Hispanic Programs

SB1070 Faces Federal Lawsuit Today: Judge Has Upheld Federal Jurisdiction Twice Before

Today, an Arizona District Judge will hear oral arguments in the federal law suit against SB1070.

District Judge Susan Bolton will be presiding over the case. Jacques Billeaud from the Associated Press has an article up on Judge Bolton.

Judge Bolton has had substantial experience working on immigration issues:

Susan Bolton sentenced a Mexican smuggler to 16 years in prison for leading 14 illegal immigrants to their death in the broiling Arizona desert.

She decided in 2002 that Border Patrol officials had legal immunity and couldn't be sued for their part in a 1997 immigrant roundup that led to 430 arrests and drew complaints that Hispanics who were U.S. citizens were harassed because of their appearance.

However Judge Bolton has upheld federal jurisdiction over state law twice before:

Bolton has ruled in two cases unrelated to immigration that federal law trumps state law.

In 2008, Bolton threw out a claim by a woman who alleged her employer broke a federal law on overtime pay. The woman made the claim under federal law but sought more generous damages under a state law dictating when an employee is to be paid. The judge threw out her claim under state law.

Three years earlier, in a lawsuit from a woman who claimed she was harmed by taking a cold medicine, Bolton ruled that a state law immunizing drug makers from most punitive damages in product liability cases was superseded by federal law.

Judge Bolton will only hear the beginning of oral arguments. It is very likely that a decision on a federal injunction to stop the law from going into effect may come as early as next week.

 

SB 1070 lawsuits could bankrupt local governments

Hugh Holub of the Tucson Citizen has a story up today on the financial cost of defending the lawsuits against SB1070.

The lawsuits in question are not the seven lawsuits filed to stop SB1070 from going into effect. The lawsuits referred to in this article are the ones that would arise once the law is enacted.

In subsection G of SB1070, there is a provision that would allow citizens to sue, law enforcement officials if they thought that they were not enforcing immigration law. Section G is below, the full law can be seen here:

G.  A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
     
1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.

2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE  THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

If we read this subsection carefully, the problem with this provision becomes apparent. Under this subsection, the person who brings the lawsuit can recover their court costs and attorney fees. Who pays for the legal costs of someone who files suit under this subsection, the state. If the state is paying these legal fees, then ultimately this cost would be brought down to the tax payer.

One of the more pernicious elements of SB 1070 is allowing citizens to sue local governments if it is believed the local law enforcement agencies are not enforcing SB 1070 as vigorously as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, State Senator Russell Pearce and their gang of  anti-immigrant folks desire.

So who is going to pay for the lawsuits against local governments when it is claimed they are not vigorously enforcing SB 1070?

Taxpayers.

Many local law enforcement officials outside of Maricopa County in Arizona are saying that they will not enforce SB1070 even if it is enacted. There is speculation that Subsection G of SB1070 is designed to force compliance from cities who will not comply with SB1070.

One can safely assume that as soon as SB 1070 goes into effect, a bunch of suits will be filed against those cities and counties where law enforcement leaders have questioned SB 1070. The City of Tucson and Santa Cruz and Pima counties for example.

This is aimed at forcing jurisdictions who don’t agree with the Arpaio/Russell point of view to toe the line of making illegal immigration the only law enforcement issue in Arizona.

For local governments already struggling to make ends meet SB1070 law suits could mean financial ruin.

If your city, town or county disagrees, you are going to be hit with enormous legal costs as the Arpaio/Pearce gang’s lawyers sue over lack of SB 1070 enforcement.

Santa Cruz County, for example, is hanging by a thread financially. They could be forced into bankruptcy if they are buried in SB 1070 enforcement litigation.

The full Tucson Citizen article can be read here.

Two Utah State Workers Responsible for "Illegal Immigrant" List

Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune is breaking news that the Utah Government was in fact tangentially involved with creating a "hit list" of purported "illegal immigrants."

The state has identified and placed on leave at least two employees from the Department of Workforce Services who accessed state data to compile a list of 1,300 people who were purportedly in the country illegally.

“This is a very calculated, deliberate, patiently prepared violation of security protocols of how we gather information at the state,” Gov. Gary Herbert said Friday morning on KSL.

“Release of such private, sensitive information is deplorable,” the governor said in a statement. “When someone does business with the state of Utah, they deserve to know that their private information will be kept private.”

The two employees have been placed on administrative leave pending completion of the full investigation, according to the governor’s office. Others may be identified as the review continues, with results to be turned over to the Utah Attorney General’s Office.

The full story can be read here.

While it is a relief that the governor, has condemned the actions of a few rogue state government workers, it is still deeply troubling that this list was created.

It is disturbing that any state government on American soil could produce a "list" akin to something that Stalin, or the Nazi's in Germany would condone.

Conservative Evangelical Leaders Testify Before House Committee on Immigration

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law held a hearing on: the Ethical Imperative for Reform of our Immigration System.

Evangelical leaders are among the most passionate advocates for passing comprehensive immigration reform. Their testimony at the hearing was both insightful and intelligent.

Richard Land, President, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission described:

three pillars” of any comprehensive reform bill: border security, interior enforcement, and legalization/guest worker program.

“Fundamentally, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals view immigration through the lens of their faith,” said Land.  “As citizens of the United States, we – meaning Southern Baptists – have an obligation to support the government and the government’s laws for conscience’ sake. 

We also have a right to expect the government to fulfill its divinely ordained mandate to punish those who break the laws and reward those who do not. 

But, Southern Baptists also recognize a biblical mandate to care for “the least among us”, to care for the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully. Later in the hearing, Land said,

“In 2006 the Southern Baptist Convention, the last time the Congress was debating this issue, passed a resolution overwhelmingly. 95% plus vote and you understand that when the convention passes a resolution those are elected messengers from the 44,000 churches each local church elects a member to go to the convention and vote their conscience.

And I think any fair reading of that resolution is a policy that secures the borders and then finds a way toward legal status an earned pathway toward legal status.”

This is a great framework for how to discuss immigration among faith based conservative voters. Andrea Nill over at Think Progress, has a great post up from the hearing about the definition of "Amnesty." 

The post focuses on an exchange between the ranking member on the committee Steve King (R) and witness Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel and Dean, Liberty University School of Law over the definition of Amnesty. The full post can be read here, with the video and transcript below.

KING: I would define amnesty this way [...] — to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. And I just submit that definition to you and ask as a lawyer, an attorney, as a pastor, and as someone who has studied this thoroughly, how you would react to that definition. [...]

STAVER: Congressman King, that definition would not be consistent with the rule of law. It would not be consistent with the definition that is Blackstone or Black’s Law dictionary. Amnesty would be forgiveness — complete forgiveness — where you have absolutely no penalty. That’s what Ronald Reagan did, I don’t support what Ronald Reagan did. I don’t suppose that that is what I’m proposing here. [...]

KING: Then I would submit then Reverand that the path that you’ve described here is pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English. Those things are designed to provide the objective of the person who has already broken the law. [...] I don’t see that as a penalty or any kind of recompense for breaking the law. [...]

A list of 1,300 Utah residents, with the words “illegal immigrants” is released

Kirk Johnson of the New York Times, has a story up that is so crazy that it is almost unbelievable.

According to the story which can be read here:

A list of 1,300 Utah residents, with the words “illegal immigrants” marked across the top of each page, has sparked panic among some Hispanics in this state.

The list, which contains details and notation about each person — from home address and telephone number to date of birth and, in the case of pregnant women, their due dates — was sent to law enforcement and media outlets on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert said Wednesday that in investigation was under way to see if state employees might have been involved.

The letter accompanying the list said that it was from “Concerned Citizens of the United States” and urged immediate deportation proceedings against the people listed as well as publication of their names by the news media. The letter said that more lists and names would be forthcoming and added: “We will be listening and watching.”

Thanks to our friend Melinda Warner at Media Matters, we have obtained a copy of the original letter. It can be read here.

Be sure to check back here for further developments.

Sam Stein: Arizona Violent Crime Down, Except Under Tough Anti-Immigration Sheriff

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, just wrote a piece on violent crime in Arizona. Using data from America's Voice, Stein shows that crime is down all over Arizona except in Sherriff Joe Arpaio's district. Excerpts are below, full read is here:

The non-profit group America's Voice sent out a chart on Wednesday, documenting the change in violent crime levels in various Arizona police jurisdictions from 2002 through 2009. The numbers tell two interesting stories.

The first is that, by and large, crime is down across the board. In Arizona as a whole, it has dropped 12 percent in the past seven years. But in major Maricopa County cities with their own police forces -- Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe -- the rate has dropped even faster. (The group measured within Maricopa County because it is the epicenter of the immigration debate. But in Tucson, which is not in the county, there has also been a drop in the crime rate since 2002, according to law enforcement statistics).

And the second:

The more telling number may be the crime statistics for the portion of Maricopa County that is under the purview of controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio. According to data compiled by America's Voice, crime in that area has actually increased 58 percent since 2002.

Arpaio is considered something of a visionary among conservatives with respect to his approach to immigration. Many of his reforms, indeed, have served as a basis for the law that Gov. Jan Brewer tried to implement statewide. But he has clashed with other sheriffs over his methods, with some complaining that such broad anti-immigration policies put an overwhelming burden on law enforcement officials while producing social friction rather than safety.

 

World Cup Soccer Final Set Ratings Record

We at NDN, do alot of work with Hispanic demographics. Soccer is tremendously popular around the world and especially in Latin America, we have been following both the games and the ratings with great interest.

We are happy to note that according to the Associated Press:

World Cup television viewership rose 41 percent over     four years ago for English-language telecastsin the United States, with Spain's 1-0 overtime victory over the Netherlands setting a record for a men's soccer game.

Sunday's game in Johannesburg, which gave the Spanish their first World Cup title, was seen by 15,545,000 viewers on ABC, according to fast national ratings. The previous high was 14,863,000 viewers for the United States' 2-1 overtime loss to Ghana in the second round on June 26.

An additional 8,821,000 million viewers watched Spanish-language coverage Sunday on Univision, according to Nielsen Media Research, bringing the total to nearly 24.4 million.

ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 averaged a 2.1 rating, 2,288,000 households and 3,261,000 viewers for the 64 World Cup games. The rating was up 31 percent from a 1.6 four years ago, while households increased 32 percent from 1,735,000 and viewers rose from 2,316,000.

The full story can be read here.

The success of the World Cup in the United States is another indicator of the growing power of the Hispanic power in the united states.

For more on the burgeoning growth of the Hispanic population please read Hispanic Rising 2010.

Point-Counterpoint : AZ Politico's Square Off on Federal Lawsuit

AZ State Sen. Russell Pearce (R) and AZ State Rep. Krysten Sinema, (D) appeared on the Fox News program On the Record with Greta Von Susteren to discuss the DOJ lawsuit against SB1070. Portions of the  interview are below. With some fact checking...

VAN SUSTEREN: What is -- you know, the -- one of the allegations inside the federal complaint -- the civil suit that -- actually, it's a complaint for injunction against your state -- is that -- there's mention about Mexico and the impact it'll have on the U.S. versus Mexico -- you start to shake your head.

PEARCE: Yes. You know, I've read that -- I've read the lawsuit from DOJ, Department of Justice. It's absolutely outrageous. I mean, this is like letting the DUI guy go because it could have an impact on the family, could lose his job, so we don't -- there is no room for humanitarian in the enforcement of the laws in terms of the -- strictly in terms of the law. There's no provision and there's (ph) never been upheld.

This law is fair. In fact, we go farther than the federal laws we talked about before, Greta. We put safeguards in this law that the federal law doesn't have. But what you've got is the Obama administration trying to insert policy into a lawsuit to maintain their non-enforcement mentality and agenda.

According to the White House:

the Border Patrol has doubled in size to approx 20,000 Border Patrol agents on board.

CBP statistics show that illegal immigration into the United States is down with apprehensions between points of entry having dropped 23 percent in FY09. During FY09 the Border Patrol apprehended 556,041 compared with 723,825 during FY08. El Paso Sector saw a 51 percent reduction in apprehensions, the Tucson Sector saw a 24 percent reduction in apprehensions, and the Rio Grande Valley Sector saw a 19 percent reduction in apprehensions. Those statistics reflect a reduction in the number of people attempting to illegally cross our borders.

And as part of his comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border, President Obama will request $500 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities.

The president will also deploy up to an additional, requirements-based 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border. Funds will be utilized to enhance technology at the border, share information and support with State, Local, and Tribal law enforcement, and increase DoJ and DHS presence and law enforcement activities at the border, to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any -- I mean, a police officer, every time he or she hits the streets at risk -- at risk in terms of getting shot (INAUDIBLE) something horrible by anybody, by someone lawfully here, unlawfully. I mean, there's always a risk. So there's always a risk to being sued. How does this statute create any greater risk for law enforcement?

SINEMA: Well, one of the problem is that individuals can sue a law enforcement agency if they perceive or believe that a law enforcement officer is not enforcing this law to the fullest extent. So they happen to see an officer talking with a person who may be a person of color. That individual can sue the law enforcement agency if the officer doesn't arrest and detain that person.

VAN SUSTEREN: Wait.

SINEMA: Now, on the other hand...

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to get too wonkish -- I don't want to get too wonkish with you, but how in the world is there standing, if I'm walking down the street and I see that happen? I mean, does the law specifically give me, as a bystander, that authority?

SINEMA: It does. The law specifically gives citizens -- lawful citizens in the state the right to sue. Now, we all know that a suit wouldn't be valid, so it would likely be dismissed. But it would cost money and take time for that law enforcement agency to deal with that lawsuit.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. I'm...

SINEMA:
On the other hand, if...

VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead, and then I got to -- then I got to go, but go ahead.

SINEMA
: On the other hand, if a law enforcement agent does stop someone and detains them and inquire into their status, that person could sue on a claim of civil rights violation, whether or not it's a valid claim. So this really puts law enforcement in a tough position about being sued.

FACT CHECK:

This is true, under Subsection G of SB1070:

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
   OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
   SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
   RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
   EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
   ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
  
   1.THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.
  
   2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE  THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
   HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

This section of SB1070 is most certainly not apart of the federal law, and creates a dynamic in which local law enforcement officers may feel forced to profile people in order to avoid being sued by any citizen who may suspect that their neighbor is an undocumented immigrant.

 

No A La Ley De Arizona - Meg Whitman

Republican California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has provided evidence that at least one GOP candidate understands the value of the Hispanic vote.

Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle, has a story up today highlighting Whitman's Hispanic outreach campaign. He notes:

The billboard, spotted on Highway 99 about 2 miles north of Earlimart in Tulare County, says:

"NO a la Proposicion 187 y NO a la Ley de Arizona -- Meg Whitman."

Thomas Holyoke, an associate professor of political science at California State University-Fresno, told us that according to Wednesday's Field Poll, Whitman's outreach is paying early dividends.

It appears to have helped, Holyoke said, that Whitman said she would have opposed Arizona controversial new immigration law. She said that even as GOP primary rival Steve Poizner was veering hard right on immigration.

Read the full story here, and check out a screen grab of a billboard that Whitman's campaign has put up in California.

SB1070 and The Hispanic Electorate in Arizona

There have been a couple of stories highlighting the impact of SB1070 on the Hispanic electorate in Arizona.

Nicolas Riccardi of the Los Angeles Times has a piece up entitled, Arizona's SB1070: Turning Anger on Immigration Law Into Votes, full article can be read here.

Rafael Robles has been eligible to vote ever since he became a U.S. citizen 23 years ago, but nothing has spurred him to register until two young activists visited his house here last week.

......Activists hope that SB 1070, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law in April and is scheduled to take effect July 29, will generate enough angry new Latino voters like Robles to reshape this state's hard-line approach to immigration.

The article  also focuses on the similarities between the voter drive initiated by activist groups after Prop 187 was passed in California.

......Many analysts and political scientists predict a similar outcome — eventually — in Arizona. Latinos, 30% of the population, are the fastest-growing and youngest demographic group in the state.

"It's the same energy I saw with 187," said Ben Monterroso, a Service Employees International Union official who spearheaded voter registration in California in 1994 and now oversees the Arizona operation. "People are saying enough is enough."

However Arizona, is not the same as California, in demographics or politics:

And Stan Barnes, a lobbyist and former Republican legislator in the Arizona Senate, said the state's crackdown on illegal immigrants would bring out other new voters — ones who support sealing the border.

"The average guy in Arizona believes that Mexico has become a narco state and that is coming to Arizona," Barnes said. "The fact that the Arizona government has rallied to confront that has energized a whole new electorate."

It's obvious which way the political wind is blowing in the state that has become the favorite illegal entry point from Mexico. Few candidates for statewide office here, even Democrats who opposed SB 1070, are openly sympathetic to illegal immigrants.

Activists are going after registered Hispanic voters, who have not voted in the past, but may vote because of SB1070:

Polls show that SB 1070 is popular in Arizona, except among Latinos; in the most lopsided survey, as much as 81% opposed it. The get-out-the-vote campaign, launched in June by a coalition of labor, community and religious groups, is trying to channel that outrage in November.

The canvassers target Latinos who are already registered but rarely vote. Latino voter turnout hovers about 35%, and about 60% of all Arizona voters went to the polls in the last off-year election. Sixteen percent of registered voters in the state are Latino.

Local news station KBHO CBS has a story up from Sarah Buduson entitled SB1070 Galvanizes Ariz. Latino Voters, full story here:

Arizona’s controversial immigration law has sparked a surge in interest in politics and the voting process among Latino voters, according to Francisco Heredia, the Arizona director of Mi Familia Vota.

"It did help us kind of create the momentum that we need to make sure we get Latinos out and vote this year,”

Heredia said he immediately noticed a difference in political participation after Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 into law April 23.

"We've seen a tremendous increase by young people and people that have graduated college already. It kind of strikes an emotional chord with them that it goes too far,” Heredia said.

"We see in our office, we're ramping up our campaign every day, we see young people coming in volunteering, talking to people on the phone, going out canvassing.”

The article also highlights some of the challenges facing such a voter registration drive:

In Arizona, nearly half of eligible Latino voters are not registered to vote, Heredia said.

Heredia blamed Proposition 200, a voter-approved referendum that passed in 2004 and requires voters to present certain forms of identification to register, and apathy.

"I think it's a just a communitywide problem that we haven't emphasized civic participation as much as we should,” he said.

Mi Familia Vota and eight other Latino organizations are working together to ramp up voter participation in Arizona this fall because of SB 1070.

Heredia said it will work.

Syndicate content