Archive for the ‘illegal immigrants’ Category:
Written on July 16th, 2010 by jono shouts
Examiner Editorial
Virginia is now the most recent of nine states to unite in opposition to Attorney General Eric Holder’s politically charged suit against Arizona’s recently enacted immigration law. Don’t be surprised if more states join the Arizona cause because Holder is now adding insult to injury by threatening a second suit against Arizona. This one would charge Arizona with racial profiling if the federal courts allow the state’s statute to go into effect as scheduled on July 29.
The injury is the time and money Holder is wasting by suing a state for passing a statute that repeats, almost word for word, existing federal law — on the flimsy grounds that it pre-empts federal authority to police the border, something the feds are doing only haphazardly now. The insult is Holder’s implication that Arizona law enforcement officers will racially target Hispanics even though the law specifically prohibits them from doing so.
Arizona police must have reasonable cause to suspect a violation of a nonimmigration law such as a traffic violation before they can stop anybody. They must then base any “reasonable suspicion” they have that an individual is here illegally on criteria permissible under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. The Arizona law contains a long list of documents — including a valid Arizona driver’s license, birth certificate or passport — that provides the presumption of legal presence. Only those who fail to produce any of the approved documents would be subject to further scrutiny.
Holder’s justification for filing his first federal suit on July 6 is that the 18-page Arizona law allegedly “crossed the constitutional line” by “interfer[ing] with the federal government’s balanced administration of the immigration laws.” But, as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued in his state’s brief supporting Arizona, “federal law expressly allows states to arrest people who are not legally present in the United States.”
While Holder was preparing his suit, his boss issued a presidential executive order that seems to support the philosophical underpinnings of the Arizona law the attorney general now claims is unconstitutional: “From our nation’s founding, the American constitutional order has been a federal system, ensuring a strong role for both the national government and the states. The federal government’s role in promoting the general welfare and guarding individual liberties is critical, but state law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public. Throughout our history, state and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national government.”
Holder should withdraw his suit before he further embarrasses himself.
Read the original article Washington Examiner:
Written on July 12th, 2010 by jo4 shouts
Julia Lyon
At the beginning of July, more than 2,000 families with undocumented immigrants stopped receiving food stamp benefits due to a change in Utah’s rules. Now a growing number of them are showing up at emergency food pantries confused and needing help.
“But, of course, I have to feed my family,” said an undocumented immigrant who is the mother of five and works as a housekeeper at a nursing home. She is among those who recently lost food aid.
Earlier this year, the state announced it would begin to fully count the income earned by all members of a household when determining food stamp eligibility. Previously, only a portion of undocumented immigrants’ income was counted in the food stamp calculation, due to the limitations of an old computer system.
That meant, in some prior cases, that a family with several undocumented members might qualify for food stamps although a family of native Utahns making the same amount of money might not.
“We believe this is fair and equitable across the board to treat all people equally when it comes to calculating the benefits that people get when they apply for food stamps,” said Curt Stewart, a spokesman for the state Department of Workforce Services, which oversees the food stamp program.
Despite the new rules, a blended family with children born in America and parents who are undocumented immigrants could still qualify for help if their income was low enough. The new computer-based eligibility system began July 1.
But the families who have showed up at Hildegarde’s Pantry at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Salt Lake City have not understood the bureaucratic changes and wonder if Americans are being given preference over them.
“I’m worried about running out of food,” said Lydia Herrera, the pantry director. “Everybody is complaining about that: ‘They cut my food stamps.’ ”
Because families received the final decision in mid- to late June, they were often not prepared for the financial hit. The housekeeper’s family normally received about $300 in food stamps each month. Now she plans to visit pantries more often seeking donated food.
“We need to eat right for the [children’s] health,” she said.
Not all pantries are reporting a bump in need from the Latino population. However, some pantries do not inquire about a family’s specific circumstances.
In addition to the 2,220 households that lost benefits, another group will qualify for fewer food stamp dollars now that their income is fully counted. The number in that group was not available from the Department of Workforce Services last week. The state had originally estimated that a total of almost 8,000 households could be affected by the food stamp rule change.
Gina Cornia, the executive director of the advocacy group Utahns Against Hunger, said organizations like hers or others should perhaps follow up with Latino families at pantries to see if the rule change is the reason they’re in need.
Even if they don’t qualify for food stamps, these remain poor, struggling families, she said.
“The failing of the food stamp program is that it doesn’t capture all the families that need help,” Cornia said. “If you make one dollar over, you’re not eligible.”
And not providing food stamps doesn’t mean these families’ needs are going to diminish, said state Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City.
“The cost is going to shift somewhere else or there is going to be other social consequences of not having food for people,” she said.
Yet she recognized that Utahns of all backgrounds are struggling right now.
“I’m more concerned about the children,” Robles said. “The children are the ones who are impacted. They are the future in the nation.”
Read the original article Salt Lake Tribune
Written on July 10th, 2010 by jo4 shouts
Howie Carr
Welcome to Boston this weekend, Gov. Jan Brewer.
Pay no attention to any rabble loitering out in the street, jabbering in some strange foreign tongue. It’s funny how we’re always told how they have to live in the shadows, but they always seem to find the time to emerge long enough to throw beer bottles at the police.
But don’t sweat it, Gov. Brewer. The majority – the vast majority – of Americans are on your side.
We are all Arizonans now. We all live in border states. We are all overwhelmed by this invasion, even in here in Massachusetts, where the illegals take time out from rioting after the World Cup games to converge on the State House on an almost weekly basis. Each time they’re brazenly demanding some new handout – more medical care, additional translators, free college tuition, drivers’ licenses.
The demonstrations always take place during business hours, even though I thought they were only here to do the jobs Americans won’t do – like driving drunk in their unregistered, unlicensed, uninspected, uninsured vehicles.
It’s not about immigration. It’s about illegal immigration. You cannot have a society where one group is expected to obey the laws, play by the rules, pay taxes and speak a common language, and another group sneaking in and not asking, but demanding, to be given everything, for free, with no consequences whatsoever for any crimes they commit.
Out of control? Last week the feds arrested two Russian spies in Cambridge. They were of course registered to vote. Nobody bothered to inquire about their “papers,” because that wouldn’t be Politically Correct.
Then a drunk Mexican illegal dressed up in a meringue costume rear-ended a state rep in Brighton. Happy Cinco de Mayo, amigo!
The month before, we celebrated diversity by having a roundup of some illegal Pakistanis who were somehow connected to the would-be Times Square bomber. One of those alleged terror-connected Pakistani cabbies was busted in Boston, home of the meatheads known as the Boston City Council. They passed a resolution demanding a boycott of Arizona.
I guess the Boston City Council is boycotting Boston now that the cabbie was lugged in Allston.
Gov. Brewer, we in Massachusetts support you and Arizona – more than 80 percent on some issues in recent polls. This is why even the Democrat legislature is finally starting to get the message. We can’t take care of every foreign layabout who sneaks into this country and either drops an anchor baby or declares himself a political refugee.
Even further north, in New Hampshire, they’re being overwhelmed. Somehow the illegals have misinterpreted the state motto. It’s “Live Free or Die,” not “Live for Free or Die.”
Oh, yes, we all live in border states now – all 57 of them, by Obama’s count. Our PC fool of a governor tells us with a straight face that what he calls “undocumented workers” can’t get state benefits. But Auntie Zeituni, President Obama’s aunt, squats in public housing, “retired” at age 57.
Every few years we check the tax filings of state legislators, and along with the usual collection of U.S. deadbeats, just about everybody who came over from the Third World doesn’t pay taxes. Where would the likes of Marie St. Fleur and Antonio Cabral ever get the idea that paying taxes is only for the stupid gringos?
We know what you’re going through because we’re going through it, only it’s not as bad – yet. That’s why we paraphrase President Kennedy:
I am an Arizonan.
Read the original article BostonHerald
Full Story »
Filed under illegal immigrants
Tags:Arizona, Auntie Zeituni, Boston, boycott of Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, illegal immigration, Inthrutheoutdoor, President Obama’s aunt, state legislators, U.S. deadbeats, uninspected, uninsured vehicles, unlicensed, unregistered
Written on July 7th, 2010 by jo13 shouts
Kris W. Kobach
It is becoming increasingly clear that, when it comes to illegal immigration, the Obama Administration has a disturbingly cavalier approach to what the law requires. Three recent examples illustrate his disdain for the plain meaning of the law.
First, during an interview in Ecuador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag about the Obama Administration’s plan to sue Arizona. In so doing, she revealed who was sitting in the driver’s seat when it came to the Justice Department’s decision: “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”
Clinton was correct in her prediction. On Tuesday, the Obama Justice Department filed suit against the Arizona law, calling the measure “invalid” and saying it interfered with federal immigration responsibilities.
In other words, the same political calculations that drove President Obama to criticize (and mischaracterize) the Arizona law, now drove the Justice Department to bring the suit. Not to mention the potential embarrassment that would result if the Justice Department came to an independent conclusion that Arizona’s law is on solid ground. Barack Obama-constitutional scholar that his fans make him out to be — can’t say one thing and have the Justice Department say another.
The problem with Obama’s strategy is that the federal judges will actually read the Arizona law and they will find that there is precious little for the Justice Department to attack. Put simply, there is no federal statute that Arizona’s law conflicts with. The opinions of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the circuits that have addressed the issue) support the authority of Arizona to enact its law. Another obstacle for the Obama Administration is the fact that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 authored an opinion holding that state police officers have the authority to arrest illegal aliens-the same authority underlying the Arizona law. In short, the Obama Administration’s suit is on very thin ice.
But even if one were to imagine that the administration had a strong legal argument, there would have been yet another reason not to file the lawsuit: It is completely unnecessary. Five suits have already been filed by the ACLU and its fellow travelers The issue is already teed up for the federal courts to decide. The administration achieves nothing by launching its own litigation, except for rallying the Democrats’ open-borders base before the 2010 elections. The Justice Department should never be abused in this blatantly-political manner.
Case No. 2: According to Arizona Sen. John Kyl, Obama told him in a one-on-one conversation that the administration was not going to secure the border until Republicans agreed to go along with an amnesty for illegal aliens. In other words, enforcing the law is optional in the eyes of the President-just another bargaining chip for him to use in order to get what he wants. The White House (not Obama himself) now claims that Sen. Kyl is lying. But given Kyl’s reputation for honesty, and the fact that the Obama Administration has radically reduced immigration enforcement since taking office, Kyl’s account of the conversation has more credibility.
Obama’s statement reveals that he has very little regard for his obligation under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” He may not like federal immigration laws, but that does not entitle him to suspend them.
Case No. 3: According to eight Republican senators, the Obama Administration is now contemplating the possibility of unilaterally granting an amnesty to illegal aliens by executive action. How would the administration pull this off? Apparently by granting “parole” to millions of illegal aliens, en masse.
The problem with this scheme is that federal law doesn’t allow it. The avenue of granting an illegal alien parole-and lawful presence in the United States-was created by Congress to be used on a case-by-case basis. If, for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefits,” a particular alien needed to be allowed to remain in the United States, then the executive branch has the authority grant that alien parole.
The meaning of the law has been clear for decades. But now Obama is considering changing it to give himself unprecedented power to grant amnesty to millions with the wave of his hand. Never mind that the granting of a mass amnesty is plainly a legislative action-altering the legal rights of millions-and the Constitution reserves such legislative powers to Congress.
Taken together, these three episodes paint a picture of lawlessness. The Obama Administration seems to believe that the President has the authority to set aside a state law because it is contrary to his political agenda, suspend the enforcement of federal laws for political reasons, and seize from Congress the legislative power to grant an amnesty. So much for a country governed by the rule of law, not the rule of man.
Read the original article HumanEvents
Full Story »
Filed under illegal immigrants
Tags:Arizona, constitution, federal immigration laws, Holder, illegal alien parole, Illegal Aliens, Inthrutheoutdoor, Justice Department, Obama administration, Republican Senators, Sen. Kyl, U.S. Court of Appeals
Written on June 15th, 2010 by jo2 shouts
Brian Montopoli
Congressman Steve King, an Iowa Republican, today requested that President Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, testify before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law in order to address “the public perception that favoritism played a role in the grant of asylum to Ms. Onyango.
In a letter to the chair of the subcommittee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, King writes that “[i]n order to better determine whether favoritism played a role – especially because Ms. Onyango had been earlier turned down for asylum and ordered deported in 2004 before her nephew became president – the Subcommittee needs to hear from Ms. Onyango herself.”
President Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, on Nov. 24, 2009.
(Credit: AP)
Congressman Steve King, an Iowa Republican, today requested that President Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, testify before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law in order to address “the public perception that favoritism played a role in the grant of asylum to Ms. Onyango.” In a letter to the chair of the subcommittee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, King writes that “[i]n order to better determine whether favoritism played a role – especially because Ms. Onyango had been earlier turned down for asylum and ordered deported in 2004 before her nephew became president – the Subcommittee needs to hear from Ms. Onyango herself.”
”While I understand that asylum proceedings are generally confidential, Margaret Wong, Ms. Onyango’s attorney, has clearly courted press attention regarding this matter,” he continues. “In fact, I assume that the press learned that Ms. Onyango received asylum because of comments to the media made by Ms. Wong. Therefore, Ms. Onyango has made herself a public figure and should have no hesitation about appearing before the Subcommittee. Further, in order to facilitate Ms. Onyango’s appearance before the Subcommittee, I request that you and Chairman Conyers authorize the Committee to reimburse her travel expenses.”
Onyango was granted asylum last month; the half-sister of Mr. Obama’s late father, she moved from Kenya to the United States in 2000.
Her 2002 application for asylum, which was tied to violence in Kenya, was rejected two years after she filed it. Despite that result, Onyango continued living in public housing in Boston.
When it was reported in 2008 that Onyango was possibly in the country illegally, Mr. Obama said he had no knowledge of her status. She testified on her own behalf in U.S. Immigration Court in Boston before being granted asylum this year.
The subcommittee hearing is set to take place Thursday morning.
Read the original article CBSNews
Written on May 26th, 2010 by JoStepno shouts
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all…Theodore Roosevelt 1907
The Three Amigos, Obama, Pelosi and Reid, allowed Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon to appear before Congress and hypocritically lecture us on how we should treat illegal immigrants. Listening to this browbeating while VP Joe “Plugs” Biden and “Nanny” Pelosi sat motionless in the background (and I don’t think it was just Nancy’s Botox this time), I thought we had been invaded by Mexico and that our government was surrendering a ceremonial sword in defeat. I have long feared Mexico could stage a 200,000-man invasion of the U.S. (300,000 if they can round up three more utility vans).
Mexico’s immigration laws are archaic, Draconian, and much tougher than ours. You have to prove you can pay your own way and support your family to move there— basically, just the opposite of what it takes to be a Democrat here.
It does not matter what Mexico’s immigration laws are anyway. They are unevenly applied and designed only to extort money or to intimidate political adversaries. Hey, Wall Street, AMA, and the Cambridge Police Department – sound familiar?
Obama lashed out against Arizona’s new immigration law, which basically says the state can do what the federal government is unwilling to do: round up illegals and deport them. His Attorney General indicated he would sue Arizona over the 16-page law, which he later admitted he had not read. You know, the same way Congress passed health care.
Might I suggest some summer beach reading for the Attorney General—the Constitution of the United States?
From what I can tell, Obama opposes Arizona’s law mainly in hopes of gaining more victim-class votes from the growing Hispanic community. With his agenda, to get reelected he must manufacture votes and voters–like he did with ACORN. Obama says this law is racist because it will round up Mexicans. Wrong – it will round up illegal Guatemalans too.
It has gotten bad in Arizona. I think the last straw was when citizens called the cable company for information and had to “press dos for English.” And when the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona businesses, Arizona responded by saying it would cut off the 25% of the power it supplies to LA. It turns out, upon further review, that the only product L.A. exports is arrogance.
The Arizona law is so popular (70% national approval rating) that Senator John McCain finds himself in a tough re-election battle because of his seemingly “Inside the Beltway” indifference on illegal immigration. In fairness to McCain, he might not understand the problem. When he was first elected, the only immigrants were white Protestants getting off the Mayflower. Things have changed; now we cannot even find a Protestant on the Supreme Court.
If the Arizona police suspect you of being illegal, they give you a simple test. They ask you to identify the last three winners of “America Idol” and the contents of a supersized McDonald’s meal.
As I have long said, I am all for legal immigrants who want to come here and be productive citizens. This law is about illegal aliens, not legal ones.
Arizona’s immigration bill might serve all concerned well if it drives moocher illegal immigrants out of Arizona and back to their native California. We already have enough freeloaders in this country: 53% of the population, based on the November 2008 election. It seems we need to be reminded every twelve years or so why liberals cannot govern.
With Obama’s regulations and union thuggery on the rise in the USA, Mexicans need not worry about employment. They can just go back to Mexico if they want jobs from all the American companies that will soon be moving there.
Read the original article Daily Caller
Written on May 17th, 2010 by JoStep7 shouts
MEGHAN BARR
CLEVELAND — A U.S. immigration court has granted asylum to President Barack Obama’s African aunt, allowing her to stay in the country, her attorneys announced Monday.
The decision was mailed Friday and comes three months after Kenya native Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama’s late father, testified at a closed hearing in Boston, where she arrived in a wheelchair and two doctors testified in support of her case.
Onyango plans to apply for a work visa and can apply for a green card after she gets it, her attorneys said.
The basis for her asylum request was never made public. People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.
“The asylum process is confidential and she wants to keep it that way, so we can’t get into details on why the judge granted asylum or the exact basis for her claim,” said her attorney Scott Bratton. He added: “She doesn’t want people to feel sorry for her.”
Another lawyer, Margaret Wong of Cleveland, said last year that Onyango first applied for asylum “due to violence in Kenya.” The East African nation is fractured by cycles of electoral violence every five years.
Medical issues also could have played a role. In a November interview with The Associated Press, Onyango said she was disabled and was learning to walk again after being paralyzed from Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disorder.
Onyango moved to the United States in 2000. Her first asylum request was rejected, and she was ordered deported in 2004. But she didn’t leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston.
Onyango’s status as an illegal immigrant was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November 2008. Obama said he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and believes laws covering the situation should be followed.
A judge later agreed to suspend her deportation order and reopen her asylum case.
Wong has said that Obama wasn’t involved in the Boston hearing. Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said Monday that the White House had no involvement in the case at any point in the process.
In his memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama affectionately referred to Onyango as “Auntie Zeituni” and described meeting her during his 1988 trip to Kenya.
Onyango helped care for the president’s half brothers and sister while living with Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya.
Read the original AP article SeattlePi
Written on May 1st, 2010 by joone shout
BOB CHRISTIE
PHOENIX (AP) — Authorities have captured 17 suspected illegal immigrants in southern Arizona as they continued their manhunt Saturday for smugglers who they say shot and wounded a sheriff’s deputy in a remote desert area 50 miles south of Phoenix.
Three of those captured overnight Friday matched descriptions from the wounded Pinal County deputy and were being questioned Saturday, sheriff’s Lt. Tamatha Villar said. The deputy was released from the hospital, and was recovering at home.
The shooting came amid a growing national debate over the state’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration. A backlash over the law has erupted, with civil rights activists, concerned it will lead to racial profiling, calling for protests and boycotts.
Criticism of the law was sure to figure prominently at dozens of immigrants rights marches and rallies planned for Saturday across the nation, including one set for the grounds of the Arizona state Capitol.
The new law’s passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers and illegal immigration drop houses. The issue gained renewed attention a month ago when a southern Arizona rancher was shot and killed by a suspected illegal border crosser.
Arizona politicians called Friday’s shooting an outrage and urged the federal government to do more to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.
The violence “should show the rest of the country what we Arizonans have known for too long — the unsecured border poses a very real and very immediate danger,” said U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat whose district includes part of Pinal County.
On Friday afternoon, Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, was patrolling near Interstate 8 when he came upon a stash of marijuana bales and five suspected smugglers. At least one of the suspects opened fire on him, tearing a chunk of skin from his back.
Puroll radioed in that he was shot, setting off a frantic hourlong search for the deputy in the remote desert, Villar said.
The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.
State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers to search a 100-square-mile zone for the suspects. The Arizona Republic reported that officials said more than one of the choppers came under fire during the manhunt on Friday.
Puroll, a 15-year department veteran, had been on the lookout for smugglers when he discovered the suspected smugglers, two armed with rifles, authorities said.
Read the original article Daily Caller
Full Story »
Filed under illegal immigrants
Tags:Arizona, Arizona rancher, Deputy Louie Puroll, drug smugglers, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration drop houses, Inthru, manhunt, Pinal County deputy, racial profiling, U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, U.S.-Mexico border
Written on May 1st, 2010 by jo3 shouts
Byron York
Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law
The last few days have seen an extraordinary outburst of criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. In the nation’s elite media outlets, its most respected commentators are portraying the law as an act of police-state repression. Many, if not all, of the specific criticisms can be refuted simply by reading the law itself, but others are more generalized criticisms of immigration enforcement. In any event, it’s hard to choose the most over-the-top and wrongheaded commentary on the law, but here are ten choices, in no particular order. (If you don’t know why a particular statement is wrong, you can check here, and here, and here, and here.)
1. “The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.”
– New York Times editorial
2. “As the Arizona abomination makes clear, there is a desperate need for federal immigration action to stop the country from turning into a nation of vigilantes suspicious of anybody with dark skin.”
– Dana Milbank, Washington Post
3. “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.”
– Cardinal Roger Mahony
4. “This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command ‘Your papers, please,’ however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be ‘Go to hell,’ and then ‘See you in court.’”
– Michael Gerson, Washington Post
5. “In case the phrase ‘lawful contact’ makes it appear as if the police are authorized to act only if they observe an undocumented-looking person actually committing a crime, another section strips the statute of even that fig leaf of reassurance. ‘A person is guilty of trespassing,’ the law provides, by being ‘present on any public or private land in this state’ while lacking authorization to be in the United States — a new crime of breathing while undocumented.”
– Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
(Greenhouse’s “trespassing” allegation was based on an early version of the Arizona bill that was not the bill that became law. Her mistake was later removed from the Times site, but you can see original version here.)
6. “Federal law treats illegal immigration as a civil violation; Arizona law criminalizes it by using the legally dubious mechanism of equating the mere presence of undocumented immigrants with trespassing.”
– Washington Post editorial
(This editorial makes the same mistake as Linda Greenhouse’s “trespassing” column above.)
7. “I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in…An immigrant who is charged with the crime of trespassing for simply being in a community without his papers on him is being told he is committing a crime by simply being.”
– Bishop Desmond Tutu, Huffington Post
(Tutu is perhaps relying on the erroneous information in the New York Times and Washington Post above.)
8. “It harkens back to apartheid where all black people in South Africa were required to carry documents in order to move from one part of town to another.”
– Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on ABC’s “This Week”
9. “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”
– President Barack Obama
10. “This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. I know there’s some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying ‘Show me your papers?’ There’s never been a World War II movie that didn’t include the line ’show me your papers.’ It’s their catchphrase. Every time someone says ’show me your papers,’ Hitler’s family gets a residual check. So heads up, Arizona; that’s fascism. I know, I know, it’s a dry fascism, but it’s still fascism.”
– Seth Myers, “Saturday Night Live”
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
Full Story »
Filed under illegal immigrants
Tags:’show me your papers, Arizona, authorization, Hispanic American, illegal immigration, illegal immigration law, immigration, Inthrutheoutdoor, Obama, passport, that’s fascism, trespassing, undocumented
Written on March 28th, 2010 by jo7 shouts
RUSSELL GOLDMAN
A bill empowering police to arrest illegal immigrants and charge them with trespassing for simply being in the state of Arizona, is likely just weeks away from becoming the toughest law of its kind anywhere in the country.
Already passed by the state’s Senate and currently being reconciled with a similar version in the House, the bill would essentially criminalize the presence of the 460,000 illegal immigrants living in the state.
The measure allows police to detain people on the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants, outlaws citizens from employing day laborers, and makes it illegal for anyone to transport an illegal immigrant, even a family member, anywhere in the state.
The bill’s supporters say a local crackdown has become a necessity because the federal government has failed to adequately seal the borders or actively enforce its laws. They blame Arizona’s spiraling crime and unemployment rates on its large population of illegal immigrants.
Read the original article & see video ABCNews
Older Posts »
Recent Comments