Arizona Immigration Reform

[Backstop]

Holy cow.

[vector7]

Obama, Meeting Tuesday With Hispanic Lawmakers, Will Push for Immigration Reform

Tuesday, June 29, 2010
By Erica Werner, Associated Press


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer at the White House on Thursday, June 3, 2010.

Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama is enlisting activists and labor leaders in a push for comprehensive immigration legislation that will showcase Republican opposition and include a speech by the president.

The strategy was discussed during a meeting Monday by a range of prominent labor leaders and activist groups. Participants said Obama reiterated his support for immigration legislation but noted the political realities that have stalled it in Congress.

Latino leaders say they will work in coming months to pressure Republicans to give way and support an immigration bill -- and make opponents pay at the ballot box if they don't.

"We're going to make absolutely crystal clear who's at fault here," said Eliseo Medina, a leader of the Service Employees International Union.

Prospects for passage of comprehensive immigration legislation look bleak this election year, and even many Democrats are wary of wading into the hot-button issue. But Obama, who pledged as a candidate to make immigration reform a top priority during his first year in office, faces pressure from the Hispanic community to act -- or at least to try.

That's only intensified in the wake of Arizona's passage of a controversial law that requires police officers to question a person's immigration status if there's reason to suspect the person is in the country illegally. Obama has spoken out against the law and asked the Justice Department to examine its legality.

Activists anticipate that the Justice Department will sue to overturn the law, but in Monday's meeting Obama said that decision would be left up to the department, and he didn't give a timeline, participants said.

Also Monday, high-ranking federal officials visited Arizona to brief the governor and others on Obama's recently announced plans to send National Guard troops to the border. The National Guard decision dismayed some activists, who said there were complaints in the meeting with Obama about the administration's emphasis on enforcement.

But after talking with administration officials Monday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, denounced the National Guard deployment as inadequate -- illustrating the divide facing Obama over immigration.

The White House said Obama would deliver a speech soon on "the importance of passing comprehensive immigration reform" but didn't give more details.

Given the difficulties of achieving a comprehensive bill, participants in the White House meeting said there was also discussion of attempting to pass smaller pieces of legislation -- such as a bill focused on agricultural workers, or one that would help illegal immigrant youths attend college.

Obama is to meet Tuesday with Hispanic members of Congress.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

[American Patriot]

Dear God...

LiveLeak Video: MN County Supervisor Doesn’t Know Arizona Borders Mexico but Supports Boycott

I meant to mention this, but you know... it was so hilarious when I saw it, I sprayed Pepsi out my nose.

I ought to sue the woman for causing me undue pain.

lol

[vector7]

Here comes the open-borders mob again

By Michelle Malkin • June 30, 2010 11:27 AM

Gearing up for President Obama’s illegal alien shamnesty speech tomorrow, the open-borders lobby is starting in again with demonstrations across the country.

Here’s the far Left L.A. Indymedia crowd crowing about a recent sit-in at GOP Rep. David Dreier’s office:

SAN DIMAS, California – About thirty constituents, immigrant rights activists, students, and community members entered Representative David Dreier’s office, requesting a meeting and answers to questions on his stance on immigration reform.

When Dreier’s staff proved unresponsive to the request, activists declared they would not leave until their demands were met.

They held the office for about an hour, withdrawing after negotiating with officials from the Los Angeles County sheriff’s office.

…Today’s action was part of a coordinated effort spearheaded by Reform Immigration for America (RIFA), a national organization made up of existing immigrant-rights groups, to force legislators to choose a side in the immigration debate, which has recently intensified due to Arizona’s passage of the enforcement-only law SB 1070.

The essential question the campaign asks of representatives is “Are you on the side of reform or racism?”

A similar action took place at the office of Representative Jerry Lewis of Redlands last week. Members of the RIFA campaign held a simultaneous action again today at Lewis’ office.

At about 10:30, the activists silently entered the second-story office, carrying pro-migrant signs…Escalation began, with the supporters in the room initiating the “whisper chant” “Dreier take a stand!” With that, staffer whispered an order to call the sheriff.

Negotiations continued as the activists made their demands clear: “We’ll accept a meeting with Dreier, a phone call from him, or a public statement. We’ll remain here until we get one of the three.” The chief of staff began asking the activists, who by this time had taken seats on the office floor, where they were from. “He automatically assumed that since we had brown faces, we were not his constituents,” one woman commented afterwards. “That was very offensive.”

The escalation continued, the chants increasing in volume and intensity…

Republicans better be prepared for more “escalation” and race-card antics. This is the Left’s livelihood and the stock and trade of Alinsky’s avenging angels.

Get prepared now, so you won’t be steamrolled later.

[vector7]

June 29, 2010 05:01 PM UTC by John Stossel
O'Reilly Tonight: Let More People In!

Tonight on the Factor, O’Reilly wants to talk about what libertarians say about illegal immigration.I plan to tell him: libertarians believe that trade is good. Trade in goods, ideas… and labor, too. In other words, open the borders, let people in.

Oops. Today this is a tricky issue. America is a welfare state. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state. People would come here to freeload. Also, we cannot have open borders when some people want to murder us.

So we should secure the border. But recent efforts to do that – like building a wall – have been costly boondoggles. When I visited the $2 billion wall last year – it cost you abeout $1,700 per yard – there were patched-up holes every 20 to 30 feet. Immigrants had just cut through the fence. The border patrol repairs it. There were also makeshift ladders everywhere. And when immigrants don’t cut through the wall, or climb over it, they go around it. The Washington Post quotes one border police chief:

"When you plug a hole in the wall, the water looks for another spot to flow through. Arizona is that spot," said Nogales police chief Jeff Kirkham, who reported that immigrants are "going over the wall, going through the wall or through tunnels."

Maybe technology provides a better answer? I thought that President Bush’s new “high-tech, virtual” wall would make the border more secure, but the virtual wall has been even more a mess. President Obama stopped funding it. The GAO had a new report this month that says the virtual fence’s technical standards have been watered down “to the point that … system performance will be deemed acceptable if it identifies less than 50 percent of items of interest that cross the border.”

So what should we do? I say, let more people in. Right now, it's hard to pick out terrorists and criminals from the flood of people who just want to work. Let workers in legally – through, say, a guest worker program – and we will have an easier time keeping out the bad guys.

The debate over the Mexican border misses a big part of the immigration story: every year, we turn away millions of smart, hard-working foreigners for no good reason.

Forbes Magazine put together a chart on how long it takes immigrants to get in. Based on State Department waiting lists, they calculate that it would take an Indian computer programmer 35 years to get a Green Card. A 30-year-old Mexican with just a high school degree would be so far down on the list, he wouldn’t get in for 131 years. If he wants to work in America, why would he even bother to get on the legal list?

Many people think immigrants steal jobs. They don't. In Forbes, Philippe Legrain points out:

Just as working women haven't deprived men of jobs, immigrants create jobs as well as filling them.

Immigrants are good for the country. They create jobs. Nearly half of Silicon Valley’s venture capital-funded start-ups were co-founded by immigrants. No one could have guessed when he arrived at age 6 as a refugee from the Soviet Union that Sergey Brin would go on to co-found Google. How many potential Brins does America turn away–and at what cost?

Bill Gates seconds that. He says Microsoft has been “forced to locate staff in countries that welcome skilled foreign workers… [who] could otherwise have been in the United States, if it were not for our counterproductive immigration policies."

John Stossel On Obama's Immigration Lawsuit Against Arizona...Let'Em In!!!

[American Patriot]

President is on television.

Absolute BS politics.

"We can't fix this without bipartisan support" - and blames Republicans.

He doesn't want to CLOSE THE BORDER he wants IMMIGRATION REFORM.

I really think Americans need to close the damned borders themselves.

To hell with the Government. They won't help, so the states need to do it.

New Mexico needs a new Governor too. So does California if Arnold won't do it.

Texas needs to shut down their border.

Once they do this... then we can talk. I want to see ACTION, no more BS politics from Obama and his commie minnons

[vector7]

Obama: Being American is 'not a matter of blood or birth'



President Barack Obama said Thursday that being American "is not a matter of blood or birth", but said that “no matter how decent” the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are, they should be held accountable for breaking the law.

Speaking at the American University School of International Service in Washington D.C., Obama expressed an understanding for why states would pass individual anti-illegal immigration laws, but said taking such action is “ill conceived.”

The president said laws, such as the one signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April, are “divisive,” put pressure on local law enforcement, burden state and local budgets and could potentially violate the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents.

The Obama administration has come out against Arizona’s immigration law, which requires police officers to question a person’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The law takes effect July 29.

Obama said Thursday that while America has always defined itself as a nation of immigrants, and while the “overwhelming majority” of illegal immigrants come to the U.S. in search of a better life, “The presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigration legally.”

“Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship,” he said. “And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

The president called for a “pathway to legal status that is fair, reflective of our values and works,” a process he said has been “held hostage by political posturing and special interest wrangling.”

“I’m ready to move forward. The majority of Democrats are ready to move forward, and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward,” Obama said.

“But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.”

[vector7]

Judge lets Mexico have voice in suit on Ariz. immigration law

The Associated Press
| Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:30 pm



PHOENIX - Mexico gets to have a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico's request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens' rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence.

The law's provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

[vector7]

Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

Jul 6 01:37 PM US/Eastern



BOB CHRISTIE (AP) - Associated Press Writer PHOENIX The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's

The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops usurps federal authority.

The government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the reported lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.

"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who opposes the law, said the suit should help settle questions over what states can do when they don't think federal laws are being adequately enforced.

"I hope this galvanizes Congress to gain the moral courage they need to address this (immigration) crisis," Sinema said.

Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama

Prior to seeing the lawsuit or receiving any official notification, Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the reported decision to sue "a terribly bad decision."

"Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona also lashed out at the administration's decision, saying "the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings.

The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.

Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure.

"It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unprecedented and unnecessary."

He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.

"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview. new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown. has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.

[vector7]

Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

Published July 11, 2010
| FoxNews.com



Attorney General Eric Holder speaks, Friday, June 11, 2010, at the Richard B. Russell Federal Courthouse in Atlanta. (AP)

Attorney General Eric Holder, just days after filing a federal lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law, on Sunday floated the possibility of filing another suit on racial profiling grounds.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Arizona claimed the state was infringing on federal immigration responsibilities and urged the judge to prevent the law from going into effect at the end of July. Despite some officials' claims that the law could lead to racial profiling, that concern was not cited as grounds for the suit.

However, Holder said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the federal government was leading with its "strongest" argument in the suit filed Tuesday and would not rule out a second suit months down the road -- if the law ends up going into effect.

"It doesn't mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had ... and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact," Holder said. "If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis."

Holder, reacting to the firestorm of criticism from Republicans and border-state lawmakers, said the Justice Department decided to file the suit because Arizona's immigration law is "inconsistent" with federal policy and the U.S. Constitution. He said there's nothing to stop local jurisdictions and states from helping the government enforce immigration law, but described Arizona's law as contradictory to what the federal government is trying to accomplish.

The law makes illegal immigration a state crime. It requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their immigration status -- provided they don't stop them for that reason alone.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., disputed Holder's characterization. Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," he said Arizona's law is trying to help, not hinder, the federal government's immigration efforts.

[vector7]

Critics Question Why Obama Administration Doesn't Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities

By Molly Henneberg
Published July 15, 2010
| FoxNews.com

• Comments (337)

Now that the Obama administration is suing Arizona over its tough immigration law, some critics are asking why so-called sanctuary cities are getting a pass for ignoring federal immigration law.

More than 50 cities in the U.S provide sanctuaries to illegal immigrants.

Supporters of such policies say they want the local police to focus on solving crimes and leave the immigration work to the federal authorities.

"What sanctuary cities are saying is, we are not going to preempt the federal government. It's the federal government's responsibilities," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

But Richard Land, the president of Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Liberty Commission, said while he supports comprehensive immigration reform, he opposes sanctuary cities.

"We can't have government officials deciding which laws they are going to enforce or not enforce. That undermines the rule of law. We have to have officials who are under the rule of law," he said.

Sanctuary cities are not a new idea. They've been around for decades and no administration -- Democrat of Republican -- has really gone after them.

But the Obama administration is going after Arizona for its new law that permits officers to ask about a person's immigration status during the course of other enforcement, such as a traffic stops. Opponents say the law promotes racial profiling and is unconstitutional. But supporters deny those charges.

"The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. "The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies."

The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government's role in immigration control.

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

But to those who support the Arizona law and oppose the idea of sanctuary cities, that seems like a cop-out.

"The administration has shown again and again it has no intention of enforcing federal immigration laws," Jenks said.

[vector7]

"You Are White, You Don't Belong in America" - Brown Berets at All-Star Game

July 19, 2010 http://www.StandWithArizona.com Racist "Brown Berets" invade a peaceful, pro-Arizona crowd rallying in front of the All-Star Game in Anaheim, July 13, 2010.

Modeled after the Black Panthers, the Brown Berets (nicknamed the "Tan Klan" because of their virulently racist views) want a "racially pure Aztlan" with all White Europeans and Jews forcibly removed.

They are pro-Islamic terrorism and have called Osama Bin Laden the "Muslim Pancho Villa". Imagine if a handful of white Tea party folks walked into a pro-illegal rally and said similar things - it would make every national news broadcast for days on end.

But of course, unlike the NAACP slander claims - the Tea Party does not stand for racism. But watch as the "Tan Klan" gets a pass for their hate by the media once again.

[Ryan Ruck]

"You Are White, You Don't Belong in America" - Brown Berets at All-Star Game

What continent does she think her Spanish forefathers came from?

[vector7]

Is that what they're calling them now?

Bruce Ross
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

In the Forest Service's news release about the recent string of marijuana busts, I discovered a term of art I'd never encountered before:

During the raid, a U.S. Forest Service K-9 team located Gauldry Almonte-Hernandez, a displaced foreign traveler from Michoacán Mexico, who had tried to flee the area and hide while officers were performing entry into the marijuana garden.

"Displaced foreign traveler"? Makes it sound like he meant to go to Disneyland, got lost, and ended up at a pot plantation in the woods south of Hayfork.

---- The Full Release ---

Arrest Made in US Forest Service Operation at Illegal Marijuana Site

REDDING, Calif - A U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement Operation led to the arrest of an individual at an illegal marijuana cultivation site last week where 7,434 illegally grown marijuana plants were confiscated.

On Friday July 9, 2010 a marijuana eradication operation was conducted on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Trinity County, south of Hayfork, by law enforcement agents from the U.S. Forest Service, Trinity County Sheriff's Office Drug Task Force and the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. During the raid, a U.S. Forest Service K-9 team located Gauldry Almonte-Hernandez, a displaced foreign traveler from Michoacán Mexico, who had tried to flee the area and hide while officers were performing entry into the marijuana garden.

The defendant was arrested on federal charges in violation of Title 21 United States Code section 841, Manufacturing a Controlled Substance, if found guilty, he could receive a sentence of 10 years in prison.

During the week of July 5th, officers conducted marijuana eradication operations at six sites near Hayfork with the eradication of approximately 46,000 marijuana plants.

On July 6th, the team of officers eradicated two marijuana manufacturing locations on the National Forest where a total of 14,757 marijuana plants were destroyed. The operation continued on July 7th with the removal of 16,767 plants from two additional gardens. July 8th a fifth garden was eradicated by the team which contained 7,466 marijuana plants which were destroyed. The operation ended Friday with the arrest of the defendant and the eradication of 7,434 marijuana plants.

The public is encouraged to contact your local Forest Service office or Sheriff's Department with any information pertaining to illegal marijuana manufacturing on your public lands.

Rita Vollmer

Assistant Public Affairs Officer
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
3644 Avtech Parkway
Redding, CA 96002

[vector7]

Brewer Sends Stimulus Money to Border for Illegal Immigration Fight

Published July 20, 2010 | FoxNews.com

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer speaks with a reporter during the annual meeting of the National Governors Association July 11. (AP Photo)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, claiming to "reject" the Obama administration's assertion that the border is more secure than ever, announced Monday that she's directing $10 million in federal stimulus dollars to tackle smuggling and illegal immigration.

On the same day the administration announced its plan to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwestern states, Brewer said she's sending the pot of stimulus money to more than a dozen border cities and counties -- as well as several tribes and the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

She said the grant money would be targeted toward fighting drug trafficking, illegal immigration and human smuggling.

"Since the federal government continues to announce inadequate plans and place new warning signs on federal lands in Arizona, we are forced to do what we can locally to act on safety and security until the Congress and the administration act," she said in a statement. Brewer has said the National Guard deployment, which is directing more than 500 troops to her state alone, is not enough to handle the problem.

The border security stimulus money comes out of the stimulus package's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Though most of that money is intended to go toward education, states are allowed to use a small percentage toward public safety and "other government services."

Brewer claimed in her statement that she was using her "discretionary" money pile to fight illegal immigration.

The grant money in Arizona will be active until September 2011. The money is primarily meant for paying law enforcement training costs and overtime, as well as travel costs and other expenses, and for bringing on new police officers and part-time personnel. The grant also can be used to buy certain equipment, like vehicles built for the "harsh environment" along the border and communications equipment.

The recipients include Yuma County, Santa Cruz County, Pima County, Cochise County, as well as the cities and towns of Benson, Bisbee, Yuma, Douglas, Nogales, Patagonia, Sahuarita, San Luis and Somerton.

[vector7]

Brewer Slams Administration Over Smuggler Warning Signs in Arizona Desert

Published June 29, 2010


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is shown next to a warning sign in the desert in a campaign ad. (Governor Jan Brewer 2010)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is slamming the Obama administration over government signs posted in the Arizona desert warning visitors to beware of illegal smugglers, saying the signs are hardly the kind of border security plan her state needs.

"This is an outrage," Brewer said in a new reelection campaign ad.

The ad shows the governor standing next to one of the warning signs in the middle of the Arizona desert, 80 miles from the border and, according to the ad, 30 miles from Phoenix. The signs have in recent weeks drawn attention from border-state lawmakers who say they demonstrate how unsafe the region has become. In the ad, Brewer noted that she recently met with President Obama, who "promised that we would get word" on the administration's border security plan.

"Well, we finally got the message -- these signs. These signs, calling our desert an active drug and human smuggling area. These signs warning people of danger and telling them to stay away," Brewer said in the ad. "Washington says our border is as safe as it has ever been. Does this look safe to you?"

The ad ended with a confrontational message: "Washington is broken, Mr. President. Do your job. Secure our borders. Arizona and the nation are waiting."

One of the signs warns visitors that "smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area." Another says "travel not recommended" due to "active drug and human smuggling" routes.

Though warning signs have been placed in certain areas of Arizona, broad swaths of federal land are considered dangerous because of the smuggling routes.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., brought up the signs on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Calling for stepped-up border security, he said "the rise of violence and the influence of the drug cartels and the human smugglers" compelled the government to put up the signs.

After the Obama administration met with border-state governors Monday to detail plans to deploy 1,200 National Guard to the region, Brewer told reporters that the influx of more than 500 National Guard troops to her state would not be enough.

Brewer has said she wants 3,000 National Guard troops sent to her state and 6,000 total sent to the border. The Obama administration has also faced criticism for planning to assign the National Guard to surveillance and support positions, as opposed to in-the-field work.

Obama has asked Congress, however, to approve $600 million in new spending for more Border Patrol, immigration officers and drones.

[vector7]

Five Federal Lands in Arizona Have Travel Warnings in Place

By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published June 18, 2010


NPS.gov
A pedestrian fence and a vehicle barrier are seen at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, near Lukeville, Ariz.

Imagine the federal government closing a section of the Lincoln Memorial because it was under the control of Mexican drug lords and bands of illegal immigrants.

That scenario is playing out as reality in southern Arizona, where parts of five federal lands -- including two designated national monuments -- continue to post travel warnings or be outright closed to Americans who own the land because of the dangers of "human and drug trafficking" along the Mexican border.

Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge -- about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park -- have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.

"Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns," the website reads.

On another page titled "Border Concerns," the website warns that visitors should be aware that "drug smuggling routes" pass through the park.

"If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene," the website reads. "Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States."

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

"All suspected illegal activities should be reported to [the Bureau of Land Management] or local law enforcement authorities," Ironwood Forest's website reads. "Visitors should stay safe by avoiding contact with persons exhibiting suspicious behavior or engaged in dangerous activities. Drive with caution and look for fast-moving vehicles and pedestrians on back roads."

Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona office, said roughly a dozen signs were posted earlier this month along the Sonoran Desert National Monument advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to "active drug and human" smuggling. The signs are not far from where a Pinal County deputy was shot and killed during a confrontation with marijuana smugglers in April and the fatal shooting of two men suspected to be drug smugglers.

"It is a corridor for smugglers of all types," Godfrey told FoxNews.com.

Similar signs have been posted at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Forest, which covers nearly 1.8 million acres in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.

Estimates of exactly how many acres of federal land are closed due to safety concerns near the border were not immediately available, but at least one lawmaker told FoxNews.com that the policy of "ceding" federal land to drug and human trafficking is unacceptable.

"This is one of those things that the Department of Interior does not want to publicize," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, ranking Republican on the House Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee. "These bad actors are now being channeled into federal lands along the border because it's so easy to make that access. The situation is getting worse on federal lands and will only get worse until we make some proactive activity to change the status quo."

"Frankly," Bishop continued, "the status quo is failing. We are failing to control our borders."

Bishop, who has introduced legislation that would remove environmental restrictions the Department of Interior imposes on U.S. Border Patrol agents, questioned the message sent by federal authorities by closing off part of the Buenos Aires Refuge.

"That is a ludicrous message," he said. "That policy in unacceptable. That strikes of running a policy of appeasement to drug cartels instead of fighting back. Someone has to say that not one inch of American property will be given to the bad guys and not one death is acceptable."

[vector7]

7 Latin American Nations join Mexico in supporting Obama's Lawsuit against Arizona Immigration Law

(AP) – 1 day ago

PHOENIX — Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.

A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.

Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.

The law is to take effect July 29.

It requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they're in the country illegally.

(This version CORRECTS date in last paragraph)

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

Arizona immigration law set to come in amid protests

Thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Arizona


Thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Arizona

Protesters are expected to stream into Arizona as the state's controversial new anti-illegal immigration law takes effect on Thursday.

The law requires police to query the immigration status of people stopped for a legitimate reason whom they suspect are in the US illegally.

Opponents say it will lead to racial profiling and targeting of Hispanics.

The federal government has challenged the law, and a judge is set to rule on that challenge on Wednesday.

“Start Quote

We're not going to put up with any civil disobedience”

End Quote Joe Arpaio Maricopa County sheriff

• Q&A: Arizona law

The Obama administration argues the measure usurps the federal government's authority to set immigration policy.

In addition, a Phoenix police officer who fears he will be sued if he enforces the law has challenged it, and the governments of Argentina, Ecuador and Mexico have also asked a court to overturn it.

The Arizona legislation also creates a new state law making it a crime to be in the country illegally and permits police to detain people determined to be illegal aliens.

Controversy over the legislation has turned the eyes of the nation onto a state where about a third of people are foreign born and an estimated 460,000 are illegal immigrants.

Protestors around the country plan vigils and demonstrations, and others will convene in Arizona to bolster local protest efforts.

More than 550 union members and activists are taking buses from southern California, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Other protests are reportedly planned for New York City and elsewhere.

"We are waiting for the court to decide, but even if it issues a temporary injunction... we're still going ahead with our protests, because 21 other states want to follow Arizona's footsteps with racist laws" of their own, Paulina Gonzalez, spokeswoman for "We Are All Arizona" group told AFP news agency.

'I'm ready for it'

But the sheriff of the state's most populous county has vowed to jail protesters who he deems cross the line into civil disobedience.

"I'm ready for it," Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his "sweeps" of illegal immigrants, said on ABC television. "If they want to block the jail, they can have a trip in the jail. We're not going to put up with any civil disobedience."

Meanwhile, a Nebraska town where voters recently passed a referendum barring illegal immigrants from renting housing decided on Tuesday to suspend the law's implementation.

The city council in Fremont, Nebraska, said delaying the law would save the city money in its effort to defend it against court challenges from liberal legal groups who maintain it would discriminate against people who appear foreign.

---

Protesters head to Arizona as immigration law looms

28 Jul 2010 17:50:36 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Refiles to add dropped word million in fifth paragraph)

* Judge weighs Obama administration suit to block law
* Latino activists plan protests, civil disobedience
* Police prepare implementation, ready jails for detainees
* Arizona governor says will punish racial profiling

By Tim Gaynor PHOENIX, July 28

(Reuters) - Opponents of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants gathered in Phoenix on Wednesday as a federal judge decides whether to block the law that is backed by most Americans from coming into effect on Thursday.

The Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature passed the law three months ago over objections from the Obama administration in an effort to drive nearly half-a-million illegal immigrants out of the state bordering Mexico, and stem the flow of human and drug smugglers over its porous frontier.

It requires state and local police to investigate during traffic stops or other lawful encounters the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant, and is due to go into effect on Thursday, barring a last-minute stay.

President Barack Obama's administration is among plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits seeking to derail the law, which the U.S. Justice Department says encroaches on federal authority over immigration policy and enforcement.

The U.S. District Court judge hearing the case could rule at any time. The Arizona law is the toughest anti-immigration measure in any state. It is inspiring copycat efforts in at least 20 other states, although analysts say the prospect of costly and protracted litigation may stall some plans to push forward.

There are an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the country. Polls show the law is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year, in which Obama's Democrats are battling to retain control of Congress amid popular anger at a sputtering economic recovery and soaring deficits.

But Latinos and other opponents say the measure will lead to the harassment of Hispanic or Hispanic-looking Americans. Thousands are headed to Phoenix for protests, and street rallies are also planned for Thursday across the country from California to Washington, D.C.

Organizers say they will take to the streets regardless of any last-minute stay by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. Some Hispanic activists are planning to rally in Phoenix without carrying identification to challenge police implementation of the law on its first day. "The call is for people .. to demonstrate without ID," said Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, who said he expected arrests.

'DISCRIMINATION IS ILLEGAL'

Police across the desert state, which is the principal corridor for human and drug smugglers entering the United States from Mexico, have been getting ready to implement the law on Thursday, 90 days after the state's Republican governor signed it.

The state's 15,000 law enforcement officers have received training on implementation, negotiating the tricky issue of identifying people they suspect are unlawfully in the state, without resorting to racial profiling, Governor Jan Brewer said. Speaking on CNN's "John King USA" program late on Tuesday, Brewer said she felt "very comfortable that everybody is being well trained," and that any officers using racial criteria to implement the law would be punished.

"Racial discrimination is illegal. It's illegal in the United States, it's illegal in Arizona, it has been and it will continue to be," Brewer said. State and local police, however, are divided over the law, and enforcement of it may vary depending on the agency involved.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough approach to illegal immigrants in the Phoenix area, is preparing a crime and immigration sweep on Thursday as the law, known as SB 1070, comes into effect.

Arpaio recently inaugurated a new wing of his canvas tent-city jail, called "Section 1070," with 100 beds set aside for those arrested under the law. "We're prepared for anything that may happen," Arpaio told Reuters on Wednesday. "If they violate the law they are going to jail. Nothing has changed."

(Additional reporting by David Schwartz and Carolina Madrid; editing by Eric Beech)

---

Jul 28, 2010 10:45 am US/Pacific
Clinton appointed Judge Blocks Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writers



PHOENIX (AP) ― A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.

The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.

Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

[vector7]

Federal judge blocks key parts of Arizona immigration law

The ruling halts implementation of parts of the law that require police to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect of being in the U.S. illegally.

Francisco Garcia prays with protesters who oppose the SB 1070 Arizona immigration law in front of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix. (Associated Press / July 22, 2010)

By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times July 28, 2010 | 11:03 a.m.

Reporting from Phoenix —

A federal judge has halted the most controversial elements of Arizona's new immigration law, which had been scheduled to take effect at midnight.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents.

Bolton's ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

As the clock ticked down toward the implementation of the law known as SB 1070, tensions had been rising as both sides braced for confrontations in the streets and waited to see how — and if — the judge would rule before the was to take effect Thursday.

Ruled on requests from civil rights lawyers and the Obama administration to halt the law, known as SB 1070. It requires police to determine the status of people they stop and also think are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents.

Busloads of demonstrators were arriving from Los Angeles and were expected to join large numbers of locals protesting the measure Thursday morning. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — whose campaign against illegal immigrants has made him a widely popular, if controversial, figure here — had said he would open a new section of his outdoor tent jail that he is dubbing "Section 1070," where he intended to house illegal immigrants detained as a result of the law.

Arpaio, whose downtown high-rise offices were to be targeted by demonstrators on Thursday, released a statement before Bolton's ruling warning that he would not tolerate lawbreakers. "Activists and their celebrity sympathizers who wish to target this community and this sheriff by attempting to disrupt our jail and patrol operations will be unsuccessful, as we will be fully prepared to meet those challenges head-on with appropriately staffed personnel and resources," he said.

Several police officials expected no dramatic changes in operations Thursday. Police already check the immigration status of people they book into jail or people who lack a valid U.S. ID.

Still, there remained confusion about what some of the law's provisions mean. The Phoenix and Tucson police departments have directed their officers to hold anyone arrested until the federal government verifies their immigration status. The chiefs of both departments opposed the law, and supporters of the measure have argued that the chiefs have tried to sabotage it through an overly literal interpretation.

The law does state, however, that "any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released." An attorney for Gov. Jan Brewer acknowledged in court last week that the provision is "inartfully" written but argued it is not that broad. However, the state's official training guidelines say it's unclear what the provision really means and that each department will have to make its own interpretation.