Saturday, July 31, 2010

Burst of Support for Arizona Following Temporary Injuction Against SB 1070

People are putting their money where their principles are.  I thank each and every one of you.

While contributions to defend SB 1070 have come in from all over the country, the top locations for donors are:

State total donors total amount

Arizona       5,087  $269,287
California    4,410  $201,484
Texas          2,670   $133,724
Florida        1,677   $77,687
New York       962   $37,336
Washington    741   $35,315
Colorado         761   $33,831
Virginia          716   $33,566
Georgia          712   $32,546
Illinois            743   $31,895

SOURCE: Governor's Office Figures represent donations made through Internet site as of 5:30 p.m. Thursday
It seems there are far more normals left in California than I realized.  Good!
SB 1070 defense fund sees influx after ruling
Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services Posted: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:00 am
PHOENIX - The state's legal setback over the new immigration law has resulted in a bit of a bump up for the fund created to defend the law.
Figures obtained Friday show 1,755 people made donations online Wednesday to the fund set up by Gov. Jan Brewer to help pay the state's cost of defending SB 1070 against seven legal challenges. That was the day U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton enjoined the state from implementing key provisions of the law
Collectively, they gave more than $75,000 that day.
By contrast, only 69 donations were made online the prior day totaling only $3,350.
The burst of support continued Thursday, with the Governor's Office reporting another 1,129 online donations by 5:30 p.m., for a total of $48,180. And that was hours before the governor, in a live interview on the "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren" show on Fox television, mentioned the website and asked viewers to send money.

Donations now top $1.6 million, with all but about $250,000 of it coming through the website.
That includes one donation of $10,000. The Governor's Office did not immediately provide an identity of the contributor. There also was a single $5,000 donation, one of $3,000, two of $2,000 and 40 people each gave $1,000.
The last time there was such a big outpouring came in the days after the U.S. Department of Justice decided to file its own lawsuit against the state. It was that lawsuit that resulted in Bolton's ruling on Thursday.
There is a permanent link in my sidebar to KeepAZSafe (to donate).

Anti-Capitlist Terrorists in Tucson, Arizona

Terrorists attempted to cause a massive pile up on Interstate 19 (which connects Tucson with Nogales, AZ and Mexico).  It's just a matter of time before they have a level of success.  This particular group of terrorists, known as Freedom For Arizona, displayed a banner which read "Stop All Militarization! The Border is Illegal!".   More below the story on these racist no-border nuts. They take full responsibility for their crimes.  So, hunt 'em down and prosecute them!

AZ immigration-law protests lead to arrests, street closures


TIRES, junk thrown ON I-19


Traffic on Interstate 19 was briefly disrupted south of West Ajo Way Thursday morning after protesters threw tar and tires on the roadway.

A group calling itself "Freedom for Arizona" said it planned to cover the southbound lanes of I-19 with tires covered in tar and broken glass to shut down "the very road that is used to deport people deemed 'illegal,' as well as a direct disruption of the flow of capital," the group said in a news release.

Law-enforcement officials cleaned up the mess and reopened the interstate, the Arizona Department of Public Safety said. There were no reports of injuries.

Andres Chavez was arriving home from school and said he saw the entire incident. He said two trucks driving parallel on southbound I-19 between Ajo Way and Valencia Road stopped, and tires connected by rope were thrown from the truck beds.

Eight to 12 men then threw brown paint, broken glass and a sign over the tires. The sign read: "Stop the militarization on the border." Then they drove away, Chavez said. "They halted traffic completely and almost got rear-ended by cars behind them," he said.

Chavez said he pulled the 15 to 20 tires off the road because he was worried that wrecks would occur.

"I have no problem with people protesting or whatever, but they were putting people's lives at risk," said Chavez, a 23-year-old University of Arizona journalism student. "There could have been a multi-car pileup there."

He described the tire throwers as men between the ages of 20 and 25.

In its news release, a group claiming responsibility said: "Neither SB 1070 nor the deployment of National Guard troops to the border do anything to address the root causes as to why people migrate.

"U.S. economic policies and wars have displaced and impoverished millions of people all over the world. Capital-driven policies, such as NAFTA, create poverty. These policies and laws not only consume and exploit land and people, but they also displace us from our homes, forcing us to migrate in order to survive."
Right. Forced to migrate rather than clean up the corruption and the marxism and the crime in their own country so that they will be free to work hard and earn some capital which they could then use to better their lives and the lives of their families.  These people are nothing but mobs flowing to and fro to which ever location offers the most government handouts.  Get the hell out of my country! 

This socalled Freedom for Arizona group is just another mob of criminals.  You know, like La Raza.  Indigenous my ass.  These idiots have no clue that the Aztecs themselves have origin mythology stating that they came across the EASTERN SEA.  Besides all that, there is only one HUMAN race.  These fools would divide you by the amount of melanin in your skin!

DIRECT ACTION DISRUPTS ARIZONA RACISM!
Partial justice is no justice at all! Despite Judge ruling to block parts of SB 1070, racial-profiling, raids, deportations and the militarization of the border will continue unchallenged. This is why today we shut down Interstate 19 (I-19).
July 29, 2010 Tucson, AZ—On the morning that SB1070 is scheduled to take effect in the state of Arizona and three days before Obama deploys 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, a group of concerned community members blocked traffic on I-19 south of Ajo Rd. in Tucson, AZ. A blockade of tires covered in tar and broken glass were placed across both southbound lanes along with a banner reading “Stop All Militarization! The Border is Illegal!” This blockade is a temporary shutdown of the very road that is used to deport people deemed “illegal” as well as a direct disruption of the flow of capital. By blocking I-19 we have halted the transportation of migrants and the profits Whack-n-hut and Corrections Corporation of Amerikkka make by these inhumane acts of separating families, communities and loved ones. This morning we interrupt the privatization of the criminalization of people of color.
The State of Arizona ruthlessly disrupts and terrorizes the lives of non-white communities on a daily basis. SB 1070 is yet another example of how migrants and people of color are criminalized. Today’s action is a declaration of resistance to the criminalization of affected communities and the militarization of indigenous land.
Neither SB 1070 nor the deployment of National Guard troops to the border do anything to address the root causes as to why people migrate. U.S. economic policies and wars have displaced and impoverished millions of people all over the world. Capital-driven policies, such as NAFTA, create poverty. These policies and laws not only consume and exploit land and people, but they also displace us from our homes, forcing us to migrate in order to survive. If policymakers were serious about stopping “illegal immigration,” they would end these capitalist exploitations and stop their military invasions abroad.
We want an end to the militarization of indigenous land, I.C.E. raids, deportations, the attacks on ethnic studies, violence against women and queer people, the expansion of prisons and immigration detention centers, empire, the border wall and the genocide at the Arizona-Sonora border that has claimed the lives of over 153 people during the first 8 months of this fiscal year alone.
Today we interrupt the flow of Arizona’s traffic to bring attention to the following points:
ABOLISH ALL OF SB 1070 AND OTHER ANTI-MIGRANT LAWS.
STOP ALL MILITARIZATION. NO NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ON INDIGENOUS LANDS
BORDERS AND THE ARIZONA GOVERNMENT ARE ILLEGITIMATE.
NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL—THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS TO BLAME.
WE WANT RESPECT AND JUSTICE FOR ALL PEOPLE.
We affirm our dignity and promote the well-being of all people. We stand for solidarity, peace, self-determination and autonomy. We assert the rights of all people everywhere to feel safe and live free of oppression and state violence.

USCIS Memo - Amnesty by Dictatorial Power


This is an outrage.  The federal government of the United States of America is more worried about the "family unity" of illegals who shouldn't be here in the first place.  If these traitors get this through, then once more current administration policy trumps actual establish Federal Law just as it did in the activist judicial decision to enjoin portions of AZ SB 1070.

I say "NO WAY"!  Family unity wasn't on the minds of these illegals when they snuck across our borders.  No families need be broken up.  The children are free to go with their parents.  Once they are of age, they can work on proving their alleged citizenship and obtaining permission to return.  Even that is out of the question in my opinion as birthright citizenship was never intended to encompass the children of people who were here illegally.

Just How Far North Is This?

We all know about signs of this sort in Southern Arizona.


"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Encourages Visitors to Use Public Lands North of Interstate 8."

Just how far north is Interstate 8?


Click on that to see a much larger version.  Red arrows point north at the International Border. Green arrows point south at Interstate 8.  Granted Interstate 8 runs about 20 miles north of the International border where it passes through Yuma near the Arizona-California border.  But, the problems aren't in the Yuma Sector (approximately the western half of Arizona).  The problems are in the Tucson Sector (approximately the eastern half of Arizona).  As you can see, Interstate is as much as 80 miles from the border.

So, just how much of Arizona have we ceded to the armed invaders?  Blue line is roughly an outline of the State of Arizona.  Again, green arrows point south at Interstate 8 and red arrows point north at the International Border with Mexico.  Looks like about 10%. 



Friday, July 30, 2010

US 9th Circuit Won't Hear AZ SB 1070 Appeal Until November

By the time November rolls around, whether the hearing occurs before or after the election, they'll likely wish that they would have granted the request for an expedited hearing.  heh.  I can see November from my HOUSE!

Arizona appeal of immigration ruling set for Nov.
A federal appeals court says it will hold a hearing in November on Arizona's challenge to a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration law on hold.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a two-page order Friday denying Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request for an earlier hearing date.

Arizona Senators Kyl and McCain Favorable Ratings Continue to Drop

Fewer Arizonans Giving Favorable Ratings to Senators McCain, Kyl
Sen. Jon Kyl received positive scores of 29 percent, down from 35 percent in January and 4 percent last September.
PHOENIX (AP) _ A new survey indicates fewer Arizonans appear to be giving favorable job ratings to the state's two U.S. senators, Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl.

The Behavior Research Center says 36 percent of 500 adults it surveyed gave positive performance scores to McCain, down from 40 percent in January and 38 percent last September.

Kyl received positive scores of 29 percent, down from 35 percent in January and 4 percent last September.

The center suggests that the lower scores may reflect voter disenchantment with partisan politics in Washington. But it also notes that both senators' positive scores still trump their negative ones.

The survey is based on interviews conducted June 30 through July 11. The possible margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.
Good.  Maybe the people of Arizona will wake up in time to rid us all of that constant aisle crosser McCain who supported infringing on free speech (McCain-Feingold) and who supported amnesty (McCain-Kennedy) as recently as 2007.

Stand With Arizona Rally Saturday July 31st

Stand With Arizona Rally!

Unfortunately, I didn't hear anything about this until moments ago and the Policy Summit is full.

The Stand With Arizona Support Rally (click the Skip For Now button) is at 6pm at Wesley Bolin Plaza (1700 West Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 with quite an impressive lineup:  State Senator Russel Pearce, Civil Rights Activist Ted Hayes are hosting Sheriff Joe Arpaio and a line up of standouts on the topic.

Not sure the weather will be conducive to an outdoor rally tomorrow night though.  It's the height of monsoon season here and we've been getting hit with some impressive thunderstorms in the evenings.

Mexico News

I heard that one of the Sinaloa drug cartel leaders had been killed by the Mexican army today.  Good.  One down.  If, as some reports are noting, this might signal a bloody succession fight among the remaining head honchos in the Sinaloa gang, then maybe in a few days or weeks I can say "Good!  Ten more down." or something similiarly celebratory.

However, when I started looking for news of it on the internet, I found some other interesting news items from Mexcio.

The U.S. consulate in the border city of Ciudad Juarez—the largest U.S. consulate in the world—shut down Friday to complete a security review following what a U.S. state department spokeswoman said was a "threat in the area." For the past three years, Ciudad Juarez has been a battleground for warring drug cartels.
That is certainly interesting.  And it hasn't neen mentioned on cable news or local talk radio.  For the non-Border obsessed, Cuidad Jaurez is just over the border from El Paso, TX.  Remember the murders there earlier this year.
My search also turned up a report that the FAA has downgraded Mexico's Air Safety Rating.
Concerns about safety oversight prompted the move, the Federal Aviation Administration said. The action won't stop flights between the two countries, but it will prevent Mexican airlines like AeroMexico and Mexicana from expanding service to the United States.
Again, that is very interesting.  And so far, unreported.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Support for Border Fence Highest EVER


Thursday, July 29, 2010

Support for the building of a fence along the Mexican border has reached a new high, and voters are more confident than ever that illegal immigration can be stopped.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of U.S. voters now believe the United States should continue to build a fence on the Mexican border. That’s up nine points from March when the Obama administration halted funding for the fence and the highest level of support ever.

Just 21% oppose the continued building of the border fence.

Support for the fence is strong across all demographic groups. But while 76% of Mainstream voters think the United States should continue to build the fence, 67% of the Political Class are opposed to it.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all voters believe it is possible to end illegal immigration. That’s up slightly from April of last year.

Now only 36% do not think it is possible for the United States to prevent illegal immigrants from getting into the country. That’s down sixteen points since October 2008.

Illegal immigration, always a concern to many voters, has taken on increased visibility due to the controversy over Arizona’s new immigration law. The state law went into effect today, but a federal judge has put several of its more controversial provisions on hold until a Justice Department legal challenge of the law is resolved.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide oppose the Justice Department’s decision to challenge the Arizona law, and 61% favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.

Fifty-four percent (54%) say the Justice Department instead should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Even more think the federal government should cut off funds to these “sanctuary cities.”

Most voters ages 40 and older say it is possible for the United States to end illegal immigration. Republicans by better than two-to-one are more confident than Democrats that it’s possible. Voters not affiliated with either party are more closely divided on the question.

Most members of the Political Class, however, say it can’t be done. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Mainstream voters say it is possible to stop illegal immigration, but 58% of the Political Class disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters say the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think anyway.

The number of voters who view the issue of immigration as Very Important has jumped 16 points from last month to its highest level ever, although it still ranks fifth on a list of 10 issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

In December 2008, just after President-elect Obama put Janet Napolitano, an opponent of the border fence, in charge of immigration activities, 74% of voters said the federal government was not doing enough to stop illegal immigration.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the current controversy over Arizona’s new statute than state officials are for passing it.

In fact, by a two-to-one margin, voters believe the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

Voters also have said consistently for years that when it comes to immigration reform, gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.

Still, 58% favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who come here to live off the U.S. welfare system.

About that Attack on a Sonoran (Mexico) Ranch

It turns out there may very well have been an attack on a ranch by a drug gang (cartel, mafia, whatever).  But, the ranch is in Sonora, Mexico close to Nogales (which stradles the international border).  This first story blames it on the US.  I reject that almost entirely except that if the USA would indeed secure it's border and control all egress, then this lucrative trade in drugs and humans would not be able to exist across that border.  Of course, if Mexico would control it's own territory and wasn't run by thoroughly corrupt racists, that too would help.  At least, it would help the Mexican people.  But, the corrupt politicians who run Mexico would rather remain corrupt, enriching themselves at the expense of all those brown people who they are very happy to see flow across the border into the USA remitting $20 Billion per year.  It's their biggest import.  They'll never give that up.  The only conclusion is that the USA has to shut the border not only with no cooperation from Mexico, but in the face of Mexicos actions to hinder that closure.  No crossings without express, prior permission (ie, a passport and a visa).  All you fools who paid for condos and timeshares down there will just have to plan ahead.

I came across this account which basically blames the United States for Mexicos inability to police it's own territory.

I have a ranch on the border of Mexico and the US. Unfortunately it is in Mexico. Daily they cross the “polleros” y “burreros”. Let’s leave aside the fact that they cut my fences let my cattle out, steal horses, and trash my ranch.

We are spending billions of dollars for border agents…..are they out there on the line where these people are crossing? NO NO NO.

I am so angry because in May the drug cartel came to my ranch killed my cowboy, my best friend that has worked for me for 10 years, ransacked my ranch, stole everything they could load their 4 cars with found nothing they were looking for but in their anger killed him and buried an innocent man next to my ranch house.

Why is this happening because the US turns a blind eye. If they controlled the border and caught all the illegal crosses it would look bad for them, therefore in order for everything to look good back in Washington they have a quota of how many they can catch in a month. A large % of illegals and drugs get across every month because the politicians don’t want the border to look out of control.

Go figure.

If the US did their job the drug cartel where my ranch is would look for another way to cross and well….my cowboy (RIP) would still be alive today.

The lack of law in Mexico, the US and their political agenda, and the death of my cowboy has really opened my eyes to all the corruption. I guess I finally woke up, I suppose I used to live in fantasy land, life was happy and fun. I enjoyed the challenges but now…IDK…I guess I’m still mourning his tragic death and searching for answers.

The attack happened on our ranch.

On Tuesday, May 18th my cowboy and I were at the corrals here in Mexico bringing in my hembras. Due to the fact we had 2 loads of cattle we went back twice to the ranch to pick up the hembras. The cattle were unloaded late and therefore my cowboy returned late to the ranch, probably around 8:30pm. I stayed to find a buyer and cross the cattle Wednesday morning.

For the last 10 years it is always customary to communicate with our motorola radios daily, especially at night if you’re arriving late. If for some reason the radios aren’t functioning I receive a text that they arrived fine.

My other cowboy wanted to take some days off so Jesus returned alone. I waited for what seemed like forever for him to call on the radio but nothing. My husband offered to go but it was already 10 pm and I didn’t want to send him alone. I assumed he would call in the morning. In the morning nothing.

At the corrals I saw my ranch neighbor, the ranch we need to cross through to get to ours to ask if he could check to see if Jesus went through. The answer was yes. I was also informed that 2 vehicles went through with masked men and some with their faces painted weird colors.

To cut to the quick after I crossed the cattle I immediately headed up to the ranch to find the ranch similar to an earthquake in Haiti and no Jesus.

Windows were smashed, furniture was broken, etc. etc. just a mess. I raced back to ask the police to investigate and help me look for Jesus.

There are many forms to fill out and unless there is a huge convoy to go up there basically they are scared. They said the scicarios have more sophisticated equipment than they do and well, Couldn’t go up till the next day. They needed to inform the mafia they were going up there before they could go. So the next day we went. They did their investigation…. found nothing.

Then I went to the soldiers for help me to look for Jesus and protection while I fixed up the ranch because the police wouldn’t. The soldiers said unless we find drugs it’s the job of the police. Well the police told me it was the soldiers’ territory. Everyone is staying out of it.

Our ranch is out there with no law and everything goes.

A month later Jesus was found buried less than a mile from my ranch house.

They tied him up with my rope, some say he was shot, others say he was hit with an ax.

The funeral home would not tell me anything, nor let me see him, nor I nor the family. They said it wasn’t allowed.

So I paid for a funeral, not ever really seeing him, we had to identify him by his clothes alone.
As bad as it is on the American side of the border, it sounds like hell on the Mexican side.  And I'm sure it is.  Their government has abandoned them to the non-existant mercies of criminals.

More Reasons to Vote out McCain

Retire McCain!

The Failure of John McCain

[snip]

In his history since 1986 in the Senate of the United States, one only need recall the travesty of hand holding across the aisle in the most recent couple of senate terms (accelerated after the 2000 election cycle by his bitterness about President Bush’s victory) to assemble a list of ill conceived projects which have contributed to the degradation of personal liberty and of the principles put forward in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: weakening the legal back bench and SCOTUS with his “Gang of 14″ interference in the appointment of conservative judges to protect the original meaning of the Constitution; McCain-Feingold interference in the clear intent of the First Amendment, and his support for regulation of the internet; McCain-Kennedy interference in immigration and defending our borders and nation, opposed official English language then changed his mind, supporting barely disguised amnesty; called water boarding torture and gave away the farm on coercive questioning of terrorists, wants to close Guantanamo Bay and give the terrorist citizen’s rights in civilian courts; voted for the Kyoto treaty, shilled for man made global warming, in favor of cap and trade, and against drilling in ANWR; and has leaned further progressive as he has courted the press and done anything he can to tweak the GOP, conservatives, and solidify his reputation as the ‘maverick’. Unfortunately he hasn’t recognized that ‘his’ side can’t count on him, and ‘their’ side uses him to their advantage. Sad to see him so proudly self deluded, and so ‘progressively’ Republican.

Choosing to emphasize ‘character’ as key in his senate primary race against JD Hayworth is the height of irony. Character does matter; whether one takes the broader definition of “qualities that distinguish one person from another” or the more focused “moral or ethical strength” or even “reputation”, or becomes the embodiment of “an eccentric person” or “a person portrayed in a drama or novel” (The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Ed, 1992), Senator McCain has grabbed the extreme end of the tiger’s tail! His sneering, mud-slinging, truth twisting campaign against JD Hayworth certainly highlights some lack in moral and ethical strength. If he has done such a great job in his senate career, why doesn’t he step up to the plate and make that case to the people? Truthfully, his career has not been such a faithful representation of the state of Arizona and her citizens’ needs and benefit, so he chooses the easy and low road in his campaign now. What character? Not so much.

Lastly, John McCain has indeed created one definitely lasting impression, one that the citizens of Arizona would do well to remember, no matter who they wish to support. John McCain has not changed his spots. He held a grudge against President Bush for winning the support of the people in 2000, and he never let go. His occasional positive comments toward Bush carried the bitter sarcastic undertone that never quite demonstrated forgiveness or a change of heart. He never publicly repudiated his staffs’ savaging of Sarah Palin in the press and despite holding her to campaigning for him in his closely contested race, he has been noticeably thin on gratitude. His recent ‘build the d**m fence’ comments not withstanding, he has not had a Damascus road moment regarding the illegal immigration problem; that would require real humility, an asking, “what would you have me to do?” that is not evident in his choices or campaign. The real John McCain, should he win, is most likely to hold that anger and bitterness against the very people of Arizona he vies to represent, while he goes more ‘maverick’ than ever before in his resentment of their ‘turning on him and his years of service’, making him work so hard for what should be his by right! Think Pharaoh facing Moses over the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Don’t expect him to be grateful for the correction and come to see the light of true representation desired by Arizonans. Expect exactly what John McCain has given us since 1986–progressively more government control and loss of personal liberty, with a bitter twist.

Los Angeles Again Imports Their Racists to Phoenix

Immigration Protesters Handcuff Themselves to Jail so Sheriff Joe Arpaio arrested 50 of them.  Compare that to any Tea Party gathering where no one is arrested.

These protestors were, once again, bussed in from Los Angeles.  They are union members.  The busses left from Dodger Stadium before sunrise this morning.  Typically, one would expect that union members have jobs so who do they work for and why are thousands of them able to get the same day off every time they decide they need to come to Arizona and terrorize us?  They are here to intimidate not just Arizonans but any and all other states and cities that might be considering laws similar to SB 1070.

All pictures presented here and many more are available at KFYI.
They brought their favorite flags.











And they call other people racists.

Brown power racists.




Undocumented and Unafraid.  That's the problem.

And who knows what this actually meant.


I'm just grateful these fools were actually clothed.



Fortunately, this idiocy wasn't likely to survive the afternoon since a powerful monsoon thunderstorm hit us hard about 4pm.

Judge Bolton's fiction

More fiction from Clinton Appointee (Recommended by Senator Jon Kyl (AZ-R) ) Judge Bolton's contorted ruling noted by Heather MacDonald at The Corner at National Review Online.

What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say [Heather Mac Donald]
In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

So determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration’s political strategy regarding the law’s putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated. S.B. 1070 authorizes local law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they have lawfully stopped, if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally, and if the inquiry into immigration status is practicable. S.B. 1070 also required that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona stated in its brief and testified in court that the legislative intent behind that sentence regarding arrestees was that only people for whom there is already reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally would have their immigration status checked after arrest. The section does not apply to every arrestee.

Judge Bolton rejected that testimony, however, in order to buttress the White House claim that large numbers of legal aliens would be subject to immigration inquiries if S.B. 1070 went into effect. As the Justice Department portrayed it, and as Judge Bolton affirmed, massive categories of legal aliens by definition do not have proof of their legal status with them. If those legal aliens are now to be queried about their immigration status following every arrest in Arizona, they will be subject to undue harassment, the federal government and the judge concluded.

The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries, asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

Furthermore, the number of such individuals who would also be in a position to raise an officer’s reasonable suspicion that they were in the country illegally is extremely small. In a petition for injunctive relief, a judge must balance the equities in favor of both parties. The interest of Arizona, where 500,000 illegal aliens reside, in restoring the rule of law should be weighed against the interest of those small numbers of legal aliens or aliens whose status is in abeyance and who might be questioned regarding their immigration status because they have raised a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Judge Bolton’s ruling regarding S.B. 1070’s provision on the possession of immigration documents verges on bad faith. S.B. 1070 adopts virtually verbatim a federal law requiring lawful aliens to carry their immigration papers with them; the Arizona version merely lessens the federal penalties regarding the amount of the fine and possible jail time for violation of the federal document requirement. As the judge notes, federal registration power is exclusive; Congress’s registration scheme may not be altered by the states. But nothing in S.B. 1070 changes the rules for registration; the Arizona law merely confirms those rules in state law. Judge Bolton alleges that the Arizona provision “alters the penalties” in the federal law, without disclosing that the Arizona law lowers them. She concludes without the slightest trace of argument that the Arizona document provision “stands as an obstacle to the uniform federal registration scheme and is therefore impermissible.”

The only factually plausible objection to S.B. 1070’s document requirement and to the provision authorizing inquiries into an alien’s status is that Arizona may penalize someone for being in the country illegally whom the federal government intends to ignore. It is the effect of the law on illegal aliens, not on legal ones, that has most upset the Obama administration and illegal-alien advocates (the Bush administration would probably have reacted similarly). A large reason why S.B. 1070’s impact on illegal aliens was so carefully kept offstage in the federal government’s brief and the judge’s ruling is that Congress has repeatedly expressed its intention that local governments cooperate with the federal government in the “apprehension, detention or removal or [illegal] aliens,” as a 1996 federal law declares. The very immigration-information clearinghouse that Judge Bolton worries would be overtaxed by S.B. 1070 was created to effectuate Congress’s mandate that the federal and local governments share information regarding illegal aliens. As the Senate declared in 1996 when banning sanctuary laws (a ban whose disregard in Arizona led to S.B. 1070): “illegal aliens do not have a right to remain in the U.S. undetected and apprehended.” If in fact that information clearinghouse becomes burdened with “too many” inquiries from Arizona, it’s for the executive branch to seek greater funding. Congress never said: We want information sharing, but only up to a point. Moreover, many of Arizona’s own law-enforcement officers are capable of using the federal immigration database without needing to go through federal channels.

The vast majority of the public supports immigration enforcement. S.B. 1070 promised to make such enforcement a reality. For the moment, the public will has been defeated, which is why S.B. 1070’s effect on illegal immigration was the one aspect of the law that neither the Obama administration or Judge Bolton dared to address.

— Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor to City Journal and a co-author of The Immigration Solution.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Judge Bolton's Decision is speciious, nuts, and deceptive

Andy McCarthy from The Corner at National Review Online describes Judge Bolton's ruling as specious, nuts, and deceptive. I don't expect the 9th Circuit Court to share these opinions on appeal. But, there is a slim chance that the Supreme Court is still populated by a majority of normals who will overturn this insanity.

On a quick read, the federal court's issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department's preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as "a thing apart," and that Congress had therefore "manifested a purpose ... to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system" that would not unduly subject them to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.

Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can't ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like "a thing apart."

The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation's immigration laws."

However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

McCain Cut The Deal Resulting In Your Impending Tax Increase

Tom Rowan writes at The American Thinker of yet another reason to retire John McCain.  He really should come with an expiration date.

It was McCain after all who "reached across the aisle" and "cut the deal" with Democrats to put those expiration dates on the tax cuts in the first place.
July 28, 2010
When Good Tax Cuts Go Bad
Tom Rowan

George Bush inherited Bill Clinton's Dot Com Bubble and Bill Clinton's ill fated policy of treating Osama bin laden like a common ordinary Chicago politician. What was Bush to do with an economy facing real and unexpected catastrophes like 9/11?
Bush looked to recent history and decided to pass a stimulus program that cut taxes and put more money into the pockets of working families and the businesses that hired them.

Unlike Obama's now failed stimulus plan to enrich a bloated government at the expense of hard working families who had to someday pay for it all, Bush's stimulus plan worked swimmingly.

For the eight years of the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate per year was, 4.7%, 5.8%, (after 9/11,) 6.0%, 5.5%, 5.1%, 4.6%, 4.6%, and finally a whopping 5.8%. Do you remember the good old days when Democrat complained of Bush's "jobless recovery?"

Obama, on the other hand, fell victim to policies he and his own party championed such as subprime mortgages to poor people who could never pay them back. While Obama's unemployment record is yet to be fully written, Obama's unemployment rate is due to hover around 10% for as long as the eye can see. How is that "hope & change" working for ya?

Not letting a crisis go to waste, Bush trusted the American people to spend their own way out of the Dot Com Bubble and the aftermath of 9/11. Bush encouraged people to shop and spend. Bush may have even told people to spend money in Las Vegas. (If you don't place that next bet, then the terrorists win...)

Bush was simply employing a simple and proven course to employ more people by cutting their taxes. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan, and Canada after all. And no one ever had to "pay for these tax cuts" either! In each case that tax cuts were employed, more people worked and more tax revenue was sent to Uncle Sam and his cousin in Canada.

Even Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos pointed out this fact to Obama during a presidential debate. Obama was told that when the capital gains tax rates were cut, capital gains tax revenue to the government increased. Obama, caught without his teleprompter, told the truth about what he really thought about tax cuts in general: Obama was for raising taxes on capital gains, even though it would lower the tax revenue from capital gains,....(get this)...because of "fairness."

William F Buckley once famously said that any politician talking about tax fairness should be electrocuted.

So now we have "the Bush tax cuts" ready to expire despite the massive contraction it will create in the already starved Obama economy. Since when do tax laws come with an "expiration date?" Hells bells! We were paying the "telephone tax" to pay for the Spanish American War up until Bush killed that tax too. Is the Spanish American War tax on telephones due to come back next year? Even the damned "death tax" won't die!

While America is looking for candidates who would oppose ludicrous ideas such as tax cuts with expiration dates, maybe voters should look to candidates other than John McCain. It was McCain after all who "reached across the aisle" and "cut the deal" with Democrats to put those expiration dates on the tax cuts in the first place.

Clinton Appointed Judge Orders Partial Injuction Against SZ SB 1070

UPDATE - Governor Brewer stated on FNC that Arizona will file an appear tomorrow.

UPDATE: local radio news reports that the federal government is appealing not the state of Arizona but, Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Senate Bill 1070, said "As of Thursday, the handcuffs come off of law enforcement.  This says clearly that we can enforce federal law and we cannot be mpeded."  and "We will appeal this immediately and we will win on appeal.  This will be to the Supreme Court eventually, and I expect a 5-4 decision in our favor, perhaps even 6-3."


Clinton Appointee, recommended by AZ Senator Jon Kyl, Susan Bolton's partial injunction against AZ SB 1070 (pdf):

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 27).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section 1, Section 2(A) and (C)-(L), Section 4, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2929, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), and Sections 7-13.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED preliminarily enjoining the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer from enforcing the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section 2(B) creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S.§ 13-3883(A)(5).
That is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, of course.  Download the linked pdf to read the judge's progressive legal contortions.

The bottom line is this judge says that state and local law enforcement cannot enforce federal law unless the current administration of the federal government wants it enforced.  Seriously.  Fine.  All local and state law enforcement must, from this moment forward, tell all who report a bank robbery or a kidnapping or a weapons crime or an immigration crime or a drug crime, "those are federal crimes; you need to call the FBI" and  don't even give them the number of the local office.

This law has NOT been declared unconstitutional.  This is not over.

Some highlights:

First, the parts that are essentially stopped by today's ruling:

Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person
Section 3 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).
Most people were probably not aware why the judge was reviewing the law section by section.  She had no choice.  It was written that way:
The Court notes that S.B. 1070 is not a freestanding statute; rather, it is an enactment of the Arizona Legislature that adds some new sections to the Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) and amends some preexisting sections. S.B. 1070 also contains a severability clause, providing that,

[i]f a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
S.B. 1070 § 12(A). Therefore, the Court cannot and will not enjoin S.B. 1070 in its entirety, as certain parties to lawsuits challenging the enactment have requested. The Court is obligated to consider S.B. 1070 on a section by section and provision by provision basis.
Now, from the linked pdf we are reminded that “A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”  Emphasis mine.  Read the whole thing!

The parts of the law are not enjoined and which will be the law of the State of Arizona as of midnight tonight (July 28th, 2010):
Other than seeking a preliminary injunction as to “S.B. 1070,” the United States has not made any argument to preliminarily enjoin and the Court therefore does not enjoin the following provisions of S.B. 1070:

Section 1 of S.B. 1070
no A.R.S. citation: providing the intent of the legislation

Portions of Section 2 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws

A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F): requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to unlawfully present aliens

A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-(L): allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law

Section 4 of S.B. 10702
A.R.S. § 13-2319: amending the crime of human smuggling

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B): creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic

Section 7 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 23-212: amending the crime of knowing employment of unauthorized aliens

Section 8 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 23-212.01: amending the crime of intentional employment of unauthorized aliens

Section 9 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 23-214: amending the requirements for checking employment eligibility

Section 11 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 41-1724: creating the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund

Sections 12 & 13 of S.B. 1070
no A.R.S. citation: administering S.B. 1070
Further sections not enjoined because the feds are likely to lose the lawsuit:
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is not likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following provisions of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law, and the Court therefore does not enjoin the enforcement of the following provisions of S.B. 1070:

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 13-2929: creating a separate crime for a person in violation of a criminal offense to transport or harbor an unlawfully present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present alien to come to or live in Arizona

Section 10 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 28-3511: amending the provisions for the removal or impoundment of a vehicle to permit impoundment of vehicles used in the transporting or harboring of unlawfully present aliens

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Will The Federal Government Sue Itself?

The Federal Government is suing Arizona over AZ SB 1070 which will empower Arizona law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws - ie, if you're in the country illegally, you get turned over to ICE as is the FEDERAL LAW.  So, now I read the below and wonder if the Federal Government will sue itself to stop itself from fingerprinting and deporting the illegals it is finding via the Secure Communities program.  Clearly, our government is schizophremic!  Bring on the Secure Communities Program in ALL areas!

Illegal Immigration Fingerprint Program, Secure Communities, Has Advocates Up In Arms

DENVER — The federal government is rapidly expanding a program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests, drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.

The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide.

The San Francisco sheriff wanted nothing to do with the program, and the City Council in Washington, D.C., blocked use of the fingerprint plan in the nation's capital. Colorado is the latest to debate the program, called Secure Communities, and immigrant groups have begun to speak up, telling the governor in a letter last week that the initiative will make crime victims reluctant to cooperate with police "due to fear of being drawn into the immigration regime."

Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been expanding the initiative.

Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by 2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.

Since everyone arrested would be screened, the program could easily deport more people than Arizona's new law, said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program. Patel said that because illegal immigrants could be referred to ICE at the point of arrest, even before a conviction, the program can create an incentive for profiling and create a pipeline to deport more people.

Arizona Cattle Grower's Association Restore Our Border (ROB) Security Plan

The Arizona Cattle Grower's Association has an 18 point plan (pdf) to restore security along the US-Mexico international border.  They call it Restore Our Border (ROB) in honor of murdered rancher Rob Krentz.
 
 You can see Patrick Bray, Deputy Director of Governmental Affairs of the Arizona Cattle Growers Associate discuss it here.

 
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
 
Restore Our Border (ROB) Security Plan

 
Designed as a list of actionable items requiring the immediate attention and implementation by Local, State and Federal Authorities charged with securing our border with Mexico and the security of the citizens of Arizona. 

 
Background Information

The U.S./Mexico border in southern Arizona has become a lawless region. Criminals, bandits and an international organized crime unit are operating with impunity in the region. Their trades are burglary, home invasion, drug smuggling, human smuggling, murder, extortion and kidnapping rackets. These organized crime units have been terrorizing northern Mexico for 20 years and have been terrorizing Southern Arizona for at least 10 years. These entities are extremely violent and dangerous and they have now succeeded in creating terror in Southern Arizona as they have in Northern Mexico.

The level of fear and frustration from southern Arizona’s Ranching Families has been building for sometime now. Along with these families other residents in the area have also experienced the mayhem and terror of these illegal actions and crimes. The level of lawlessness reached such a point that a small tight knit group of Southern Arizona individuals, who were determined to find solutions, began a quest of fact finding to identify actions needing to be deployed along the border with Mexico. These individuals have been meeting with prosecutors, law enforcement officials, judicial officials, and agency personnel charged with securing our border.

This Report is the culmination of over 18 months of meetings, research, fact finding and interviews regarding potential solutions to the current border crisis. The basis for this Report is to provide concrete actions which have been vetted as viable and needed along with measureable results regarding the implementation of these needed actions directly adjacent to the U.S./Mexico border.

We do not pretend to have all of the answers. However, we do believe the actions items contained in this Report have been vetted to the extent that they will enhance and provide security along our border with Mexico. They will begin to provide some semblance of lawfulness along the border.

The ACGA is providing this Report first hand to all of the elected or government officials who have the responsibility of securing our border with Mexico. We will directly ask them to implement the action items which represent their duties and official positions. We will follow up with each official to demand action on these items. Where we deem action is lacking or not forthcoming we will notify southern Arizona citizens and all levels of media. We demand action.

 
2 Border Security Mission

Educate media outlets and the public about our remote and unique ranching areas and the open criminal opportunity it affords illegal aliens, smugglers and unknown illegal entrants into our country.
With the media’s help, accurately represent the Arizona Ranching Community’s position on border security. Reject bogus assertions ranchers are encouraging the use of force in protecting their lives and property. Assure the public understands, without bias, rancher commitment in constructively solving the Border Security crisis.

Describe and personalize the real life impacts of the lawlessness from illegal activities on our personal security, ranching operations and infrastructure. Depict the combined damaging impacts of real security threats from organized criminal activity in the form of burglaries, home invasions, illegal smuggling and destruction/degradation of private and public lands, loss of feed stocks to illegal alien fires, vandalism, loss of livestock and interruption of raising livestock for food production.

From a rancher’s as well as homeowner’s point of view, recommend specific and measureable State and Federal Border Security measures needed to secure Arizona’s Borderlands. Certify Border security successes and failures from local residents, County Law Enforcement, County Prosecutor and Sector Border Patrol Officials without relying on Washington’s limited and often inaccurate understanding of the problems facing Arizona ranchers.

Key Principles For Relations Between Media, Stakeholders & ACGA
  • Honest recognition that the Border is not safe or secure/Politics in denial
  • Honest assessment and understanding of the broad security threats from this invasion.
  • Report the truth without “Political Correctness”/Provide the true reality on the ground
  • Credibility and Respect
  • Non confrontational – yet firmly presenting the facts
  • Results Driven/Reject Process “Jawboning”
  • Accountable to be effective/Measure Results
  • Sense of urgency and follow up
  • Clear and factual communications
  • Discrete
  • Pragmatic
  • Persistent Action
3 Position on Borderland Security
  • The U.S. Mexico/Arizona Border is out of control. Current security measures and Border Patrol and County Law Enforcement assets deployed in Arizona are insufficient to improve much less correct the situation.
  • The U.S. Mexico Border must be credibly and sustainably secured and existing immigration laws judiciously enforced. Talk is over, time to act!
  • Achieving immediate Border Security is the most important critical success factor in protecting U.S. citizens from U.S. Mexico Border smuggling and the extensive amount of criminal acts caused by it. The unacceptable risks associated with not knowing who crosses the Border poses a grave threat and increases the vulnerability to a likely terrorist attack. The political and lengthy Immigration debate is a serious distraction in the battle to credibly secure the U.S. Mexico Border.
  • If you extrapolated the number of Arizona Borderlands burglaries, home invasions, fires property and ranch infrastructure damage to a comparable per capita urban area or, to a national disaster such as Katrina, the Arizona Borderlands would qualify for National Disaster Area financial relief and U.S. military presence to restore Arizona/New Mexico Borderlands Community Security.
  • The cumulative financial costs and the ongoing financial burden upon Arizona residents and ranching operations attributable to illegal immigration and smuggling have become intolerable. As a business enterprise, we have a system which is providing consistent destructive actions upon our lives and businesses. These destructive influences will increase consumer costs and ranch failures
 4 Restore Our Border Action Items
  1. The judicial and law enforcement systems, which handle prosecution of these criminal activities, shall recognize and apply an enforcement mechanism that provides for the prosecution of illegally crossing into the U.S. over the Border, for the first time, as a felony barring any person from ever working or receiving residency visa status in the U.S. No exceptions.
  2. Immediately deploy operational units of the U.S. Military to the Arizona/Mexico Border. Station overwhelming Border Patrol/Military blocking force denying illegal entry at the Border.
  3. Establish permanent Forward Operating Bases (FOB) immediately adjacent to the U.S. border with Mexico. (Suggesting at least one FOB every 12 miles)
  4. Overhaul and add teeth to the “Pursuit and Apprehension” policies for Law Enforcement to assure deterrence and protect U.S. residents and State authorities from potential harm. In the first instance, authorize the U.S. Military, Border Patrol, State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies to use these beefed up policies to enforce existing laws.
  5. Authorize the use of force in the interdiction of vehicles and aircraft illegally crossing the U.S. Mexico Border. Empower the Local Law Enforcement leaders to adjust policies to meet conditions on the ground and not rely only upon inflexible procedures preventing Border Security.
  6. Enforce all existing immigration laws without exception. Streamline and expedite deportation of illegal aliens.
  7. Add 3,000+ Arizona BP field agents by 2011. Assure additional incremental hardware is part of Field Agent deployment.
  8. Increase County Law Enforcement permanent “Stonegarden Funding” for additional deputies and fully equipped 4 x 4 patrol vehicles.
  9. Expedite 2010 deployment of new generation digital radio technology to Arizona and New Mexico Border Patrol.
  10. Substantially increase Border Patrol Recon 3, MSS/Radar and FLIR mobile surveillance units and operators. Assure additional incremental agents are deployed to operate this hardware and technology.
  11. Replace outdated Border Patrol Air & Marine Rotorcraft air support with contemporary rotorcraft and small single engine fixed wing. Deploy air support on/near the U.S. Border.
  12. Establish mandatory Cellular coverage for remote non-service areas.
  13. Equip Border Patrol and County Law Enforcement with GMRS “Rhino” GPS radios allowing homeowners and ranchers to communicate in remote areas.
  14. Establish “No Seam” Wilcox/Douglas, Arizona and Lordsburg New Mexico Border Policy Corridor into its own Border Patrol Sector.
  15. Increase and fund additional Arizona Horse Patrol Units.
  16. Streamline federal claims process for recovering damages caused by illegal alien burglaries, vandalism and ranch infrastructure/livestock losses to include feed stock losses on both private & public lands (fires).
  17. Adequately fund State and Federal Attorneys’ Offices to assure timely prosecutions of Border related offences. Stiffen 9th Circuit Appeals Court immigration and narcotics prosecutorial policies.
  18. Measure Border Security success on the community via a monthly disclosure of all crimes, by title and code, committed and suspected to be committed by illegal alien activities which have conducted burglaries, home invasions, and ranching infrastructure/livestock losses. Establish operational transparency for Arizona residents of illegal alien and smuggling activity in their respective Border Patrol Sector and Communities to include County law Enforcement statistics and incidents.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Demand a Refund of your 2008 McCain Contributions

In my earlier post about McCain spending over $10 million in the second quarter of 2010, I noted that nearly half of that money came from his 2008 Presidential campaign coffers.  Seeing Red AZ has a post up explaining how to ask for you money back.  This is not just an Arizona issue.  If you donated to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign and you want it back now that you know he's using it to smear another Republican, you too can ask for you money back!  I highly recommend that you do!

John McCain has been using money stockpiled from his failed 2008 presidential bid to barrage conservative senatorial candidate J.D. Hayworth with a relentless and malicious ad campaign.

If you donated to the lesser of two evils — the McCain over Obama campaign — you are entitled to request a refund.

Donations that were intended for use in one campaign were not meant by their contributors to be transferred to bashing J.D. Hayworth. Ask for a refund and send it where it makes a difference: to the campaign of J. D. Hayworth. Time is short.

Early voting for this crucial primary election begins July 29, 2010. The actual election day is August 24.

To request your refund, contact McCain headquarters:

1702 E. Highland Ave, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-604-2010

Friday, July 23, 2010

McCain spends over $10 Million in Senate Campaign

Arizona Senator and former leader of the charge for amnesty, John McCain, has spent over $10 million in the second quarter of 2010, in his effort to hang on to his Senate seat.  Nearly half of that, $4.65 million, was money he transferred from his 2008 Presidential campaign coffers.  It isn't illegal but I think it should be.  And McCain should be ashamed of himself.  After all, he "led the charge" for his socalled campaign finance reform bill which, thankfully, has almost entirely been gutted by the United States Supreme Court.  But, if he thought it was such a great idea to "get the money out of politics" then why doesn't he live by those words?  Hypocrit.

McCain spending tops $10 million in second quarter

McCain spent more than $10.2 million on his re-election bid in the quarter ended June 30, according to Federal Election Commission records made public Friday.

McCain also transferred $4.65 million left from his 2008 presidential run as he battles former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth. McCain had $1.8 million on hand at the end of June.

Hayworth raised nearly $1.4 million during the period and spent $1.1 million. He had $922,000 on hand at the end of last month.

Hayworth entered the race as a serious threat to McCain, but recent polls show the incumbent with a comfortable lead.

The pace of Hayworth's fundraising slowed in the second quarter. His haul for the past three months was just $300,000 more than the roughly $1.1 million he raised during the first six weeks he was in the race.

McCain has hammered Hayworth for his brief stint as a registered lobbyist and for starring in an infomercial pitching free government money. Much of McCain's spending during the most recent quarter went to television ads highlighting Hayworth's work, including ads that called him a "huckster."

Hayworth launched a television ad on Friday attacking McCain for his past work on an immigration overhaul that would have created a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

The Hayworth camp says McCain's decision to dip into the presidential-campaign well shows he's worried about the challenge from Hayworth.

"It may be legal, but it's certainly wrong for Sen. McCain to accept millions of dollars for one campaign and then spend it on another campaign," Hayworth spokesman Mark Sanders said.

Hayworth has raised more than $2.4 million since entering the race in February. McCain has raised $17.8 million since the beginning of 2009, including the money he's transferred from his presidential campaign accounts.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said transferring money is common, and the campaign's heavy spending is clearly working.

"It's not a surprise that television ads cost money," he said.

ACLU sues Fremont, Nebraska over citizens vote to ban renting and hiring illegals

Remember Fremont, Nebraska where the citizens voted to make it illegal to rent to or hire illegal aliens?  And you know how some folks who are against AZ SB 1070 say things to you like "well, why don't you go after the employers then?".  Never mind that these idiots are completely unaware that it is already illegal to hire illegals in the first place (sorry to be so redundant on that but it's hard to fight idiocy without showing the ridiculousnous of it) and that Arizona is also being sued for creating and implementing a law which would revoke the business license of anyone knowingly hiring illegals.  And now, so is little Fremont.

Support Fremont, Nebraska

Well, now the ACLU is suing little Fremont, Nebraska

Remember Fremont, Nebraska? In June, citizens of the 25,000-person town voted in favor of banning illegal immigrants from renting property or landing a job in the town.

The law, which requires town officials to evaluate the citizenship of anyone renting property, has put the town at the center of the roiling immigration debate.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of landlords, tenants and employers in Fremont.

The suit claims that Fremont’s law interferes with the federal government’s authority over immigration matters and further that it has a discriminatory effect on those who look or sound “foreign.”

“This law encourages discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Amy Miller, Legal Director of ACLU Nebraska, said in a statement. “We’re going to do all we can to make sure this extreme law, which would lead to individuals losing housing and jobs because of their appearance and language accent, never goes into effect.”

Here’s an article from the Fremont Tribune.

“We are reviewing the lawsuits and what they say,” Fremont City Administrator Bob Hartwig told the paper. “It will take a day or two to look at it.”

“Let’s make it clear that the unlawful parties here are the immigrants that chose to break federal and state laws by coming here illegally in the first place,” Nebraska State Sen. Charlie Janssen said in a statement.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund also filed suit yesterday against the Fremont law, according to the Tribune. MALDEF likewise alleges the law violates the Constitution’s supremacy and equal protection clauses.