to mirror existing US law.And speaking of unfairness...how fair is it to break the law and jump in line ahead of thousands of other people who desperately want to come to America simply because you can?

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

Got that? A policeman can't randomly pull someone over or stop them simply because they 'look Latino.'

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I might also add , as Governor Jan Brewer stated in an interview with FOX's Greta Van Susteren yesterday that none of this would have been necessary if the Feds had been fulfilling their responsibility to protest our borders.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. It is any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

None of this is likely going to stop pro-Amnesty and open borders advocates from whipping up the troops, nor is it likely to stop AG Eric Holder and the Obama Administration from getting involved.

The politics are far too tempting, and the good of the country comes second with the present administration.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Arizona's Ra-aaa-cism

Check this out:

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Can you believe Arizona's ra-aa-cism?

Oh, wait a minute.That's been a long standing part of the US Code of Justice for years!

It appears that the State of Arizona has merely made these statues a part of state law to give their police a mandate for enforcing them.

And while we're looking at laws, let's take a peek of some of Mexico's immigration laws:

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

...

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

I certainly don't think I want to hear a single two-faced word out of the Mexican government or any of its officials about 'racism' or 'civil rights'.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!