What a state. Where the winter population increases with the decrease from every other state North of Arizona and the flight out of Canada and Europe to places warmer - Arizona.
To live in a land of cold for eight months of the year - already says something about he Snow Birds who flock to Arizona.
Then for the millions who call it home year round - imagine having to go outside at 3am to do yard work in the summer so you can be back inside before the temperature rises to 110. You hibernate all day and poke your head out at 10pm when the temperature is hovering at a cool 99 degrees.
And those people choose to be in Arizona. Says something.
They have interesting laws and even more interesting people, including their share of psychotic killers.
Now they want to pass a law requiring both certificates be shown by any and all candidates running for office. This is a direct reach for Obama's birth certificate.
I do not much care for the man - as far as I believe he is one of the worst presidents in our history and bad for the world - however, these people who chase this idiotic idea that he was not born here ... I would rather Jean Chretien or Sarkozy was our President - I'd even prefer Putin ... but I am rational enough to accept that he was born here and the case is firmly closed on the issue.
Chase your tail or a muffler going down the street ... I wish they all would. He is not a good president, but he satisfies the requirement - beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you have a lot of free time on your hands and can't figure out what to do.
Arizona.
arizona
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Federal Government Reports Arizona to the UN
Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law
Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 27, 10:57 pm ET
PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Arizona
Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 27, 10:57 pm ET
PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Arizona
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Of illegal immigration, laws, and lawsuits
There are so many problems with this story and I would like to highlight a few.
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
By Jerry Seper
Washington Times
Monday, February 9, 2009
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
[Destruction of property - something the Founding Fathers Frowned Upon More than Almost Anything Else - for it is nothing less than theft, stealing someone elses property when it is destroyed. Stealing trucks - in the 19th century you would be hung for stealing a horse or taking someones property. If you snuck into Barnett's home at night and he shot you, he would be justified under all the laws of the US (at present). Yet thousands of illegals, who are violating federal laws, state laws, county laws - they get to do these deeds without fear of punishment, for if they are found, they are deported, not tried for the destruction of property.]
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
[From this article, and it is only this article I can go by - he saw a group of 16 individuals who had just broken federal, state, and county laws - he stopped them, showed them a badge of some sort, which they didn't understand because they didn't understand English, brandished a shotgun/rifle and a handgun, he told them his dog was hungry for buttocks (in English and Spanish) which they understood and feared he would unleash the dog, cowering on the ground in fear, and he kicked a woman, and held them at gunpoint so they could not run away into the US (which would, I would think be a violation of federal, state, and county law if he did) by threatening to shoot them if they fled.
They went on his property in violation of county and state laws, violated federal law by entering the US illegally, violated several county laws during the crossing of the property, threatened the safety of Barnett and his family by their continued crossing, threatened the well-being of his business with their continued crossing, fully aware that Mexican drug cartels aided illegals in crossing, and occasionally used armed coyotes or armed soldiers to get them across the border, aware that many stories have circulated, some taken seriously by the Department of Homeland Security of males of Middle Eastern background crossing into the US from Mexico, with the 2001 attack on the US always on his mind, never sure who may be part of the group he stops on any given day - he did what he did.]
So, what was the conclusion of this case ....
Mixed verdict for Roger Barnett Trial
Immigration Clearinghouse
The website owners have the following to say about who and what they are:
Immigration Clearinghouse is a Pro-Reform Action Group working for logical immigration reform and pushing back and countering the hateful rhetoric of the radical right
Roger Barnett of Arizona, the border vigilante, must pay $78,000 to four immigrants after holding them at gunpoint, a jury found, but he was cleared of violating their civil rights.
This is about right coming from a state where a small majority of the population, think they speak for the majority, and any crime against a hispanic is viewed as perfectly acceptable by juries in this State.
[The article was written by someone who, unlikely an American, doesn't write well at all, nor do they think logically - which is a problem given their mission statement.
A small majority of the population think they speak for the majority - is a confusing statement, but a better way to express this is, a MAJORITY of the state does not support illegal Mexicans or anyone illegal crossing into Arizona nor does the MAJORITY support the federal government on legalizing the illegals. You cannot count all the illegals in Arizona as a component of the population when considering electoral issues. If you have 2 million illegals in Arizona and 3 million legals, of which 40% of the 3 million are Mexican by birth or heritage and 80% of those side with the 2 million, which would take the number to at least 800,000 plus 2 million = A MAJORITY. Except this majority does not get to dictate to the LEGAL majority what the laws should be nor what should be allowed. You do not get to overwhelm a population by sheer number and then claim a majority. That is not how this country has worked, NOR is it how Mexico has ever worked (not that Mexico works but)].
This is one example. Roger Barnett has a long history of confronting trespassers on his ranch property in Southern Arizona, something he is perfectly within his rights to do.
However, those rights do not include kicking defenseless women cowering on the ground in front of him while being forced to listen to the tirade of racist filth spewing from his lips.
[No, no law permits kicking women. The law however does not prohibit anyone from saying anything to anyone else - so he can sit there all day and spew out hateful slogans and the law does not have any say in whether it is legal or not. You were not paying attention to the decision. You were paying attention to the defense argument, but that again is irrelevant once the decision is reach and then what is important is not all the exaggerated claims, but how they reached the decision. Given that they had consorted with coyotes, paid upwards of $7,000 US to cross into the US illegally, crossed a hot and desolate land where they could easily have died with their diapers on - a man cussing at them doesn't seem so serious. When you look at everything objectively.]
Nor do he have the right to threaten to turn lose trained attack surs on those he apprehends.
[No, the law does not give you the right to threaten that either. Bad, and he should be punished for that. Scaring people. Versus violations of county, state, and federal laws going UNPUNISHED.]
Arizona law does not give him the rights to flash a phony badge at those detained, a badge that looks suspiciously like an official Arizona law enforcement badge, especially at those who are ignorant of it’s value.
[Again, true - if he implied or otherwise held himself out to be a law enforcement officer, he should be held for this and be punished to the fullest extent possible - a criminal offense, not civil. However, if these 16 people are ignorant of the badge and its value, and they didn't know what it looked like, yet they saw it close enough to notice it looked like an Arizona law enforcement badge ... you just have to say this really smells. if you saw a badge from a distance of 15-20 feet, could you identify it - a large dog foaming at the mouth, tired, a gun pointed at you by a man cussing and kicking women, you would take the time to notice in that brief moment some indication it was an Arizona badge - and yet you had no problem breaking the laws of the US and Arizona. There are 16 of you and 1 of him and he should not have pointed his weapon at you, nor should he have brought his large dog with him. YOU just paid a coyote upwards of $7000 to cross, a coyote who works for a drug cartel that has kidnapped thousands of illegals each year, murdered hundreds more, crossed a desert and beat the elements of nature and you are afraid of a dog. You should not be too surprised I simply do not believe you.]
In interviews after the verdict, Barnett claims he was merely “discussing calmly” the breach of the law by those caught trespassing, and seeing a woman who appeared non responsive, he touched her with his toe.
However, testimony in Court suggested, Barnett kicked this woman hard enough to break a religious figurine she had in her rucksack.
[He was informing the 16 individuals who had violated County, State, and Federal laws what they had done and what he was about to do, when one of the women, unable to understand him speaking English found something else to stare at (other than the terrifying dog they were all fearful of - I know when I see a terrifying dog I turn my back to it), he kicked her, not like you'd kick a door in, but probably like you'd boot or kick or push a rock over to see what was under it. As for that broken figurine of the Holy Mother, she paid a coyote $7000, traversed land controlled by a drug cartel that randomly murders people, crossed a desert through gullies, ditches, hills ... and in that process she broke her figurine. But hey, why not blame Barnett.]
Barnett claims he “holstered his weapon” upon seeing the group was unarmed. Again, testimony suggested that contrary to this, Barnett continued to wave his weapons, pointing them randomly at the group while calmly ranting about “Fucking Mexicans” and “how he was going to sic his dogs on their ass if they moved”.
[His dogs? or his dog. We have already been told he had a handgun and a rifle/shotgun. He would not - a reasonable person would not, keep a handgun and a rifle in each hand - it simply does not work well. Perhaps in Mexico they do this when they are executing large numbers of people so hey can shoot the ones who are running away, but typically this doesn't work well. He noticed they were unarmed, and shouldered his rifle while holding the handgun. As for waving it about ... if your safety is on and your finger is not on the trigger - waving it or painting with it wouldn't make much difference.]
Sheriff’s deputies confirmed the latter version of events.
So once again, in Arizona, crimes against Hispanics flourish and rights are routinely violated under color of law.
[And once again Mexicans routinly violate state and federal laws placing private homeowners in jeopardy for their lives.]
We all remember the case of Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett who murdered in cold blood, a migrant who was on his knees before the agent surrendering, when Corbett shot him in the side, killing him instantly, in front of three witnesses.
Despite eyewitness testimony, forensic and ballistic evidence proving the prosecutions case, Corbett walked not once, but twice, due to mistrials. The result of Arizona jurors not doing their sworn duty, as was the case in this trial.
[The problems began with the Mexicans paying a drug cartel thousands of dollars. Fortunately they were not slaughtered as was the case for 72 illegals who were discovered in a mass grave - killed by a coyotes or the drug cartel or one and the same.]
I would suggest your indignation be focused where it should be or you forfeit teh right to be indignant and become an accomplice to the murder ot the 72 and so many more.]
Mexicao
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
By Jerry Seper
Washington Times
Monday, February 9, 2009
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
[Destruction of property - something the Founding Fathers Frowned Upon More than Almost Anything Else - for it is nothing less than theft, stealing someone elses property when it is destroyed. Stealing trucks - in the 19th century you would be hung for stealing a horse or taking someones property. If you snuck into Barnett's home at night and he shot you, he would be justified under all the laws of the US (at present). Yet thousands of illegals, who are violating federal laws, state laws, county laws - they get to do these deeds without fear of punishment, for if they are found, they are deported, not tried for the destruction of property.]
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
[From this article, and it is only this article I can go by - he saw a group of 16 individuals who had just broken federal, state, and county laws - he stopped them, showed them a badge of some sort, which they didn't understand because they didn't understand English, brandished a shotgun/rifle and a handgun, he told them his dog was hungry for buttocks (in English and Spanish) which they understood and feared he would unleash the dog, cowering on the ground in fear, and he kicked a woman, and held them at gunpoint so they could not run away into the US (which would, I would think be a violation of federal, state, and county law if he did) by threatening to shoot them if they fled.
They went on his property in violation of county and state laws, violated federal law by entering the US illegally, violated several county laws during the crossing of the property, threatened the safety of Barnett and his family by their continued crossing, threatened the well-being of his business with their continued crossing, fully aware that Mexican drug cartels aided illegals in crossing, and occasionally used armed coyotes or armed soldiers to get them across the border, aware that many stories have circulated, some taken seriously by the Department of Homeland Security of males of Middle Eastern background crossing into the US from Mexico, with the 2001 attack on the US always on his mind, never sure who may be part of the group he stops on any given day - he did what he did.]
So, what was the conclusion of this case ....
Mixed verdict for Roger Barnett Trial
Immigration Clearinghouse
The website owners have the following to say about who and what they are:
Immigration Clearinghouse is a Pro-Reform Action Group working for logical immigration reform and pushing back and countering the hateful rhetoric of the radical right
Roger Barnett of Arizona, the border vigilante, must pay $78,000 to four immigrants after holding them at gunpoint, a jury found, but he was cleared of violating their civil rights.
This is about right coming from a state where a small majority of the population, think they speak for the majority, and any crime against a hispanic is viewed as perfectly acceptable by juries in this State.
[The article was written by someone who, unlikely an American, doesn't write well at all, nor do they think logically - which is a problem given their mission statement.
A small majority of the population think they speak for the majority - is a confusing statement, but a better way to express this is, a MAJORITY of the state does not support illegal Mexicans or anyone illegal crossing into Arizona nor does the MAJORITY support the federal government on legalizing the illegals. You cannot count all the illegals in Arizona as a component of the population when considering electoral issues. If you have 2 million illegals in Arizona and 3 million legals, of which 40% of the 3 million are Mexican by birth or heritage and 80% of those side with the 2 million, which would take the number to at least 800,000 plus 2 million = A MAJORITY. Except this majority does not get to dictate to the LEGAL majority what the laws should be nor what should be allowed. You do not get to overwhelm a population by sheer number and then claim a majority. That is not how this country has worked, NOR is it how Mexico has ever worked (not that Mexico works but)].
This is one example. Roger Barnett has a long history of confronting trespassers on his ranch property in Southern Arizona, something he is perfectly within his rights to do.
However, those rights do not include kicking defenseless women cowering on the ground in front of him while being forced to listen to the tirade of racist filth spewing from his lips.
[No, no law permits kicking women. The law however does not prohibit anyone from saying anything to anyone else - so he can sit there all day and spew out hateful slogans and the law does not have any say in whether it is legal or not. You were not paying attention to the decision. You were paying attention to the defense argument, but that again is irrelevant once the decision is reach and then what is important is not all the exaggerated claims, but how they reached the decision. Given that they had consorted with coyotes, paid upwards of $7,000 US to cross into the US illegally, crossed a hot and desolate land where they could easily have died with their diapers on - a man cussing at them doesn't seem so serious. When you look at everything objectively.]
Nor do he have the right to threaten to turn lose trained attack surs on those he apprehends.
[No, the law does not give you the right to threaten that either. Bad, and he should be punished for that. Scaring people. Versus violations of county, state, and federal laws going UNPUNISHED.]
Arizona law does not give him the rights to flash a phony badge at those detained, a badge that looks suspiciously like an official Arizona law enforcement badge, especially at those who are ignorant of it’s value.
[Again, true - if he implied or otherwise held himself out to be a law enforcement officer, he should be held for this and be punished to the fullest extent possible - a criminal offense, not civil. However, if these 16 people are ignorant of the badge and its value, and they didn't know what it looked like, yet they saw it close enough to notice it looked like an Arizona law enforcement badge ... you just have to say this really smells. if you saw a badge from a distance of 15-20 feet, could you identify it - a large dog foaming at the mouth, tired, a gun pointed at you by a man cussing and kicking women, you would take the time to notice in that brief moment some indication it was an Arizona badge - and yet you had no problem breaking the laws of the US and Arizona. There are 16 of you and 1 of him and he should not have pointed his weapon at you, nor should he have brought his large dog with him. YOU just paid a coyote upwards of $7000 to cross, a coyote who works for a drug cartel that has kidnapped thousands of illegals each year, murdered hundreds more, crossed a desert and beat the elements of nature and you are afraid of a dog. You should not be too surprised I simply do not believe you.]
In interviews after the verdict, Barnett claims he was merely “discussing calmly” the breach of the law by those caught trespassing, and seeing a woman who appeared non responsive, he touched her with his toe.
However, testimony in Court suggested, Barnett kicked this woman hard enough to break a religious figurine she had in her rucksack.
[He was informing the 16 individuals who had violated County, State, and Federal laws what they had done and what he was about to do, when one of the women, unable to understand him speaking English found something else to stare at (other than the terrifying dog they were all fearful of - I know when I see a terrifying dog I turn my back to it), he kicked her, not like you'd kick a door in, but probably like you'd boot or kick or push a rock over to see what was under it. As for that broken figurine of the Holy Mother, she paid a coyote $7000, traversed land controlled by a drug cartel that randomly murders people, crossed a desert through gullies, ditches, hills ... and in that process she broke her figurine. But hey, why not blame Barnett.]
Barnett claims he “holstered his weapon” upon seeing the group was unarmed. Again, testimony suggested that contrary to this, Barnett continued to wave his weapons, pointing them randomly at the group while calmly ranting about “Fucking Mexicans” and “how he was going to sic his dogs on their ass if they moved”.
[His dogs? or his dog. We have already been told he had a handgun and a rifle/shotgun. He would not - a reasonable person would not, keep a handgun and a rifle in each hand - it simply does not work well. Perhaps in Mexico they do this when they are executing large numbers of people so hey can shoot the ones who are running away, but typically this doesn't work well. He noticed they were unarmed, and shouldered his rifle while holding the handgun. As for waving it about ... if your safety is on and your finger is not on the trigger - waving it or painting with it wouldn't make much difference.]
Sheriff’s deputies confirmed the latter version of events.
So once again, in Arizona, crimes against Hispanics flourish and rights are routinely violated under color of law.
[And once again Mexicans routinly violate state and federal laws placing private homeowners in jeopardy for their lives.]
We all remember the case of Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett who murdered in cold blood, a migrant who was on his knees before the agent surrendering, when Corbett shot him in the side, killing him instantly, in front of three witnesses.
Despite eyewitness testimony, forensic and ballistic evidence proving the prosecutions case, Corbett walked not once, but twice, due to mistrials. The result of Arizona jurors not doing their sworn duty, as was the case in this trial.
[The problems began with the Mexicans paying a drug cartel thousands of dollars. Fortunately they were not slaughtered as was the case for 72 illegals who were discovered in a mass grave - killed by a coyotes or the drug cartel or one and the same.]
I would suggest your indignation be focused where it should be or you forfeit teh right to be indignant and become an accomplice to the murder ot the 72 and so many more.]
Mexicao
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Arizona and Illegal Immigration
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal immigrant law defense
May 28, 2010
11:22 pm
The Los Angeles Times
A sudden new twist in the ongoing rhetorical and legal struggle over Arizona's tough new law to round up illegal immigrants.
Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state's Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop.
The governor's abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall's gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation's capital.
As the state's chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against....
...challenges to the Legislature's action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government's inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.
However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.
On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.
Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."
Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.
Her statement (full text below) said:
Due to Attorney General Goddard’s curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona’s new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration laws.
Despite widespread criticism in the media and the Obama administration, whose officials including Holder admitted they had not actually read the legislation, numerous polls have shown deep support for the measure nationally and within Arizona.
And that approval has transferred over to Brewer, who was trailing Goddard early this year in polls of a hypothetical matchup come Nov. 2. Brewer inherited the governor's office last year when Janet Napolitano resigned to accept the man-caused nomination of Homeland Security secretary from President Obama.
[To read the full text, or related articles, click on the title link]
arizona
May 28, 2010
11:22 pm
The Los Angeles Times
A sudden new twist in the ongoing rhetorical and legal struggle over Arizona's tough new law to round up illegal immigrants.
Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state's Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop.
The governor's abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall's gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation's capital.
As the state's chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against....
...challenges to the Legislature's action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government's inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.
However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.
On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.
Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."
Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.
Her statement (full text below) said:
Due to Attorney General Goddard’s curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona’s new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration laws.
Despite widespread criticism in the media and the Obama administration, whose officials including Holder admitted they had not actually read the legislation, numerous polls have shown deep support for the measure nationally and within Arizona.
And that approval has transferred over to Brewer, who was trailing Goddard early this year in polls of a hypothetical matchup come Nov. 2. Brewer inherited the governor's office last year when Janet Napolitano resigned to accept the man-caused nomination of Homeland Security secretary from President Obama.
[To read the full text, or related articles, click on the title link]
arizona
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Federal Government has Now Acknowledged it will Not Uphold Federal Law
So let me get this correct - the federal government may not process any illegals Arizona catches. The federal government will violate the laws of the federal government, the laws of the United States because .... Amazing.
FOXNews.com
- May 21, 2010
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.
"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.
Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Arizona
FOXNews.com
- May 21, 2010
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.
"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.
Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Arizona
Mexico and Arizona
Calderon urges U.S. to reinstate assault weapons ban
May 20, 2010
(Reuters) - Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the U.S. Congress on Thursday to reinstate a ban on assault weapons to help cut cross-border gun smuggling and reduce drug gang violence for its southern neighbor.
U.S.
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.
Washington is also aiding Mexico's battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.
The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.
"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
SEIZING GUNS
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
"I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban," he said.
Though Calderon's request received applause and a standing ovation from mainly Democratic lawmakers, Republicans criticized the Mexican leader for discussing U.S. laws.
"It was inappropriate for President Calderon to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws," said Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Republican leadership. "Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation."
On immigration -- a common theme during his visit to Washington -- Calderon said his country was trying to improve economic conditions so Mexicans would not feel the need to leave their country in order to succeed.
He said Mexico expected more than 4 percent growth this year, even though data released on Thursday showed the economy shrank quarter-on-quarter in the first quarter of this year.
Millions of people are still crossing the U.S. border illegally to seek work. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, most of them from Mexico and Central America.
Calderon repeated his opposition to a new Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
"We must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem," he said.
[Reuters summarized a speech in one sentence and yet missed out some good bits, such as: this new law, when he referred to Arizona. It is not new - it is simply enforcing laws already on the books.]
stupid people
May 20, 2010
(Reuters) - Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the U.S. Congress on Thursday to reinstate a ban on assault weapons to help cut cross-border gun smuggling and reduce drug gang violence for its southern neighbor.
U.S.
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.
Washington is also aiding Mexico's battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.
The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.
"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
SEIZING GUNS
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
"I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban," he said.
Though Calderon's request received applause and a standing ovation from mainly Democratic lawmakers, Republicans criticized the Mexican leader for discussing U.S. laws.
"It was inappropriate for President Calderon to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws," said Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Republican leadership. "Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation."
On immigration -- a common theme during his visit to Washington -- Calderon said his country was trying to improve economic conditions so Mexicans would not feel the need to leave their country in order to succeed.
He said Mexico expected more than 4 percent growth this year, even though data released on Thursday showed the economy shrank quarter-on-quarter in the first quarter of this year.
Millions of people are still crossing the U.S. border illegally to seek work. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, most of them from Mexico and Central America.
Calderon repeated his opposition to a new Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
"We must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem," he said.
[Reuters summarized a speech in one sentence and yet missed out some good bits, such as: this new law, when he referred to Arizona. It is not new - it is simply enforcing laws already on the books.]
stupid people
Monday, May 17, 2010
Illegal Immigratnt Costs: Arizona
Cost of Illegal Immigration Rising Rapidly in Arizona, Study Finds
By Ed Barnes
- FOXNews.com
Updated May 17, 2010
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.
FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.
FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.
Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.
(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)
Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.
“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”
He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.
He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.
”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.
Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.
“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”
Arizona
By Ed Barnes
- FOXNews.com
Updated May 17, 2010
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.
FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.
FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.
Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.
(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)
Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.
“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”
He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.
He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.
”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.
Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.
“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”
Arizona
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Arizona Crimes: Who has the right?
Crime riles Arizonans bent on immigration crackdown
Tim Gaynor
MESA, Arizona
Thu May 6, 2010 10:31am EDT
(Reuters) - Following a tip, a police SWAT team closed off the street, put a school on lock-down and then burst through the door of a shabby house where dozens of illegal immigrants were sheltering.
The sheriff's deputies caught three men who took off running and arrested 24 people they suspected of being illegal immigrants recently arrived from Mexico.
"There were fire and police people going back and forth, the road closed off ... It was chaotic," said Virginia Mongold, who watched the operation unfold on Monday, the 56th such raid in the Phoenix valley this year.
Illegal immigration and border-related crime have residents like Mongold and their elected officials riled enough that Arizona passed the United States' toughest immigration law last month -- unleashing a fiery debate over crime, racial profiling and policing that reverberated far beyond the state's borders.
The law seeks to drive illegal immigrants from the desert state, the principal corridor for unauthorized migrants entering the country from Mexico, and a busy entry point for Mexican cartels smuggling drugs to a voracious U.S. market.
Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer charges the federal government has failed in its duty to secure the border with Mexico, and says the state law is needed to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.
As examples of border-related crime, Brewer singled out "drop houses," where smugglers routinely beat migrants to get their money for guiding them over the rugged border, as well as kidnappings linked to the drug trade.
"There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona," she said. "We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of the drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."
'MIGHT AS WELL BE MEXICO'
Almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and a majority of voters nationwide agree with her and support the law, polls show.
But as border crime grabs headlines in Arizona and beyond, U.S. government figures show that arrests on the Arizona-Mexico border have been falling since 2000. Violent and property crimes across the desert state have also declined, suggesting the picture is not as dire as Brewer claims.
In the sleepy street in Mesa where the police carried out their raid, residents grappled with their feelings about illegal immigration and border crime -- who is to blame for it and the best way to respond to it.
Mongold, a young mother who works at a small packaging store nearby, backs the law and blames Washington for failing to secure the border and stem illegal immigration from Mexico.
"I'm angry, I'm frustrated, I might as well be in Mexico there's so many of them," she said, referring to the 460,000 illegal immigrants estimated to live and work in the state, many as day laborers, landscapers, maids and restaurant cooks.
At the Mesa Preparatory Academy, which police locked down in the recent raid, principal Robert Wagner was more cautious about the threat posed by crime and immigration.
"It's somewhat disconcerting that it's going on in our neighborhood, but I don't believe that we are living or operating in fear," he said, choosing his words carefully.
"It is important to look at the facts before drawing a conclusion, and that's part of what we teach in this school." He declined to say whether he supported the law.
The Arizona state law catapulted immigration back to the forefront of U.S. politics and piled pressure on President Barack Obama to deliver on an election promise to Hispanics to overhaul immigration laws and create a path to citizenship for the country's estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants.
Obama said on Wednesday he wanted to begin work on immigration reform this year and that federal officials would mintor the new law in Arizona for civil rights implications.
Local law enforcement agencies in Arizona are divided over the measure, which requires state and local police to arrest those unable to provide proof they are in the country legally.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik from the southern county of Pima, slammed it as "unnecessary ... a travesty, and most significantly ... unconstitutional."
The view echoed misgivings by Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris who said that determining immigration status detracted from the main job of curbing violent and property crimes.
The tough law is set to come into effect in late July, but faces legal challenges from a variety of plaintiffs, including police officers, civil rights groups and city councils.
****************************************
from another Reuters article:
Polls show the measure has the backing of almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and majority support nationwide. The law has prompted legal challenges and hurled immigration back on the front burner of U.S. politics in this volatile election year.
'NO PLACE FOR BIGOTRY'
"Laws that make suspects out of people for no other reason than the color of their skin have no place in our country," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Mexican-American, told marchers packing into the city center.
"We must show that bigotry has no place in the United States of America," added Villaraigosa, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful Hispanics in U.S. politics.
Invoking race much? No, there are by some estimates nearly 500,000 illegals in Arizona. Of the nearly 500,000 somewhere around 490,000 are from ... here are some choices: a) Canada, b) Sweden, c) Denmark, d) Russia, e) Mexico ??? Take your time, we can wait. So, if you were looking for illegals from choices A through C, you would have to check ALL white residents. However, because we know that 95+% are from Mexico, we can narrow our search, make it more focused, and not open it to every person who appears to be Mexican, just those who are stopped on any average typical and usual day. Why not. It is not bigotry nor is it hateful - it is realistic and reasonable. OR we could simply require EVERY citizen to be asked at the time they are stopped. If that is preferable, perhaps we should go down that road. It is your choice.
Kellie Morrell, a waitress at a New York City restaurant that she said employs several illegal immigrants, was among a few thousand activists who took to the streets of New York.
"They work really hard and they deserve to not have to live in fear of arrest or being thrown into prison, or even worse," she said.
She is a stellar example of people who should not breed. So these illegals in Arizona - the police stop them for a crime, and ask for ID ... they are arrested for the crime, and being illegal, and will be deported UNLESS the crime is serious in which case we will pay over 40,000 a year to store them. If it is minor, we will deport them with a free bus or plane ticket back to Mexico. FEAR of being arrested? If you are illegal. Thrown into prison - draconian. One reason they want to reduce the number is to reduce the number of illegals in the prison system - NOT increase it. OR EVEN WORSE? As in, killing them, as they do in Mexico if you are an illegal from Guatemala or elsewhere - and that is the police, forget about anyone not involved in law enforcement.
arizona
Tim Gaynor
MESA, Arizona
Thu May 6, 2010 10:31am EDT
(Reuters) - Following a tip, a police SWAT team closed off the street, put a school on lock-down and then burst through the door of a shabby house where dozens of illegal immigrants were sheltering.
The sheriff's deputies caught three men who took off running and arrested 24 people they suspected of being illegal immigrants recently arrived from Mexico.
"There were fire and police people going back and forth, the road closed off ... It was chaotic," said Virginia Mongold, who watched the operation unfold on Monday, the 56th such raid in the Phoenix valley this year.
Illegal immigration and border-related crime have residents like Mongold and their elected officials riled enough that Arizona passed the United States' toughest immigration law last month -- unleashing a fiery debate over crime, racial profiling and policing that reverberated far beyond the state's borders.
The law seeks to drive illegal immigrants from the desert state, the principal corridor for unauthorized migrants entering the country from Mexico, and a busy entry point for Mexican cartels smuggling drugs to a voracious U.S. market.
Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer charges the federal government has failed in its duty to secure the border with Mexico, and says the state law is needed to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.
As examples of border-related crime, Brewer singled out "drop houses," where smugglers routinely beat migrants to get their money for guiding them over the rugged border, as well as kidnappings linked to the drug trade.
"There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona," she said. "We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of the drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."
'MIGHT AS WELL BE MEXICO'
Almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and a majority of voters nationwide agree with her and support the law, polls show.
But as border crime grabs headlines in Arizona and beyond, U.S. government figures show that arrests on the Arizona-Mexico border have been falling since 2000. Violent and property crimes across the desert state have also declined, suggesting the picture is not as dire as Brewer claims.
In the sleepy street in Mesa where the police carried out their raid, residents grappled with their feelings about illegal immigration and border crime -- who is to blame for it and the best way to respond to it.
Mongold, a young mother who works at a small packaging store nearby, backs the law and blames Washington for failing to secure the border and stem illegal immigration from Mexico.
"I'm angry, I'm frustrated, I might as well be in Mexico there's so many of them," she said, referring to the 460,000 illegal immigrants estimated to live and work in the state, many as day laborers, landscapers, maids and restaurant cooks.
At the Mesa Preparatory Academy, which police locked down in the recent raid, principal Robert Wagner was more cautious about the threat posed by crime and immigration.
"It's somewhat disconcerting that it's going on in our neighborhood, but I don't believe that we are living or operating in fear," he said, choosing his words carefully.
"It is important to look at the facts before drawing a conclusion, and that's part of what we teach in this school." He declined to say whether he supported the law.
The Arizona state law catapulted immigration back to the forefront of U.S. politics and piled pressure on President Barack Obama to deliver on an election promise to Hispanics to overhaul immigration laws and create a path to citizenship for the country's estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants.
Obama said on Wednesday he wanted to begin work on immigration reform this year and that federal officials would mintor the new law in Arizona for civil rights implications.
Local law enforcement agencies in Arizona are divided over the measure, which requires state and local police to arrest those unable to provide proof they are in the country legally.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik from the southern county of Pima, slammed it as "unnecessary ... a travesty, and most significantly ... unconstitutional."
The view echoed misgivings by Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris who said that determining immigration status detracted from the main job of curbing violent and property crimes.
The tough law is set to come into effect in late July, but faces legal challenges from a variety of plaintiffs, including police officers, civil rights groups and city councils.
****************************************
from another Reuters article:
Polls show the measure has the backing of almost two-thirds of Arizona voters and majority support nationwide. The law has prompted legal challenges and hurled immigration back on the front burner of U.S. politics in this volatile election year.
'NO PLACE FOR BIGOTRY'
"Laws that make suspects out of people for no other reason than the color of their skin have no place in our country," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Mexican-American, told marchers packing into the city center.
"We must show that bigotry has no place in the United States of America," added Villaraigosa, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful Hispanics in U.S. politics.
Invoking race much? No, there are by some estimates nearly 500,000 illegals in Arizona. Of the nearly 500,000 somewhere around 490,000 are from ... here are some choices: a) Canada, b) Sweden, c) Denmark, d) Russia, e) Mexico ??? Take your time, we can wait. So, if you were looking for illegals from choices A through C, you would have to check ALL white residents. However, because we know that 95+% are from Mexico, we can narrow our search, make it more focused, and not open it to every person who appears to be Mexican, just those who are stopped on any average typical and usual day. Why not. It is not bigotry nor is it hateful - it is realistic and reasonable. OR we could simply require EVERY citizen to be asked at the time they are stopped. If that is preferable, perhaps we should go down that road. It is your choice.
Kellie Morrell, a waitress at a New York City restaurant that she said employs several illegal immigrants, was among a few thousand activists who took to the streets of New York.
"They work really hard and they deserve to not have to live in fear of arrest or being thrown into prison, or even worse," she said.
She is a stellar example of people who should not breed. So these illegals in Arizona - the police stop them for a crime, and ask for ID ... they are arrested for the crime, and being illegal, and will be deported UNLESS the crime is serious in which case we will pay over 40,000 a year to store them. If it is minor, we will deport them with a free bus or plane ticket back to Mexico. FEAR of being arrested? If you are illegal. Thrown into prison - draconian. One reason they want to reduce the number is to reduce the number of illegals in the prison system - NOT increase it. OR EVEN WORSE? As in, killing them, as they do in Mexico if you are an illegal from Guatemala or elsewhere - and that is the police, forget about anyone not involved in law enforcement.
arizona
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Mexican government is in a tizzy over the new laws in Arizona.
As I stated in a previous post, Mexico has more problems than an accountant could accurately count.
Yet, their Foreign Ministry thought it urgent enough to comment on.
Mexico Issues Travel Warning for Arizona Over Law (Update2)
By Jonathan J. Levin and Catherine Dodge
Bloomberg
April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Mexicans in Arizona should carry documentation and “act carefully” after the state passed a law requiring local police to determine the immigration status of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said.
The ministry said the warning is directed toward Mexicans living, studying or planning to travel to the southwestern U.S. state, which shares a border with northern Mexico, according to the e-mailed statement sent today. It comes as members of U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration said they have concerns about the new law and may seek to overturn it in court.
“There is an adverse political environment for migrant communities and all Mexican visitors,” Mexico’s ministry said. “It’s important to act carefully and respect the local laws.”
The Arizona law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation. The state has an estimated 460,000 residents living there illegally, the seventh highest total in the country, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Opponents say it will lead to discrimination and racial profiling by law enforcement authorities. [Let's see - racial profiling, 99% of illegal aliens in Arizona come from ... and so, if I ask only Hispanic people for their state ID, why is that racial profiling, it is in fact, preventing abuse because it delimits the search to the groups under question, not to random sorts who happen to be driving through Arizona, on a trip from Bulgaria.]
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who is running for re- election, signed the bill into law on April 23, saying it would address problems of violence along the border with Mexico and crime due to illegal immigration while protecting individual rights.
‘Murderous Greed’
“We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels,” Brewer said. “We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during congressional testimony in Washington today that her agency has “deep concerns” about the law and that it will “detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the Justice Department may go to court to challenge the statue.
The law, which goes into effect 90 days after the Arizona legislative session ends, states that police must investigate if they have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is undocumented, according to Gabriel Chin, a professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Police officers may face lawsuits if they fail to do so, he added.
‘Angered and Saddened’
“It’s very hard for me to see how this law can be enforced without discrimination,” Chin said in a telephone interview today from Tucson. “It seems to be inevitable.”
Mexican President Felipe Calderon said April 26 that his country’s citizens are “angered and saddened” by the Arizona law, which he said “doesn’t adequately guarantee respect for people’s fundamental rights.”
About a quarter of Arizona’s 6.6 million residents are of Hispanic descent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Democratic Party leaders said last week that an overhaul of immigration law could advance through Congress this year if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can pick up enough support to muscle it through the Senate first, according to April 22 remarks by Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi told reporters that she will find the votes for the measure in the House -- where Democrats have 254 of 435 seats -- if the Senate can clear it.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been working with Democrats on an immigration overhaul, said rushing legislation this year would be a mistake because it doesn’t have the votes yet to pass.
“The worst thing we could do is bring up immigration reform and have it crash and burn politically,” he told Napolitano. “If immigration comes up this year, it’s absolutely devastating to the future of this issue.”
You want a story - how about those Guatemalans who sneak into Mexico to find work, illegally. They are lucky if they live. There are many cases where the Guatemalans are killed, by gangs or the police. They are rounded up, beaten, killed, or deported. There is widespread discrimination in Mexico against citizens from countries South of their border ... and we all know about these widespread abuses. Mexico forbids ownership of property by any non-Mexican citizen, specifically they must be born in Mexico to be eligible to own property - otherwise, they are simply renting for a period of time. And Arizona is the problem - where an illegal could be asked for papers and not beaten or bribed, where an illegal would be given a free ride home, returning to their home alive, and well.
Mexico
As I stated in a previous post, Mexico has more problems than an accountant could accurately count.
Yet, their Foreign Ministry thought it urgent enough to comment on.
Mexico Issues Travel Warning for Arizona Over Law (Update2)
By Jonathan J. Levin and Catherine Dodge
Bloomberg
April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Mexicans in Arizona should carry documentation and “act carefully” after the state passed a law requiring local police to determine the immigration status of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said.
The ministry said the warning is directed toward Mexicans living, studying or planning to travel to the southwestern U.S. state, which shares a border with northern Mexico, according to the e-mailed statement sent today. It comes as members of U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration said they have concerns about the new law and may seek to overturn it in court.
“There is an adverse political environment for migrant communities and all Mexican visitors,” Mexico’s ministry said. “It’s important to act carefully and respect the local laws.”
The Arizona law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation. The state has an estimated 460,000 residents living there illegally, the seventh highest total in the country, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Opponents say it will lead to discrimination and racial profiling by law enforcement authorities. [Let's see - racial profiling, 99% of illegal aliens in Arizona come from ... and so, if I ask only Hispanic people for their state ID, why is that racial profiling, it is in fact, preventing abuse because it delimits the search to the groups under question, not to random sorts who happen to be driving through Arizona, on a trip from Bulgaria.]
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who is running for re- election, signed the bill into law on April 23, saying it would address problems of violence along the border with Mexico and crime due to illegal immigration while protecting individual rights.
‘Murderous Greed’
“We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels,” Brewer said. “We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during congressional testimony in Washington today that her agency has “deep concerns” about the law and that it will “detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the Justice Department may go to court to challenge the statue.
The law, which goes into effect 90 days after the Arizona legislative session ends, states that police must investigate if they have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is undocumented, according to Gabriel Chin, a professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Police officers may face lawsuits if they fail to do so, he added.
‘Angered and Saddened’
“It’s very hard for me to see how this law can be enforced without discrimination,” Chin said in a telephone interview today from Tucson. “It seems to be inevitable.”
Mexican President Felipe Calderon said April 26 that his country’s citizens are “angered and saddened” by the Arizona law, which he said “doesn’t adequately guarantee respect for people’s fundamental rights.”
About a quarter of Arizona’s 6.6 million residents are of Hispanic descent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Democratic Party leaders said last week that an overhaul of immigration law could advance through Congress this year if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can pick up enough support to muscle it through the Senate first, according to April 22 remarks by Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi told reporters that she will find the votes for the measure in the House -- where Democrats have 254 of 435 seats -- if the Senate can clear it.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been working with Democrats on an immigration overhaul, said rushing legislation this year would be a mistake because it doesn’t have the votes yet to pass.
“The worst thing we could do is bring up immigration reform and have it crash and burn politically,” he told Napolitano. “If immigration comes up this year, it’s absolutely devastating to the future of this issue.”
You want a story - how about those Guatemalans who sneak into Mexico to find work, illegally. They are lucky if they live. There are many cases where the Guatemalans are killed, by gangs or the police. They are rounded up, beaten, killed, or deported. There is widespread discrimination in Mexico against citizens from countries South of their border ... and we all know about these widespread abuses. Mexico forbids ownership of property by any non-Mexican citizen, specifically they must be born in Mexico to be eligible to own property - otherwise, they are simply renting for a period of time. And Arizona is the problem - where an illegal could be asked for papers and not beaten or bribed, where an illegal would be given a free ride home, returning to their home alive, and well.
Mexico
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Law is the Law (unless you don't like it)
Mr. Obama, it is not reform when everyone becomes a legal resident (everyone who has a job and or been here for X period of time, and or ...). That is called - a free ticket.
All those powers not enumerated to the federal, are belonging to the states.
Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill
Paul Davenport And Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writers
April 23, 2010
PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's gateway for human and drug smugglers.
With hundreds of people surrounding the state Capitol, protesting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling. She said critics were "overreacting."
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."
Obama said earlier Friday that he's instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it's legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open 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," Obama said.
The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, 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 immigrants.
The bill takes effect 90 days after the legislative session ends in the next several weeks.
Demonstrators have been camped outside the Capitol since the measure passed out of the Legislature on Monday. Their numbers have grown steadily throughout the week, with buses bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.
Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen."
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who opposes the measure, said he's closing his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs.
The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."
Pearce said the legislation 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."
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.
immigration
All those powers not enumerated to the federal, are belonging to the states.
Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill
Paul Davenport And Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writers
April 23, 2010
PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's gateway for human and drug smugglers.
With hundreds of people surrounding the state Capitol, protesting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling. She said critics were "overreacting."
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."
Obama said earlier Friday that he's instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it's legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open 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," Obama said.
The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, 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 immigrants.
The bill takes effect 90 days after the legislative session ends in the next several weeks.
Demonstrators have been camped outside the Capitol since the measure passed out of the Legislature on Monday. Their numbers have grown steadily throughout the week, with buses bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.
Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen."
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who opposes the measure, said he's closing his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs.
The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."
Pearce said the legislation 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."
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.
immigration
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Liberia or the US
To be honest, I understand - no one likes anything thrown in their face every time they turn around. However, to be fair - our country, and the future is worth a little more than any one being annoyed that they get something thrown in their faces over and over.
We were told, regularly are told how we should bend to the will of the world - you know, bend over, and hug our neighbors, let them kick us in the face and walk all over us, because we are after all, no better than they are.
We all know what happens to women in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and the subjugation and oppression of women in Egypt and any number of other countries. We know how the minority homosexual community is treated - in nearly every Arab or Muslim state they are executed. We know how India treats the dalits. We know how China treats baby girls. We know how several Asian countries treat foreigners and dogs. We know how the Japanese have their own version of dalits in Japan, regularly discriminated against.
We know all this. We know how the Muslims in Sudan are trying hard to exterminate anyone who is not Muslim. We know this.
Yet some very simple, naive, and irresponsible people persist in the view that the US must oblige itself to all countries, bow down and beg forgiveness for eight years of Bush (even though Obama has actually doen more to damage relations than the US ever did under Bush).
We must all get along, that is true - we must work together when possible, but when not possible, we must move on our own. We must recognize that American culture and Western Civilization has provided the greatest opportunity for the freeing of man's mind and soul than any culture, civilization in the history of mankind.
Oldest boy in assault of girl to be tried as adult
by Amanda Lee Myers - Jul. 23, 2009
Associated Press
Prosecutors filed sexual assault charges against four boys ages 9 to 14, officials said Thursday, alleging they brutally attacked an 8-year-old girl after luring her to a shed with chewing gum.
Police said the girl's parents criticized her after the violence, blaming her for bringing shame on the family. All five children are refugees from the West African nation of Liberia.
The boys held the girl down while they took turns assaulting her, police said.
“She was brutally sexually assaulted for a period of about 10 to 15 minutes,” police Sgt. Andy Hill said, calling it one of the worst cases the department has investigated.
The 14-year-old boy was charged Wednesday as an adult with two counts of sexual assault and kidnapping, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said. He's being held without bond.
The other boys — ages 9, 10, and 13 — were charged as juveniles with sexual assault. The 10- and 13-year-old boys also were charged with kidnapping, the office said Thursday.
Authorities said the victim was in the care of Child Protective Services after her parents blamed her for the rapes and bringing shame to the family.
“The father told the case worker and an officer in her presence that he didn't want her back. He said Take her, I don't want her,'” Hill said.
Hill cited the family's background as the reason the family shunned the girl.
In many parts of Africa, women often are blamed for being raped for “enticing” men or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Girls who are raped often are shunned by their families.
In recent years, Liberia has made efforts to combat rape under the leadership of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who has sought to dispel the stigma associated with sexual assault by publicly acknowledging that she was herself the victim of attempted rape during the country's civil war.
Phoenix investigators said the boys lured the girl to an empty shed July 16 under the pretense of offering her chewing gum.
Officers responding to an emergency call reporting hysterical screams found the girl partially clothed and the boys running from the scene.
The boys were being held in a juvenile corrections facility.
“This is a deeply disturbing case that has gripped our community,” Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said in a news release Thursday. “Our office will seek justice for the young victim in this heartrending situation.”
The girl's healing process will be particularly difficult, said Paul Penzone of Childhelp, which aids young victims of crime.
“These four boys used what was a ploy to entice her to a place where they could take advantage of her almost like a pack of wolves,” he said.
“And what's so disturbing beyond the initial crime is the fact that a child needs to have somewhere to feel safe, and you would think that would be in a home with her own family,” not in state custody, Penzone said.
There are no words for this little girl, who one day ran to her father and laughed with him, talked to him about growing up, and now - has no family. Worse, she will be utterly destroyed by the state child system which chews up children and spit out alcoholics and drug addicts. Yet we are told that we should respect their culture and place it on an equal pedestal to our own.
Please.
Are you an inbred retard.
culture
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Obama: Threatens Senators
The way this White House operates.
White House turns up heat on Arizona senator
Jul 14, 2009
By JOAN LOWY
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is firing back at Sen. Jon Kyl for calling for an end to economic stimulus spending, and they're aiming for where it hurts the most - at home in Arizona.
The White House on Tuesday released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, citing Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way.
Kyl, the No. 2 Senate GOP leader, has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He's suggested on his Senate Web site and in interviews that spending not already allocated be halted.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his needling.
Kyl "publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently under way," LaHood wrote Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.
"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.
"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."
Kyl didn't immediately reply to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
The president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry came to Kyl's defense, however, posting a column Tuesday on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."
"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.
On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.
"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."
Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."
White House turns up heat on Arizona senator
Jul 14, 2009
By JOAN LOWY
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is firing back at Sen. Jon Kyl for calling for an end to economic stimulus spending, and they're aiming for where it hurts the most - at home in Arizona.
The White House on Tuesday released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, citing Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way.
Kyl, the No. 2 Senate GOP leader, has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He's suggested on his Senate Web site and in interviews that spending not already allocated be halted.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his needling.
Kyl "publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently under way," LaHood wrote Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.
"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.
"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."
Kyl didn't immediately reply to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
The president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry came to Kyl's defense, however, posting a column Tuesday on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."
"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.
On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.
"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."
Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments