Special Collections Library - ABC Library. Immigration: The Path to Now | National | Washington Post. CBS News reports Issa has new Fast and Furious wiretap information - National Conservative. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, the only reporter in the mainstream media to consistently present the facts in the Fast and Furious scandal, is reporting today that U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has new wiretap information showing that the highest officials at the Justice Department were fully aware of the "gunwalking" project. Fast and Furious was an illegal operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in which "straw purchasers" were used to buy American firearms and then walk them across the border into Mexico, placing them in the hands of drug cartels.
Attorney General Eric Holder has been under fire from Issa and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for failing to cooperate with the investigation into Fast and Furious. Issa concluded after reviewing the wiretap applications that the highest officials of the Justice Department knew much more about the gunwalking operation than they ever revealed to Congress.
Arizona immigration: SB 1070 took toll on state's reputation. TUCSON -- On the day the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Arizona’s law to combat illegal immigration, Arizonans reflected on what the controversy over the law had meant for the state. “It makes me sad,” said Brittny Mejia, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “I don't like what’s happening in the state.” Kathleen Hertenstein, who teaches English as a second language at the university and has lived in Tucson for 20 years, said the law certainly had tarnished the state’s reputation in the eyes of many.
“People view Arizonans as the backward, uneducated, racist people of the country,” she said in an interview. A boycott of the state in protest of the law also hit hard. One study by the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress said that conventions canceled after SB 1070 cost the state more than $23 million in lost tax revenue and at least $350 million in direct spending by conventions’ would-be attendees. Both view the law as valuable. Ediberto Roman: SB 1070 and "The Real Americans" Today, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument on the validity of the state of Arizona's effort to regulate immigration within its borders. Many observers view this case as among the most important immigration issues this century. At issue is whether a state can pass a law regulating immigration within its borders despite the existence of federal laws regulating such matters.
The federal government brought the suit to a stop, or in legal terminology, enjoined the application of the law. Historically, such matters have been within the domain of the federal government. While most experts view Arizona's efforts as infringing on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, supporters of the law believe the state had little choice in light of their belief that the federal government failed to adequately enforce its laws. Independent analyses of the potential cost of the new law to the state have demonstrated that it is prohibitively expensive. SB 1070: Supreme Court Appears To Favor Arizona On Controversial Immigration Law. WASHINGTON -- A majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning appeared sympathetic to Arizona's argument that the most controversial elements of its immigration law offer a legitimate helping hand to federal immigration policy, rather than act as unconstitutional agents of chaos.
The politically charged clash between Arizona and the United States was the final oral argument of the court's extraordinarily high-profile term and served as a rematch between D.C. superlawyer Paul Clement and U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who faced off in the health care cases over the course of three days in late March. Clement, arguing on behalf of Arizona and its governor, Jan Brewer, told the justices that the state's law, commonly known as S.B. 1070, "borrowed the federal standard as its own" in combating Arizona's "disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration. " Of the four provisions in S.B. 1070 that have been blocked by the U.S. Ruling on SB 1070 won't fix immigration problem.
By Todd Landfried - May. 20, 2012 05:38 PM Let's be honest. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Senate Bill 1070 next month, three facts remain. First, SB 1070 is unquestionably bad public policy that does nothing to secure the border, much less solve the problem, and actually harms the people it purports to help. Second, the SCOTUS ruling will not stop the original or subsequent legal challenges; it will only narrow the scope. Finally, whatever the court's ruling, those who blindly support SB 1070 will be enabled to ignore the first two facts and unwisely push for its expansion.
What the available data show is SB 1070 and similar laws, in reality, harm the very businesses and communities they promised to help. It is puzzling why anyone would continue to think SB 1070 is the answer. There is a common misperception that the Supreme Court ruling will close the legal chapter on SB 1070. The U.S. The Supreme Court decision won't matter because it doesn't solve the problem. Arizona SB 1070. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer meeting with President Barack Obama in June 2010 in the wake of SB 1070, to discuss immigration and border security issues.[1] Critics of the legislation say it encourages racial profiling, while supporters say the law prohibits the use of race as the sole basis for investigating immigration status.[15] The law was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162 within a week of its signing with the goal of addressing some of these concerns.
There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[16] including boycotts and calls for boycotts of Arizona.[17] Polling has found the law to have majority support in Arizona and nationwide.[18][19][20][21] Passage of the measure has prompted other states to consider adopting similar legislation.[22] Provisions[edit] In addition, the Act makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
" How Far Can Arizona Secede? Jose Olivas holds a drawing of a baby as he protests against Arizona’s Senate bill 1308 and 1309 outside Arizona’s Capitol building in Phoenix, Arizona, 7 February 2011. The two bills seek to overrule the 14th amendment of the US constitution by denying American citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. This succinctly defines the human rights situation in Arizona. Arizona is a place where conservative state lawmakers do not appear to know the meaning of: "inalienable rights" – seemingly hellbent on revoking not just the 20th, but also, the 19th centuries. They seem to believe that if a majority of them agree to anything – including the taking away of peoples’ basic human rights – that their votes, along with their governor’s signature, constitutes a law. Those opposed to their concocted laws have turned to US courts for relief.
But Arizona politicians, beware. This could conceivably result in the opening-up of a second legal front. Immigration Fight at the AZ Corral. Arizona is in the grip of an anti-immigrant fever. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose popularity has been built on his tough enforcement tactics and willingness to defy the federal government, is on the edge of a run for governor. But even if he doesn't, the state has a controversial new law that requires police to determine the status of anyone if there is a "reasonable suspicion" they are in the US illegally - and arrest them if documents can't be produced.
Hiring day laborers off the street has also become a crime. Supporters see the law as an anti-crime measure and part of a larger campaign to secure the border. Gov. Then, on April 23, as large crowds protested in Phoenix and Tuscon, Brewer signed the bill. Latino members of Congress had urged Gov. Interim County Attorney Rick Romley calls it an unfunded mandate that was "tearing the community apart" and pledges that, despite the law's thrust, he will focus on organized crime syndicates engaged in human smuggling. Border Wars. Alabama Immigration Law Opponents File Complaint With Mexican Government, Say HB 56 Violates NAFTA. WASHINGTON -- The Service Employees International Union continued its fight against Alabama immigration law HB 56 on Monday by filing a complaint with the Mexican Department of Labor, calling the law discriminatory and in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The complaint is the latest in a series of efforts by the labor union against HB 56, which would allow many of the state's government employees, including police officers and school officials, to inquire about immigration status. Groups opposing the law have targeted businesses, asking them to call for repeal of the law because it could hurt their interests. SEIU coupled with the Mexican National Association of Democratic Lawyers in issuing the complaint, which says HB 56 violates NAFTA's North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. HB 56 is considered one of the most extreme anti-unauthorized immigration laws in the nation, modeled after Arizona's SB 1070. Both have been challenged by the U.S. Also on HuffPost: Is There Any Doubt? SB 1070 is about Racial Profiling. In spite of the U.S. government's nonracial strategy against SB 1070 and attempts by Justice Roberts and Scalia to avoid the issue at oral argument this week, Arizona's law is all about racial profiling.
My views on Huffington Post: In the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's anti-immigrant SB 1070, Department of Justice lawyers avoided arguing that any of the law's provisions, including the requirement that state police check the documents of suspected undocumented immigrants, invite racial profiling.
In fact, at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts began the case by greeting the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (and the rest of the country) with: "No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? " To which the lawyer responded, "We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in this case. "