Fair Use Disclaimer FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,social significance and make every effort to include appropriate credit, hyperlinks, and author/publication information. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
I would like to welcome everyone to We Hate Gringos. I am working on trying to make this one of the best sites on the web for a broad swath of information on illegal immigration, multiculturalism, sovereignty and the national/regional political scene. I am not one of those who believes in political correctness or political parties. I try to keep the site updated as often as possible. I am always open to volunteers/ contributors. Those of you I know from other sites glad to see you here. As always civility is expected.
You must be registered to comment. Those who were registered on the old site will need to re-register. Sorry for the inconvenience.
UPDATE March 2010
Due to the increase of spam robots and others using the WHG word press registration as a spam depository, I have implemented new security procedures. All new registrations will go thru a filtering process. I have went thru the entire list of registered users and expelled those from domains and mail clients that are suspicious. This should not effect the majority of users who are live and legitimate people wanting to participate in this site. If you were inadvertently expelled, I apologize . You will need to go thru the new registration process to post comments etc.
Sorry for the extra hassle, but as with much of life a few always ruin it for the rest.
Thanks Brad
It was announced yesterday that the Obama administration will be sending 1200 National Guard troops to the border to help the Border Patrol I think most of us can see this ploy for what it is. Window dressing. The latest Obama dog and pony show follows a year and half of of everything but enforcement. We have seen surprise immigration raids traded for audits with illegal workers set free. We have witnessed the halt of border fence construction and have seen vehicle barriers substituted for a real fence. Recently Obama’s illegal alien auntie got a free pass to stay and the President himself verbally attacked a state for enforcing federal immigration law. The latest picture we have is of Obama and his Democratic cohorts in Congress applauding Mexican President Calderon for his bashing of our fellow Americans in Az.
Now the President thinks he can fool the American public by this supposed enforcement gesture. Within a few weeks or a months, the case will be made that the border is secured. The Dems will shout the National Guard are on the border, crossings are down and the border is secure. Then the march for CIR amnesty will begin again.
What do you folks think? Check out the new poll.
Update
Where are the fricken troops?
The news of the Obama administration putting NG troops on the border was released on May 25,2010. It has been a month and a half and still no troops. I just did a quick search and the news story has not been followed up on. The MSM has not reported on it since May. If anyone has news of a deployment or deployment date, please post a comment/link below and I will get a post up on it.
Thanks
Roxana Tiron
The Hill
Obama administration officials on Monday announced that 1,200 National Guard troops will deploy to the southwest border in August to assist with border security.
The announcement ups the pressure on Senate leaders to approve an emergency funding bill that contains $700 million for efforts to protect the border, which is plagued by violence stemming from illegal immigration and the drug trade.
The White House promised the Guard deployment almost two months ago after Democrats and Republicans in Congress expressed concern about unrest on the border.
The White House said the Guard forces would begin deploying on Aug. 1 to Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico. Officials said all 1,200 troops should be in place by September. Continue reading Guard move ups pressure over war bill
American Patrol Reports
Click here to listen to the final show and the tribute by various leaders in the anti-illegal immigration movement.
Daniel B. Wood
The Christian Science Monitor
The city council of Fremont, Nebraska (pop. 25,000), is expected to decide Tuesday whether to delay enforcement of a new illegal immigration law because of legal challenges by civil rights groups. The ordinance, which would prohibit businesses from hiring and landlords from renting to illegal immigrants, was approved by voters June 21 and is scheduled to go into effect on Thursday.
Immigration experts say the case could be a useful barometer of public sentiment and could provide indications of the mood of courts in the wake of scores of such laws being introduced in several states after Arizona’s tough immigration law passed in April. That law, pending a federal injunction, is also due to take effect Thursday. Continue reading Nebraska town: Is illegal immigration crackdown worth the cost?
I guess it is time the state of Az cut the TUSD money. It is also time the people of Tucson elected new school board members
Alexis Huicochea
Arizona Daily Star
The TUSD Governing Board approved a policy Tuesday that maintains the district’s stance of not enforcing immigration laws in the district’s schools.
The 5-0 board vote is in response to the state’s new immigration law.
The Tucson Unified School District’s passage of its Immigration Anti-Discrimination Policy comes two days before SB 1070 is to take effect.
SB 1070 requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop on other matters when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they are in the U.S. illegally. A federal judge in Phoenix is expected to rule soon on whether to block all or part of the law from going into effect.
The district’s policy was drafted by board members Adelita Grijalva and Bruce Burke, and TUSD legal counsel Rob Ross.
It reinforces that TUSD employees are not to enforce immigration laws, nor are they to investigate or report a student or parent’s immigration status.
‘A lot of people will say SB 1070 has nothing to do with education, but in reading it there are a lot of implications for various environments,’ Grijalva said. ‘There are a lot of unknowns, and we are trying to clarify.’
Grijalva initially hoped the district would join litigation against SB 1070 – as the Sunnyside Unified School District chose to do – but agreed to form a policy that would have more of an impact on students instead.
What the policy does not address is law-enforcement presence on campus and the potential for students being questioned.
TUSD, the area’s largest school district, was the target of several protests in 2007 after the deportation of a Catalina Magnet High School student and his family. That incident began when school officials found that the student possessed illegal drugs and called Tucson police.
When officers learned the boy and his family were in the United States illegally, they called Border Patrol agents to the school to take the boy and his family into custody.
Police leaders said at the time that officers would not summon immigration authorities on campus but instead would follow up elsewhere.
Andy Barr
Politico
As the Justice Department tries to block Arizona’s new immigration law from taking effect on Thursday, a new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that a majority of the country favors the law.
Fifty-five percent of the 1,018 adults surveyed nationwide favor the law, compared to 40 percent who oppose it.
Only 34 percent of white respondents said they oppose the law, but among Hispanics the number spikes. Seventy-one percent of Hispanics said they oppose the law.
A slightly higher number – 74 percent – of Hispanics believe the law will lead to increased discrimination. Forty-nine percent of whites polled said the same.
A federal judge is expected to rule as soon as Wednesday on whether Arizona can go forward in enforcing the immigration law signed by GOP Gov. Jan Brewer in April.
The survey was conducted July 16-21 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Tim Gaynor
Reuters
judge on Wednesday blocked key parts of Arizona’s tough new immigration law hours before it was to take effect, handing a victory to the Obama administration as it tries to take control over the issue.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said she would file an appeal to reinstate the provisions, which had popular support but were opposed by President Barack Obama and immigration and human rights groups.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked several provisions including one that required a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested, if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.
The judge also stayed provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without immigration papers to seek work in public places.
The Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature passed the law three months ago in an effort to drive nearly half-a-million illegal immigrants out of the border state and stem the flow of human and drug smugglers over the frontier.
The U.S. Justice Department had argued that provisions of the law, which goes into effect on Thursday, encroached on federal authority over immigration policy and enforcement.
In her 36-page decision, Bolton agreed. She wrote: ‘The court … finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of (the law) and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest.’
COULD GO TO SUPREME COURT
Governor Brewer said the state would quickly file an appeal.
‘We will take a close look at every single element Judge (Susan) Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit,’ she said in a statement.
Arizona can appeal ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, it could become a long, protracted battle.
About three dozen Hispanic activists attending an open-air mass outside the state capitol in central Phoenix jumped up, hugged and wept as news of Bolton’s ruling broke.
‘I think that our efforts have paid off,’ said Dulce Matuz, an undocumented college graduate who has been living in the desert state without papers for a decade, adding that activists would carry on fighting to overturn the rest of the law.
State Senator Russell Pearce, the architect of the law, said he was ‘very disappointed’ by the judge’s ruling.
‘What she did was decide to insert some opinion into the law rather than rule on what is the law of the land, and that’s not right,’ Pearce told Reuters. ‘But we will win on appeal.’
‘WIND OUT OF SAILS’
Peter Spiro, a law professor at Philadelphia’s Temple University and a former attorney in the State Department, said he was not surprised the more controversial provisions were stopped from being put into effect.
‘I expect those provisions will never go into effect, though this is only a preliminary order,’ Spiro said.
‘I also think this will take the wind out of the sails of anti-immigration efforts on the state level, though it will probably intensify such efforts at the federal level,’ he said.
The Arizona law is the toughest anti-immigration measure in any U.S. state but it is inspiring copycat efforts in at least 20 other states. There are an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the country.
Polls show the Arizona law is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of the state’s voters.
It is a sensitive political issue ahead of congressional elections in November in which Obama’s Democrats are battling to retain control of Congress amid popular anger at over high unemployment and soaring deficits.
Opponents say the law would lead to harassment of Hispanic or Hispanic-looking Americans. Thousands were headed to Phoenix for protests on Thursday and street rallies were planned across the country from California to Washington, D.C.
‘DISCRIMINATION IS ILLEGAL’
Chris Newman, general counsel for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said the ruling was expected and that protests and rallies would go ahead as planned on Thursday.
Police across the desert state, which is the principal corridor for human and drug smugglers entering the United States from Mexico, have been preparing to implement the law.
The state’s 15,000 law enforcement officers have had training on how to implement it and identify people they suspect are unlawfully in the state without resorting to racial profiling, Governor Brewer had said on Tuesday.
Brewer said she felt ‘very comfortable that everybody is being well trained,’ and 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 on CNN’s Larry King Live show.
Washington Post
Letters to the Editor
Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar’s July 22 op-ed piece, “Why the U.S. had to challenge Arizona on immigration,” misstated the facts about Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section of law establishes a mechanism for formal cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and state and local law enforcement agencies. Then-Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and I wrote the law.
Ms. Meissner and Mr. Ziglar asserted that Arizona’s immigration enforcement law “appears to go well beyond the intent of 287(g).” They also claimed that the federal government “must expressly delegate . . . authority” to states that wish to aid in the enforcement of our immigration laws.
In fact, paragraph 10 of section 287(g) specifically provides for the type of law that Arizona has enacted. It states: “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate with the [Secretary of Homeland Security] regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.”
The writers may be unfamiliar with Section 287(g) because they only entered into two such agreements in their nine combined years at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Lamar Smith, Washington
The writer is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Chris Chmielenski
Numbers USA
Federal Judge Susan Bolton ordered an injunction today of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, formerly known as SB1070, just hours before it’s scheduled to take effect. Supporters of immigration enforcement are angry and frustrated over the ruling, but there is hope in the halls of Congress – of all places. If Congress passed the SAVE Act and CLEAR Act, these two bills together would secure the border, mandate E-Verify nationwide, and provide local law enforcement officials with the tools to help federal officials enforce immigration laws obviating the need for SB1070.
Let’s take a look at exactly what today’s ruling by Judge Bolton actually represents. It’s an injunction – or a temporary suspension – of several provisions within Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. It’s not the final decision. After hearing both sides of the case in a lengthy civil trial, Judge Bolton could decide that the federal government did not do a satisfactory job of proving their case, thereby causing her to lift her injunction. While that’s highly unlikely, it is possible.
Judge Bolton’s decision did strike down SB1070’s most famous clause that requires local police officers to check an individual’s immigration status if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the individual is in the country illegally.
The decision did not suspend provisions that prohibit sanctuary cities, require state and local cooperation with federal officials, allow its residents to sue local leaders for refusing to cooperate with federal officials, prohibit the transport of illegal aliens, and restrict solicitation of illegal alien day laborers.
Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify law that was passed several years ago is still intact, including its sanctions for businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Plus, any communities that participate in the federal government’s 287(g) and Secure Communities programs can still do so, and SB1070 prevents local municipalities from outright refusing to cooperate with federal enforcement officials.
In other words, despite Judge Bolton’s ruling today, SB1070 is still a step in the right direction for Arizona.
Poll after poll shows consistent support from Americans who want an Arizona-style enforcement law passed in their own state. Today’s ruling has no impact on states that are proceeding with similar legislation. Arizona’s federal district court does not have jurisdiction over South Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Florida, so lawmakers in those states can cautiously proceed without concern.
What now?
Today’s ruling from Judge Bolton becomes moot if Congress passes the SAVE Act and the CLEAR Act. It’s unlikely for either bill to make its way to the House floor before the end of the 111th Congress in December. But both are expected to be reintroduced next year and could move forward with enough constituent pressure.
Check your Members’ Immigration-Reduction Report Cards and see if they’ve cosponsored the SAVE Act and CLEAR Act. If they haven’t, call their office and urge them to do so. You can also look on our grid of “5 Great Immigration Reduction Bills” and see if they’ve cosponsored SAVE, CLEAR, and three other key bills.
And finally, there are rumblings in the Senate that Majority Leader Harry Reid may try to bring the DREAM Act to the floor for a vote before they adjourn on August 9. We’ve posted new faxes on your Action Board to send to your Senators. With the fallout from Arizona, your elected officials will be much more sensitive to what their constituents are telling them.
We know you’re frustrated with today’s ruling. But there’s not much anyone can do about a court issued injunction from a federally appointed judge, so direct your frustrations towards things you can control. Make immigration enforcement a top election issue this fall and urge your current Members of Congress to cosponsor the SAVE Act and CLEAR Act!
In my estimation, if the Arizona anti illegal immigration law is preempted by federal law, then isn’t every state law written against drugs also preempted by federal statutes? Doesn’t this mean that every person convicted of pot possession via state laws have reason to appeal?
The judge played politics with the lives and safety of not only Arizona residents, but the entire country. While some Democrats see this as a win, I believe this is another nail in the Democrats coffin. Most Americans see this as another ‘we know better then you, we are going to do what we want” and the public be damned moment.
ABC15.com
PHOENIX – Reaction is pouring from around the world after a judge Wednesday blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona’s new immigration law from taking effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton shifts the immigration debate to the courts and sets up a lengthy legal battle that may not be decided until the Supreme Court weighs in.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said the state will likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge’s order overturned.
The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.
According to CNN, President Obama was briefed about the SB1070 ruling while on Air Force One, and is not expected to comment on it today.
He has only one scheduled public appearance this afternoon. He’s taping a segment for “The View” which airs tomorrow at 10am on ABC15.
We’ll all see if he reacts to the ruling when “The View” airs tomorrow.
Governor Brewer spoke out about the ruling in Tucson late Wednesday morning, calling it “a little bump in the road.”
She also said, “We knew regardless one side or the other would appeal…absolutely the federal government got relief from the courts,” adding that the federal government needed to step up and do its jobs.
In a Twitter post just after the ruling was posted, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard wrote, “Brewer played politics with immigration – and she lost.”
Protesters reacting to the news at the Arizona Capitol said planned marches and vigils will still take place tomorrow as planned.
Judge Bolton also put on hold a part 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.
Read reaction from officials about SB1070
Sections of S.B. 1070 that Bolton says are preempted by federal law include:
Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person
Section 3 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers
Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work
Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
Read the full ruling from Judge Bolton
In the ruling, Bolton wrote, “The Court…finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction.”
She also wrote, “There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law). 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 ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure.
At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.
The volume of the protests will be 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.
Bolton presided over two federal hearings last Thursday, including a request from the U.S. Justice Department for a preliminary injunction blocking key sections of the law from taking effect.
The federal government says the state law is trumped by federal law and that it has hurt U.S. relations with Mexico.
Lawyers for Governor Jan Brewer contend illegal immigration and a lack of comprehensive enforcement by the federal government has caused “crushing personal, environmental, criminal, and financial burdens” on Arizona.
American Patrol Report
Click here for the full PDF text.
Alia Beard Rau
The Arizona Republic
The U.S. attorney for Arizona doesn’t like the state’s new immigration law, and in fact, is part of the Department of Justice lawsuit challenging its legality. Dennis Burke says border enforcement is the better way to fight illegal immigration.
But while Burke’s office won’t play a role in the criminal prosecution of Senate Bill 1070 violators if the law goes into effect Thursday, he does expect his employees to be advocates for anyone who feels their rights were violated as part of its enforcement.
Supporters of the law say its wording prohibits racial profiling, while opponents say its ambiguity opens the door for the possibility that minorities will be targeted.
Arizona’s immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person’s legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Burke plans to use his civil-rights division to prosecute complaints of racial profiling stemming from the new law.
Burke’s office has no investigatory abilities, but he and his staff are encouraging anyone who believes their civil rights have been violated to contact the FBI at 602-279-5511. The FBI would investigate the allegations and then the U.S. Attorney’s Office could file federal charges against any individual or law-enforcement agency that discriminates based on race, color, sex, disability, religion or national origin.
Burke also is taking on the law itself. He works for Attorney General Eric Holder and is part of the Department of Justice, which was one of seven groups to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070. He was among the half-dozen federal attorneys at the table for last week’s court hearing and the only one Judge Susan Bolton greeted personally – even before acknowledging the presence of Gov. Jan Brewer.
‘I have the authority to bring any and all federal charges in the district of Arizona,’ Burke said. ‘My main task is to defend the federal government in court in Arizona.’
The Department of Justice asked Bolton to prevent the law from going into effect Thursday. Bolton has not yet issued a ruling.
Burke calls the law ‘unconstitutional, unworkable, unfunded and confusing.’ He agrees that the federal government needs to do more to combat illegal immigration. But he said SB 1070 is the wrong way for Arizona to respond and instead touts his office’s efforts.
He said there was a time when the office had to turn down cases that dealt with less than 500 pounds of marijuana or illegal immigrants without serious felony records trying to come back into the U.S. Not anymore, Burke said. He said he has added 11 prosecutors to the Tucson office in the past year to allow for more prosecution of border-enforcement and immigration cases.
He said his office has improved its relationship with Mexico, increasing the number of crime suspects extradited to the U.S., working more with Mexican officials on joint investigations and training Mexican prosecutors to better prosecute their own criminals. He said his office has also started paying more attention to the guns and money traveling from the U.S. to Mexico instead of just targeting drugs and people being trafficked in the opposite direction.
‘We’ve been confiscating millions of dollars in ways we haven’t done before,’ Burke said. ‘That, more than anything, takes out a drug cartel.’
Aliyah Shahid
New York Daily News
Jan Brewer has a message for President Obama: Give it up.
Attorneys for the Arizona governor asked a federal judge to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit that challenges the state’s controversial immigration law.
Brewer’s lawyers argued on Monday that the federal government has not proven that it has been harmed because of the law, and they insist the federal government’s claim is based on ‘hypothetical scenarios.’
Meanwhile, the White House claimed the federal law overrides the state law and that the legislation — although it doesn’t kick in until Thursday — already has damaged the country’s relationship with Mexico and has ‘crossed a constitutional line.’
Brewer’s lawyers contended that Mexico’s displeasure with the law does not make it unconstitutional.
The legislation has sparked protests by civil rights and religious groups. It mandates that immigrants carry documentation of their status. It also requires police to question people about their immigration status if the cops have ‘reasonable suspicion.’
Critics say the law could lead to racial profiling. Supporters argue the law is necessary because the federal government hasn’t done enough to curb illegal immigration.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton is contemplating putting the law on hold after the Justice Department, an Arizona cop and civil rights groups filed complaints.
According to MSNBC, it is unclear when Bolton might issue a ruling.
|
|
Loading ...
Recent Comments