Arizona Immigration Reform

[Ryan Ruck]

Arizona May Criminalize Presence of Illegal Immigrants

03 Mar 2010

Over the past several years, immigration hard-liners at the Arizona Legislature persuaded their colleagues to criminalize the presence of illegal border-crossers in the state and ban soft immigration policies in police agencies - only to be thwarted by vetoes from a Democratic governor.

This year, their prospects have improved. A proposal to draw local police deeper into the fight against illegal immigration has momentum, and even opponents expect the new Republican governor to sign off on the changes.

The proposal would make Arizona the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of its trespassing law. It also would require police to try to determine people's immigration status when there's reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.

An estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants live in the state.

"The greatest threat to our neighborhoods is the illegal alien invasion," said Republican Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa, sponsor of the proposal, explaining that some illegal immigrants who are criminals bring violence and other crimes to the United States.

Supporters say the new rules are needed because the federal government has done a lousy job of trying seal the border and crack down on immigrants in the country's interior. Opponents say such new duties would be costly and lead to racial profiling.

The proposal passed the Senate two weeks ago, and a similar bill could come to a vote of the full House as early as this week.

Paul Senseman, spokesman for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, said the governor doesn't comment on pending legislation but generally supports pragmatic immigration laws. Her predecessor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed similar proposals.

Many of the state's local police bosses have long resisted suggestions that their officers conduct day-to-day immigration enforcement, saying it would distract them from investigating other crimes and sow distrust among immigrants, who might not help officers investigating crimes because they fear being sent home.

"We are not anti-immigration enforcement," said Kingman Police Chief Robert DeVries, who opposes the bill. "We are just concerned about some of the responsibilities that are being pushed on us and how it affects our ability to provide day-to-day services in our communities."

Immigrant rights advocates are especially concerned about the trespassing expansion, saying it would inevitably lead to hassles for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who would be approached by police because of their skin color.

"Bills like this that cast a net so wide are guaranteed to trap U.S. citizens," said Jennifer Allen, director of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group based in southern Arizona.

Pearce said he doesn't see the trespassing expansion being used on a wide scale and said officers wouldn't be required to arrest all illegal immigrants under such a law. Pearce said officers could turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities, as police now routinely do, or they could use the trespassing expansion to hold onto illegal immigrants who are suspects in crimes.

First-offense trespassing by an illegal immigrant would be a top-tier misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. Subsequent violations would be mid-tier felonies that would carry a penalty of one-and-a-half to three years in prison.

One element of the proposal would ban what anti-immigration groups call sanctuary polices - local rules that discourage or restrict officers from questioning immigrants.

Supporters of the bill say the policies - enacted by cities - create areas of "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. The bill would let any person file a lawsuit to challenge the polices. If a judge finds a city restricted enforcement, the city could face civil penalties of $1,000 to $5,000 for each day the policy remains in effect after the lawsuit is filed.

Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix, an opponent of the measure, disputes that cities and counties have any written or de facto policies that make them sanctuaries. "It's just not true," Sinema said.

[vector7]

Arizona Sheriff Says Cops Are Being Killed by Illegal Aliens; Joins Call for U.S. Troops at Border

Tuesday, April 20, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer


Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says violence in Arizona by criminal illegal aliens has reached "epidemic proportions." He spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference on Monday, April 19, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Law enforcement officials from the Arizona counties hardest hit by illegal immigration say they want U.S. troops to help secure the border, to prevent the deaths of more officers at the hands of criminals who enter the country illegally.

“We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Monday at a Capitol Hill news conference. “And that shouldn’t happen one time.”

Babeu said the violence in Arizona has reached “epidemic proportions” and must be stopped. “In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits -- failure to yield for an officer -- in one month,” Babeu said. “That’s out of control.”

The recent murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, who was shot to death last month on his own property, apparently by an illegal alien, also has fueled public outrage.

Arizona Sens. John McCain and John Kyl, both Republicans, called Monday’s news conference to announce a 10-point plan to secure the border between Arizona and Mexico. They are requesting the immediate deployment of 3,000 National Guard troops and a permanent increase of 3,000 more Custom and Border Protection Agents along the state’s border by 2015.


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called a press conference on Monday, April 19, 2010 to announce a 10-point plan to secure the border between Mexico and Arizona, including the immediate deployment of 3,000 National Guard troops to the region. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

McCain, who faces a tough primary election against conservative Republican JD Hayworth in September, sponsored an immigration-reform bill in 2000 that would have established a guest-worker program and a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. The bill was opposed by many conservatives. He also supported immigration-reform bills in 2006 and again in 2007.

But on Monday, McCain was talking only about enforcement: "The lesson is clear: First we have to secure the border," McCain said. "If you want to enact some other reforms, how can that be effective when you have a porous border?”

Later on Monday, McCain told Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly that he changed his stance on immigration over a year ago. McCain also made that point at Monday’s press conference:

“Let me just say that one of the requirements is absolutely that we need to send 3,000 National Guard troops along the Arizona Mexico border – something that Senator Kyl and I called for well over a year ago,” McCain said.

Kyl said the effort to make sure the government fulfills its responsibility to enforce federal immigration law goes back to the days when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was still governor of Arizona. But Napolitano has not responded to the latest request for troops through the proposed 10-point plan.


Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has long been an advocate for securing the border between Mexico and Arizona by using armed troops. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

“Every one of these recommendations has been recommended to us by people who are on the front line,” Kyl said. “And many of these recommendations are not new. They have been part of what we have been writing to the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security about for a long time.”

The senators’ plan includes a wide range of tactics for securing the border, including funding and supporting Operation Streamline, which calls for criminal charges against and incarceration of individuals who enter the U.S. illegally.

“If you come into America and you’re here illegally, guess what? There is no catch and release. You should be detained for 14 to 21 days and then formally deported,” Babeu said of Operation Streamline. “You come back, guess what? You’re going to prison. That’s what we’ve got to do,” Babeu said.

The plan also calls for the federal government to reimburse the state for the cost of enforcing immigration laws, the installation of fencing in strategic areas, increasing surveillance capabilities and installing a federal magistrate in the state to oversee immigration cases.

McCain and others at the press conference said that more than half of the 1 million illegal aliens apprehended in the U.S. last year were arrested in Arizona and that 17 percent of those are known to have criminal records in the United States.

“Folks, your cops, your sheriffs cannot do this alone,” Babeu said. “We’re doing our best and we’re overwhelmed. We’re stressed and things are out of control. We need the help of troops that are deployed along the border, additional resources for our border patrol and a zero tolerance policy.”

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever said he believes the porous southern border is not only dangerous to Arizona but to the entire nation, since terrorists could slip through just as easily as drug dealers. “To me, therein lies the real threat to our homeland security,” Dever said.

The senators announced their 10-point plan on the same day the Arizona Legislature sent a tough new immigration bill to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not yet said whether she will sign it.

The bill, championed as a law-and-order measure by its supporters, would make it a misdemeanor to be in the state illegally, and it would require police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.

[American Patriot]

The Monitor's View

Arizona immigration law must pass the prejudice test

The Arizona immigration bill lacks enough safeguards against racial or ethnic profiling by police in the fight against illegal immigration. So, too, does the federal 287(g) program that allows local enforcement of US immigration laws.


By the Monitor's Editorial Board / April 21, 2010


Those seeking a firmer crackdown on illegal immigration in the US carry a particular moral burden. They must also call on law enforcement officials not to resort to ethnic or racial profiling when enforcing immigration laws.


This burden may fall particularly hard on Arizona soon.


The legislature in that state has just passed a measure that would require police officers to check the immigration status of anyone if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that person may be in the country illegally. The governor, Jan Brewer, a Republican, is now weighing whether to sign the bill.


With this act, Arizona – whose border is especially porous to illegal crossings from Mexico – would be simply taking a national trend one step further.
Local enforcement of US immigration laws has expanded since 2006, driven by rising popular demand to curb illegal immigration as well as support from Washington. Under a federal program known as 287(g), states and local agencies can voluntarily sign up with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to act with federal authority in enforcing US immigration laws – but only while making arrests for local or state crimes.


The Arizona measure would drop that key stipulation and compel police to pick up illegal immigrants “when practicable.” Citizens could even sue officials to compel such enforcement.


In both efforts, however, the most worrisome aspect is that there are not strong enough safeguards against illegal profiling by police who may be prejudiced against certain types of immigrants. This lapse could not only lead to civil rights abuses but also may help sink efforts in Congress to finally solve the problem of some 10 million illegal immigrants living in the US.


The Latino community must be convinced that it is not being targeted simply on the basis of race or ethnicity in any government drive to secure America’s borders and uphold the rule of law. In addition, Latinos in local communities cannot live in fear of arbitrary detention by police; otherwise they will not be cooperative in assisting law enforcement in battling criminals.


Last month, the 287(g) program was criticized in an internal report by the inspector general of the US Department of Homeland Security, which overseas immigration through ICE. The report said ICE must increase its “attention to the civil rights and civil liberties records of current and prospective” states or local agencies that participate in the program. A similar warning was made last year by the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).


The head of the 287(g) program said last year that the agency had received no complaints about profiling. And under President Obama, the program has begun to focus mainly on running checks on illegal aliens already in jail in order to deport them.
Nonetheless, enough reports of abuses exist that both federal and state officials must be more vigilant in training police to avoid bias in enforcing immigration laws.


Racial profiling, as an issue, flared up last year when President Obama intervened in a case involving the arrest of a prominent black academic at Harvard University by a white policeman. Many lesser-known instances of alleged profiling against immigrants must also be dealt with swiftly and sternly.


To better tackle illegal immigration, both Arizona and ICE must realize that upholding civil rights must go hand in hand with upholding the law. One cannot be neglected at the expense of the other.

[American Patriot]

Arizona Immigration Law Sparks National Uproar

PAUL DAVENPORT | 04/19/10 08:30 PM |



PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers approved a sweeping immigration bill Monday intended to ramp up law enforcement efforts even as critics complained it could lead to racial profiling and other abuse.


The state Senate voted 17-11 nearly along party lines to send the bill to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not taken a position on the measure championed by fellow Republicans. The House approved the bill April 13.


"This bill goes a long way to bringing law and order to the state," said Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, who cited costly services provided to illegal immigrants and the recent slaying of a southeastern Arizona rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border as reasons for the move.


The new measure would be the latest crackdown in Arizona, which has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the nation's busiest border crossing point.


Arizona enacted a law in 2005 making human smuggling a state crime and prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants with a law in 2007.


The latest bill would make it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not have an alien registration document. It also would require police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.


Other provisions allow citizen lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal for people to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.


Republican Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa, who sponsored the bill, said it will take handcuffs off police and put them on violent criminals. "Enough is enough," Pearce said.


U.S. Sen. John McCain on Monday called the bill a "tool that I think needs to be used." His office later said that wasn't an endorsement.

"It's also a commentary on the frustration that our state Legislature has that the federal government has not fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities to secure our borders," the Arizona Republican said.


Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix, predicted the legislation would cause chaos by spawning suspicion among neighbors, friends and relatives about who might be in the country illegally.


"Our state will be going completely backward," she said.


The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has all but promised a legal challenge if the legislation becomes law.


The organization claims the measure is unconstitutional because the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement.


"The bill is so vague that it encourages investigation and arrest of people ... who essentially have done nothing wrong but because of their racial profile," said Gladys Limon, an attorney for the Los Angeles-based group.


Mexico's embassy also has voiced concerns about racial profiling.


Arizona law enforcement groups are split on the bill, with a union for Phoenix Police Department officers supporting it and a statewide association of police chiefs opposed.
Calls, e-mails and letters on the bill were running 3-1 in favor, Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said.


Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who is now President Barack Obama's Homeland Security secretary, vetoed similar proposals.


Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and some police officials say allowing such questions would deter immigrants from cooperating in other investigations.


The bill is regarded as carrying political high stakes for Brewer, who faces challenges from fellow conservatives in the Aug. 24 Republican primary.


If she vetoes it, "she would be crushed in the primary," said Mike Gardner, a business lobbyist and former legislator.


Vincent Picard, a federal Immigration and Customs enforcement spokesman in Phoenix, declined comment on the Arizona legislation and referred a reporter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Washington headquarters.


Agency officials gave only a written statement about Homeland Security immigration policy and refused to speak on the record about the Arizona legislation.


Arizona police use the human smuggling law from time to time to charge suspects.
In Maricopa County, however, more than 1,500 people were convicted under that law, with 85 percent immigrants, not smugglers.


To reduce the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, Arizona lawmakers also approved a civil law in 2007 that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.


Authorities across Arizona have examined several dozen complaints of employer sanction violations. But in the more than two years since that law took effect, only two cases have been settled with employers admitting to violating the law.
___
Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud and Jonathan J. Cooper contributed to this report.

[American Patriot]

But....
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...al_immigration


70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration



Wednesday, April 21, 2010







The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.


A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.


Opponents of the measure, including major national Hispanic groups, say it will lead to racial profiling, and 53% of voters in the state are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t share that concern
Those figures include 23% who are very concerned and 18% who are not at all concerned.


Civil rights concerns were a bit higher last year. following a series of aggressive enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sherriff.


Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate's position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.
The measure is already having an impact on this year’s Senate and governor races in the state.


Senator John McCain, who is facing a serious Republican Primary challenge this year in part over his involvement in developing immigration reform legislation, on Monday endorsed the new state law. McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race.


(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.


Arizonans consistently have been critical of the U.S. government’s failure to secure the border with Mexico, and that anxiety has increased with growing drug violence along the border.


While many in Washington, D.C. view immigration reform as a way to legalize the 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, 73% of voters in Arizona now say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of these undocumented workers.


In July of last year, 51% of Arizona voters said it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.


That view is shared by voters nationwide and has been for several years.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it.


Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.


Republican Governor Jan Brewer now has the bill on her desk, awaiting either her signature into law or her veto. State Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer for governor this year, has announced his opposition to the new law.


The top four GOP contenders for governor of Arizona, including Brewer, have all expanded their support since last month in match-ups with Goddard. The Democrat has lost ground and now trails in all four contests. One factor in the latest trends may have been Goddard’s refusal to join other states in suing the federal government over the new health care law. Brewer found a way to proceed despite Goddard’s refusal and got a big bounce in the polls.


The new law puts into state statute some of the policies that have long been practiced by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But his aggressive enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration have triggered a Justice Department probe and moves by the Obama administration to reduce his ability to enforce federal immigration laws.


When these moves against Arpaio were first reported in March 2009, 68% of Arizona voters said they had a favorable view of the sheriff. Voters also strongly favored his tactics including police raids on places where illegal immigrants gather to find work.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
ShareThis


Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.


The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.


Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

[American Patriot]

Ariz. gov. to act on immigration enforcement bill


By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER (AP) – 3 hours ago


PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday neared a deadline to act on the nation's toughest legislation against illegal immigration.


The sweeping measure would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.
A Saturday deadline for Brewer, a Republican, to act on the bill was set on Monday when the legislation arrived on her desk. She can sign, veto or allow it to become law without her signature.


Civil rights activists have said the bill would lead to racial profiling and deter Hispanics from reporting crimes. Hundreds of Hispanics protested the legislation at the State Capitol complex on Thursday.


The bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said it would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.


"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."


Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the nation's busiest border crossing point.


Other provisions of the bill allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
The bill would take effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends if it becomes law.


Brewer faces a contested Aug. 24 Republican primary election, and one of her opponents, State Treasurer Dean Martin, has called on her to sign the legislation.


Also, the March 27 shooting death of rancher Bob Krentz on his property in southeastern Arizona has brought illegal immigration and border security into greater focus in the state. Authorities believe Krentz was killed by an illegal border crosser.


Since the shooting, Brewer and other officeholders and candidates have toured the state's border with Mexico. On Thursday, she ordered a reallocation of state National Guard and law enforcement resources and called on the federal government to deploy National Guard troops.


Arizona has previously passed a variety of get-tough measures dealing with illegal immigration.


Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who is now President Barack Obama's Homeland Security secretary, vetoed proposals similar to the bill just approved by the Legislature.


But she signed a 2007 law that imposes sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Other state laws make human smuggling a state crime and restrict illegal immigrants' eligibility for public services.
The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund said the bill before Brewer is unconstitutional because regulation of immigration is a federal responsibility.


Others urging Brewer to veto the bill include Catholic bishops, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for governor.


Mexico's embassy also has voiced concerns about racial profiling.
A Phoenix Law Enforcement Association representative acknowledged that racial profiling can occur but said fears associated with the bill are unfounded.


"We're not targeting any particular group," said Levi Bolton, a retired police detective. "Cops are not here to do these things to you."

[American Patriot]

Good, and predictable... prediction I'd say!

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Orders DOJ To Challenge Ariz. Immigration Law

04/26/2010

The ink is barely dry on Arizona’s new immigration control law and President Obama has already threatened to take legal action against the measure even though it was adopted from the federal statute that’s rarely enforced.

Amid huge protests and cries of racism from the open-borders movement, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the law (SB1070) that bans “sanctuary city” policies and makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation. Some federal and state lawmakers claim the measure amounts to institutionalized discrimination and abuse that will lead to the arrest of seniors, kids and tourists.

Obama, who tried pressuring Brewer into vetoing the “misguided” law, assures that it threatens civil rights and undermines basic notions of fairness and trust between police and their communities. The commander-in-chief has ordered the Department of Justice to challenge its legality and vows to “closely monitor the situation” and examine the legislation’s civil rights implications.

The law marks an unprecedented effort by a state to take immigration matters into its own hands since immigration offenses are currently violations of federal law that cannot be enforced by local police. But lawmakers in Arizona are fed up with the enormous toll that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are having on their state as the feds sit idly by and fail to secure the southern border.

When the measure goes into effect later this year illegal aliens will be charged in state court with trespassing and anyone—documented or undocumented—seeking work from a road or sidewalk will also be criminally prosecuted. Drivers who pick up illegal alien day laborers will also be punished and all residents must provide evidence of their legal status in the U.S.

When Brewer signed the law last week she pointed out that the new state crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document was adopted verbatim from the federal statute. Furthermore, it will be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of the United States, the governor said.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said during a signing ceremony. “But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.” She added that the new law represents a much-needed tool to solve a crisis the state did not create and the federal government refuses to fix.

[vector7]

Napolitano has 'deep concerns' over immigration law

By the CNN Wire Staff
April 27, 2010 1:03 p.m. EDTApril 27, 2010 1:03 p.m. EDTApril 27, 2010 1:03 p.m. EDTApril 27, 2010 1:03 p.m. EDT



Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Washington (CNN) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she has "deep concerns" with a new Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigration.

Napolitano, who noted that the Justice Department is reviewing the measure, said she fears that it would siphon away resources that would otherwise be used to pursue individuals who commit major crimes while in the country illegally.

"I think these kinds of laws are not value-added to law enforcement," she the Senate Judiciary Committee. "There's a reason most law enforcement groups ... oppose them."

They put an "undue barrier" between victims of crime and law enforcement officials, she said.

Napolitano, who served as Arizona's governor before joining President Obama's Cabinet, refused to offer an opinion on the constitutionality of the law.

The new law requires Arizona police to determine whether people are in the United States legally if there is a reason to suspect they aren't. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed the controversial legislation into law Friday. Supporters say it is needed to control illegal immigration.

The law, scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the close of the state's legislative session, would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. Currently, officers can check someone's immigration status only if that person is suspected in another crime.

Critics say the law could foster racial profiling and prompt businesses, conventions and tourists to stay away from the state.

The bill has prompted rallies by opponents and supporters, and some prominent politicians in Washington and Arizona have criticized the measure. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, has said he'll file a lawsuit to block the law.

Last week, Obama called the legislation "misguided" and said the federal government must act on the immigration issue.

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," he said.

Napolitano told ABC News on Monday that the measure is "a misguided law. It's not a good law."

She said other states now will feel compelled to act in the wake of the federal government's failure to pass a comprehensive immigration reform plan.

"You will have this patchwork of laws where we need a federal immigration system that meets our security needs, that recognizes where we need to go in this 21st century and gives us a better framework on which to stand," she said.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, called the situation along the country's southern border "a serious threat to law-abiding people" that has "got to be confronted in a very serious way."

[vector7]

Utah lawmaker Stephen Sandstrom to draft immigration bill similar to Arizona's

By Arthur Raymond

Deseret News
Published: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:32 p.m. MDT
19 comments


The political and legal fallout now plaguing Arizona after that state's passage of one of the nation's toughest new immigration laws could soon be headed for Utah.

Arizona's SB1070, signed into law Friday by Gov. Jan Brewer, calls for, in part, all local law enforcement officers to ask for immigration status documents "whenever there is reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present."

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, told the Deseret News Monday he's started work on drafting a bill for the 2011 Utah legislative session that uses the Arizona statute as a model * a move he said is necessary to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants into the Beehive State.

"It is imperative that we pass similar legislation here in Utah," Sandstrom said. "In the past, when we've seen tougher legislation in Arizona … a lot of illegal immigrants just move here."

While critics of the bill say it will lead to racial profiling and likely makes inroads into rights protected under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Sandstrom said it's no different from enforcement policy local police officers already use.


"If you get pulled over for driving intoxicated, what's the first thing the officer asks for?" Sandstrom said. "Your ID, right? This is the same thing, the same work police officers are already doing … asking for documentation that relates to probable cause."

That law enforcement inquiry is one that American Civil Liberties Union of Utah director Karen McCreary said is unacceptable.

"This Arizona statute amounts to requiring the carrying of 'papers,' " McCreary said. "We just don't do that in America."

McCreary said there are a number of aspects of the new Arizona law that are troubling.

"There are a lot of provisions that raise issues that are unconstitutional on their face, violate the supremacy clause, contradict current Arizona law," McCreary said. "There is some real basis for challenging this."

McCreary said her colleagues at the ACLU of Arizona are already preparing for a lawsuit aimed at stopping implementation of the law, in conjunction with a variety of civil rights and immigrant advocate groups.

Sandstrom said while he will use the Arizona statute as a basis for his proposal, he is aware of the issues being raised against the new law and will work to build in protections for individuals' rights in his Utah version.

"I don't want anyone to be under the impression that this is targeting a specific group of people," Sandstrom said. "That's an aspect I want to make sure has nothing to do with this bill."


Utah Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who was in Washington, D.C., last week meeting with federal officials on immigration reform as part of a National Conference of State Legislators task force, said Monday that how Arizona plans on putting the law into practice could be the biggest unanswered question

"I don't think anybody can say how implementation will work," Bramble said. "What additional burden this places on local law enforcement and individual citizens remains unknown."

Bramble said placing new immigration enforcement responsibilities on already overburdened law enforcement agencies could lead to redirecting efforts away from priority police issues like violent crime and drug trafficking, both in Arizona and here in Utah if a similar law is put into place. Bramble also said he had concerns about constitutional infringements under the new immigration rules.

"I spoke to the president of the Arizona Senate in St. Louis last week," Bramble said. "He couldn't tell me what the practical solution was to balancing due process and probable cause under the new statute without intruding on citizens' civil rights."

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wasn't ready to weigh in on Sandstrom's proposal without seeing the language of the bill, but his spokeswoman, Angie Welling, said the governor understood the burden being placed on states to impose their own statutes in lieu of immigration reform at the federal level.

"At this point, it is premature to discuss the potential effects of legislation that has not yet been drafted or presented to the governor for review," Welling said. "Gov. Herbert understands the interest in addressing illegal immigration and its impact on individual states, particularly in light of the federal government's inaction on the issue."

Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake City, said it is far too early for Utah to be following in the footsteps of its southern neighbor.

"Some of my colleagues act like my teenagers when the latest electronic gadgets come out," Chavez-Houck said. "They have to buy it immediately without seeing if it works or people are happy with it."

"Despite the fact that most constitutional experts believe SB1070 is very constitutionally problematic, for some reason Utahns have to jump on the bandwagon, posthaste."

Chavez-Houck said the state would be much better served to wait and see how Arizona, and its new law, fares before considering similar legislation.

As for Sandstrom, he believes the timing is perfect for bringing a new, more stringent regulation online in Utah to combat the influx of illegal immigrants into the state, and he said he's received a flood of e-mails from Utahns who agree.

"I can tell you this," Sandstrom said. "The people in the state of Utah will be behind this bill."

[vector7]

AG: Court challenge possible on immigration law

By PETE YOST
The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 27, 2010; 3:02 PM



WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the federal government may challenge Arizona's new law on immigration.
The attorney general told reporters that he fears Arizona's new law is subject to potential abuse.

The Arizona law requires state law enforcement officials to ask people for documentation if they are suspected to be in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime if they are.

The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are conducting a review of the state law.

A number of options are under consideration including "the possibility of a court challenge," Holder said in response to questions on the Arizona law posed during a news conference on another topic.

Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Arizona's new immigration law could siphon federal money and staff needed to go after dangerous immigrants.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Napolitano said the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement fears it will have to use its stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona's new law.

President Barack Obama has instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona law that he said threatens to "undermine basic notions of fairness." He also is pressing anew for national immigration legislation, saying, "If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

[American Patriot]

The attorney general told reporters that he fears Arizona's new law is subject to potential abuse.

SOMEHOW I don't think the current attorney General Eric Holder is either QUALIFIED to identify or KNOWS what "potential abuse" IS.

IF he were capable he'd have realized that the Health Care "redistribution" bill (I mean reform) is illegal, unconstitutional and I for one won't pay for it.

[Segestan]

Today Obama has come out against this bill, as well he should for political reasons, as the Hispanic vote is critical to his re-election.

And he WILL get re-elected, mark my words. The Republicans still think they are dealing with a 'business-as-usual' politician. What they are dealing with, right or wrong, is an idealist who can be pragmatic about the means to his ends....And his electoral base will vote for him no matter their personal disenchantments.

When he does get re-elected, he will grant a mass amnesty to all these illegals and make them citizens.

They WILL vote Democrat.



And they will be such a sufficient demographic for PERMENANT Democratic control of this Country. The only reason this isn't happening now is if they move faster, people will become too alarmed and demand his impeachment.

On another thread, we discussed a possibility of a new civil war in America.

It's already happening, including the violence.

Totally agree with you're assessment of Obama and his demographic supporters. Another reason for Obama to retain control is the controlled opposition that is now the Republican Party. I voted Republican for the last 40 years and will never vote for them again. I do not like the demo rats either, Union-commie stooges, the whole system is as bankrupt and the worlds finances.

[Monterrey_jack]

As a Mexican I just wanted to share my opinion on this new immigration bill. I support it if the people from Arizona support it. In the end they are the only ones with the right to say how their state handles that issue, right? I am from the state of Sonora, right across the border and I go to Tucson and Phoenix 2 or 3 times a year to do some shopping. I have a visa and I cross legally so I wouldn't mind at all if a cop stops me wherever and asks for proof of my ass legally being there. I guess people who oppose it are people who have something to loose by it (e.g. they cross illegally and/or have family that do so, they profit from crossing people illegally). For most people that cross to Arizona for some R&R it will be life as usual. If and whenever I wished to go live in Arizona I would look for a job that would sponsor a Visa and even then they have the right to reject me for any reason.

[vector7]

The Communists are using Race as a tool to seize power and undermine the Conservatives that are beginning to waking up in this country.

They need immigration reform to help get out the vote in November.

The Leftist effort is underway to generate a repeat of the 2006 energized Hispanic voters to offset a 1994 like coming Conservative Revolution this fall.

What we are witnessing is possibly the formation of a perfect storm of social and civil unrest we haven't seen in decades.

Plus: There is a rumor that tomorrow there may be some kind of a vote to make Puerto Rico the 51st State.

HR 2499 – Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009

Oppose Statehood for Puerto Rico (HR 2499)



Contributed by NH Tea Party Coalition (Reporter)
Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:16

More stories from this contributor
This story has been viewed 6,456 times

(6,456 times in the past 24 hours, 1,620 times in the past hour)
HR 2499 – Statehood for Puerto Rico

The Obama administration is pulling out all the stops to ensure there are more votes for their side in 2010 and 2012. They are pushing for voting rights for the District of Columbia and now this…

There is a move afoot to have Puerto Rico become the 51st state, with voting on the bill, HR 2499, taking place as early as this week in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Three times in the past 43 years Puerto Ricans have voted against becoming the 51st state in the Union, the last time being 11 years ago.

They enjoy their commonwealth status which allows them to enjoy the protection and freedoms and even financial benefits of the United States without paying federal income taxes.

HR 2499 would actually force a yes-or-no vote by Puerto Ricans on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the “current political status” of the island. This sounds innocent enough until the second part of the legislation comes into play; a second vote would have to be administered, this one giving Puerto Ricans no option but statehood or full independence if the majority expresses dissatisfaction with the current political status. Even if there is no dissatisfaction and the “current political status” is favored, every eight years henceforth from the passage of HR 2499 Puerto Rico is forced to conduct another plebiscite on the matter at their own expense.

There are several problems that must first be exposed and debated before such a move should be made. The first is that of creating a bilingual country with the addition of an almost completely Spanish-speaking state. Then there is the problem of reassigning some seats in the U.S. House of Representatives by handing at least six or seven over to Puerto Rico, depriving six or seven existing states of one representative each because of the congressionally-mandated 435 seat cap. This type of political maneuvering seems very partisan because the seats in the Senate and the House would likely be Democratic ones, and the electoral votes awarded Puerto Rico might outnumber those of 22 current states.

Before American taxpayers have to absorb and bailout another financially failing institution — this time the island of Puerto Rico — both Americans and Puerto Ricans need to know and understand that this could just be a case of politicians using this very opaque legislation as a means to whatever ends they envision for not only Puerto Rico and the United States, but also for the political dynamics this situation might bring with it in the future.

Contact your congressmen and send a message that you are unwilling to have them support such a bill until all the political, economic, and cultural details are out on the table, for both Americans and Puerto Ricans. Remind them to oppose HR 2499 on the grounds that it is a very bad move in the present economic and financial climate, with the possible political consequences precluding Americans from being in favor of statehood for the island nation of Puerto Rico at this time.

[vector7]

Mexican president condemns Arizona immigrant law

By ALEXANDRA OLSON (AP) – 1 day ago



MEXICO CITY — Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Monday condemned Arizona's tough new immigration law as discriminatory and warned that relations with the U.S. border state will suffer.

The measure, which will make it a crime under state law to be an illegal immigrant, "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement," Calderon said.

Calderon said he had instructed the Foreign Relations Department to double its efforts to protect the rights of Mexicans living in the United States and seek help from lawyers and immigration experts.

"Nobody can sit around with their arms crossed in the face of decisions that so clearly affect our countrymen," Calderon said in a speech at the Institute for Mexicans Abroad.

The Arizona law restored immigration to the forefront of U.S.-Mexico relations, which had largely been focused on deeper cooperation in the drug war.

The government of the Mexican state of Sonora — which borders Arizona — announced it would not attend a cooperation meeting the two states have held annually for four decades. The meeting of the Sonora-Arizona Commission was set for June in Phoenix, Arizona.

"This is not about a breaking of relations with Arizona, but rather a way to protest the approval of the law," the state government said in a statement.

The law, set to take effect in late July or August, will require police to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they are there illegally. Day laborers can be arrested for soliciting work if they are in the U.S. illegally, and police departments can be sued if they don't carry out the law.

The chief of the Organization of American States also criticized the legislation.

"We consider the bill clearly discriminatory against immigrants, and especially against immigrants from Latin America," Jose Miguel Insulza said during a visit to El Salvador.

Calderon said trade and political ties with Arizona will be "seriously affected," although he announced no concrete measures.

Mexican politicians, church leaders and others have criticized Calderon for not taking a tougher stance against the law.

Some Mexican legislators have urged a trade boycott against Arizona, and several called the federal government's response lukewarm.

"In Congress, we support any trade and transport boycott necessary to reverse this law," said Oscar Martin Arce, a lawmaker from the president's National Action Party.

Mexico is Arizona's largest foreign market. The U.S. state sent $4.5 billion in exports to Mexico in 2009 — nearly a third of its total exports, according to the U.S. International Trade Administration.

Andres Ibarra, president of the chamber of commerce in Nogales, a Mexican city across the border from Nogales, Arizona, said he doubted the government would impose a formal trade boycott, saying it would hurt Mexico most.

Even so, he warned the immigration law would harm Arizona economically. Ibarra said the U.S. state depends heavily on cheap labor from Mexican immigrants and any surge in deportations would make the state less competitive.

Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

"It's regrettable. I think this was a hasty decision that did not consider the consequences, not only for Mexicans and undocumented people from other countries, but also for the Arizona economy," Ibarra said. "Immigrants, as everyone knows, do the work that Americans don't want to do."

"This campaign is completely based on racism. It's a xenophobic campaign," he added.

Calderon said he would raise his concerns with President Barack Obama and U.S. lawmakers during a visit to Washington in May.

Obama has called the Arizona law misguided and instructed the U.S. Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal.

Supporters of the law say it is necessary to protect Arizonans from a litany of crimes that they contend are committed by illegal immigrants.

The law comes as relations between Mexico and the U.S. had been steadily warming.

Washington is a strong supporter of Calderon's military-led offensive against drug cartels, providing training and equipment under the $1.3 billion Merida Initiative. The Obama administration has earned praise from Mexico for repeatedly acknowledging that U.S. drug consumption is a large part of the problem.

Two weeks ago, Michelle Obama chose Haiti and Mexico for her first solo trip abroad as U.S. first lady. She nurtured a friendship with Mexican first lady Margarita Zavala, a vocal advocate for thousands of Mexican children who immigrate alone to the U.S. in search of their parents and are often deported unaccompanied.

The cooperation in the drug war had largely overshadowed lingering tensions between the two countries over immigration.

The Calderon government expressed disappointment when U.S. lawmakers failed to agree in 2007 on an overhaul to the U.S. immigration system.

The Obama administration has promised to make immigration reform a priority, but the issue has taken a back seat amid the U.S. economic crisis.

[vector7]

Mexico Immigration Law
Immigration Reform? Let's Try Mexico's Immigration Law!

By John Lillpop
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The article that follows by Dr. J. Michael Waller should be an eye opener to liberals who believe in open borders and loose immigration enforcement.

Mind you, this is the law of the land in Mexico, the third-world nation that has encouraged millions of its citizens to invade America.

It is also the same country that threatened to take the U.S. to the UN for building a fence on American soil!

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

Mexico's Immigration Law:

Let's Try It Here at Home By J. Michael Waller, Citizens for a Constitutional Republic

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven't been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

# in the country legally;

# have the means to sustain themselves economically;

# not destined to be burdens on society;

# of economic and social benefit to society;

# of good character and have no criminal records; and

# contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

# immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

# foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

# foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;

# foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

# foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

# those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal.

Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1]

Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

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)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

# Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

# A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

# A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

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)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

# Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

# Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

# Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

# "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

# Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

# Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

# A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

# Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

[vector7]

Illegal Aliens Riot in Arizona; Media Silent

Monday, April 26, 2010



Arizona, now home to about a half-million illegal aliens, was invaded by Rev. Al Sharpton and his minions who decided to play racial politics with the public safety of American citizens. The man to whom reporters rush for soundbites was there to protest the state’s news law to fight illegal immigration.

Sharpton, who commands the attention of so many members of the mainstream news media, is notorious for whipping up fury and then disappearing when destruction — even death — occurs. Short memories appears to be a prerequisite for being a news reporter or else these denizens of America’s newsrooms are intentionally ignoring Rev. Al’s modus operandi.

For example, in Brooklyn, New York, Sharpton started a protest against Korean store owners. The storeowners were being singled out by Sharpton and his goons because their businesses were located in a predominately black neighborhood. For weeks protesters marched and yelled epithets against the Korean families. The protest became so heated that a grocery store owner was beaten to death.

Now, Rev. Sharpton has set his sights on Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, a law supported by 70 percent of the state’s residents including the membership of the Arizona Sheriffs Association.

At one rally, what the media characterized as a “small riot” broke out as police attempted to escort away a supporter of the bill who had come under attack from opponents. A number of protesters began throwing objects at the supporter and his police escorts.

While the news media played down the violence in the illegal alien protests, a number of law enforcement colleagues mentioned how different the media covers peaceful Tea Party events as opposed to actual violence perpetrated by illegal aliens and their supporters.

One veteran police detective said,”The news media practically invented ‘evidence’ of Tea Party participants’ violent or threatening behavior, but these same reporters turn blind eyes to the violence and vitriol of illegal aliens and others opposed to Arizona’s law.”

READ DETAILS HERE…

[vector7]

Don’t Look To MSM For Honest Coverage Of Arizona

Posted by Morgen Richmond Apr 27th 2010 at 10:49 am in Featured Story, Justice/Legal | Comments (94)


Nancy Pelosi said there were protesters parading around with swastikas – it turns out she was right! The images below are a sampling from a gallery posted by AZCentral.com, covering the protests in Arizona against the passage of SB 1070.





Yes, that’s Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s face adorned on the piñata being bashed, to the amusement of the surrounding crowd. But it’s OK – she’s a Republican after all.

Here come the swastikas and Third Reich imagery:







And a little racism on the side, la Raza-style:



Don’t look for these in the regular media. They are too busy propagating the meme du jour on this story, which is that vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the State Capitol building. The implication being that anti-immigrant racists committed this vandalism.

However, judging from the photos above, it seems more likely that one or more of the pro-immigrant protesters were responsible for this.

Is there any doubt that if this were a Tea Party protest these images would be propagated far and wide throughout the liberal blogosphere and media?

I didn’t think so.

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

Joe Arpaio Pinatas: Brilliant!

By Amy Silverman, Monday, Apr. 26 2010 @ 3:59PM
Comments (5)




Scarily life-like, this sheriff is made of paper mache.

​Have you had the urge to whack Sheriff Joe Arpaio upside the head? (Where's the SPLC?)

Soon you'll have the chance, thanks to Provocative Pinatas Inc., the brain child of Scott Jacobson.

Jacobson (best known as the one-time director of Valley Leadership and corporate relations guru for Arizona Public Service, he's now a "management consultant") is a bit of a trickster --but he's dead serious about his opposition to Arizona's new immigration law.

And he's decided it's time folks had a way to take out their aggressions.
Why stop at Sheriff Joe? Jacobson says he's adding Sarah Palin, John McCain and Governor Jan Brewer to the Provocative Pinata product list.

No word yet as to when the pinatas will be for sale, but as soon as we hear you'll be the first to know.

[Ryan Ruck]

Thanks for your input Monty. You are exactly right too. People who are lawfully following the immigration policies of the US have nothing to worry about whether they are Hispanic, Asian, European, or African.

I'm sure Mexico wouldn't appreciate us telling them how to handle the immigration situation on their southern border and how they deal with illegal Guatemalans, nor would it be our place to!

By the way Monty, in my opinion, you are more than welcome to come here any time you'd like! Permanently in fact! You are the type of person that respects our nation and our laws and we could use more people like you!

I think Obama is just mad about this law because now he can't go and campaign in AZ without fear of having HIS residency status checked!