White House, DOJ Not Denying Clinton's Statement That AZ Lawsuit On The Way

BySam Stein

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's disclosure that the Department of Justice will be filing a suit against Arizona's tough new immigration law is not being denied by either the White House or the Department of Justice itself.

In what appeared to be an unscripted admission, Clinton told Ecuadoran television on Thursday that DoJ, under the direction of the president, "will be bringing a lawsuit against" the Arizona act, which has been sharply criticized in Latin America.

The statement, first reported by the site Right Scoop, was the first overt declaration on the Justice Department's course of action. In late April, President Obama first announced his support for an investigation into Arizona's law, which would grant local law enforcement officials broader powers to detain suspected illegal immigrants. Since then, there have been hearings involving Attorney General Eric Holder but little in the way of explicit action.

Asked about Clinton's remarks, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs urged the Huffington Post to send queries to the DoJ. The department's spokesman, Matt Miller, replied with the following: "The department continues to review the law."

The non-denials are not, of course, confirmations of Clinton's statement. But it's hard to imagine that the Secretary of State is operating off of a different script than the rest of the administration. A suit, of course, would ramp up the debate over immigration reform, suggesting that the White House believes that either the law represents an egregious legal overreach or just smart politics.

Arizona ‘BUYcott’ organizer: ‘ID-ing everybody’ will make the ‘illegal criminals disappear like cockroaches.’

By Andrea Nill

This weekend, tea party activists gathered in Arizona to express support for the state’s new immigration law, SB-1070, by launching a “buycott” campaign to support state businesses. Tony Venuti, publisher of AZ Tourist News, has spearheaded the “Arizona Buycott” webpage which lists the businesses which want their support of SB-1070 to be documented. The front page of the website features a video in which Venuti lays out his own immigration views. Venuti states that the criminals, or “bad hombres,” need to get their “butts out of town.” According to Venuti, by “ID-ing” everyone, the “illegal criminals” will “disappear like cockroaches”:

Let me tell you something, there’s gonna be procession down into the border South when you see a lot of illegal criminals knowing they are going to be compelled to be ID’d or thrown in jail, you’re gonna see them disappear back south like a bunch of cockroaches. Trust me. The other ones that are here, we’re gonna have to deal with them and I don’t know how that’s going to be dealt with. We don’t need to worry about that now.

Watch it:

Today, the Arizona Republic reported that “the exodus of illegal and legal immigrants predicted by some as a result of Arizona’s tough new immigration law is expected to hurt a variety of businesses that directly and indirectly cater to immigrant populations.” If all of Arizona’s undocumented immigrants “disappeared,” the state could lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs. Rather than worrying about the economic effects of the law itself, Tea Party Nation launched the separate “National Arizona BUYcott” campaign last month at the Winning Back America Conference, which was headlined by Liz Cheney, Fred Thompson, and Sarah Palin. Gina Loudon, the St. Louis tea party supporter who credits herself with coming up the buycott idea, has said “the goal is to render boycotts ineffective.” The personal financing website, mint.com, has estimated that Arizona’s fragile tourism industry has already lost $6-10 million in cancellations since the bill was signed into law.

Texas teacher singles out Latino student during SB-1070 discussion, says Mexicans always ‘expect handouts.’

By Andrea Nill The San Antonio News reports that a Jefferson High School English teacher has been “removed from the classroom” for singling out a Latino student wearing a Mexican soccer jersey and publicly insulting him. According to the student, Augustine Ortiz, what began as a discussion about Arizona’s new immigration law (SB-1070) escalated to an anti-Latino, racist attack:

Ortiz, who was wearing a jersey from a Mexican soccer team, said the teacher told him to sit in the front row. She proceeded to single him out repeatedly, Ortiz said, pointing at him as she made comments like, “The Mexicans with their attitudes are the racist ones.” Continuing to point at Ortiz, she allegedly told the class that Mexicans always “expect handouts” and “soon it’s going to be the United States of Mexico,” according to Ortiz. [...]

Another student in the class that day, Reina Mondragon, 18, corroborated Ortiz’s story. “The kind of discussion that we had on Thursday, May 6, wasn’t like the discussions that we normally have,” she said, adding the teacher questioned why documents in the United States frequently are translated into Spanish and whether Mexicans should be allowed to own land in this country.

According to Ortiz, when he went to complain about the incident, the vice principal “brushed him off.” Once the school’s principal learned of the incident, administrators removed the teacher and launched an investigation. Ortiz also noted that the English teacher had actually been his favorite instructor. “She actually said we need to stand up for what we believe in,” he said. “And now I’m standing up for what I believe in.”

Boycott update: Arizona tourism association counts 23 canceled meetings at a total loss of $6-10 million.

By Andrea Nill Today, the Republican National Convention (RNC) site selection committee decided against holding the 2012 convention in Phoenix, AZ, instead choosing Tampa, FL. Although local and national RNC officials have denied that the outcome had anything to do with Arizona’s recently passed immigration law SB-1070, their decision is just another blow to the state’s ailing tourism industry. Since the passage of SB-1070, at least 23 events have been canceled, totaling a reported loss of between $6 and $10 million. The Washington Post reports: Hispanic civil rights groups are boycotting Arizona and urging others to do the same. Officials at the National Council of La Raza, one of the groups driving the boycott, had privately asked the RNC not to meet in Phoenix. The city risks losing as much as $90 million in hotel and convention business over the next five years because of the controversy, according to city estimates released Wednesday. The state’s hotel and lodging association has counted 23 canceled meetings for a loss of between $6 and $10 million. Major League Baseball has already come out against SB-1070, and if it decides to pull the 2011 All-Star game out of the state, Arizona could lose an additional $150 million. It couldn’t be happening at a worse time for Arizona’s tourism industry. Earlier this year, the Arizona legislature decided to cut the tourism budget back significantly, slashing the parks budget alone by $8.6 million. The Arizona Republic reports that Arizona tourism lobbyists simply didn’t see the Arizona tourism backlash coming when they decided to ignore SB-1070 as it moved through the state Congress. Arizona economist Jim Rounds further points out that “tourism was just getting back on its feet again.” The 2008 RNC convention in Minneapolis – St. Paul generated $170 million and created more than 2,500 jobs. Arizona currently faces a budget shortfall of at least $2 billion — one of the largest in the nation

Baseball All-Star Adrian Gonzalez Says He May Boycott Next Year’s All-Star Game Over AZ Law

By Faiz Shakir Last week, the Major League Baseball Players Association issued a statement condemning the new anti-immigrant law in Arizona, urging its repeal or prompt modification. After initially remaining silent, many Latino baseball players and coaches are beginning to speak out.

To show support for the protest against Arizona’s legislation, Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said he would boycott the All-Star Game that is scheduled to take place next year in Phoenix. Now, that boycott effort has gained an influential endorsement: San Diego Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez. A dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S., Gonzalez is one of the game’s best hitters. He has been on the National League’s All-Star team for the past two seasons.

Gonzalez told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the Arizona law is “immoral” and a violation of human rights. “In a way, it goes against what this country was built on. This is discrimination. Are they going to pass out a picture saying ‘You should look like this and you’re fine, but if you don’t, do people have the right to question you?’ That’s profiling.” He went further in an interview with MLB Fanhouse, stating that he would go so far as to refuse playing in the All-Star Game next year if the law is in effect:

He told FanHouse that he will not attend next year’s All-Star Game in Phoenix if the law is in effect, and that he’d like for major league baseball to boycott spring training in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23.

“I’ll support the Players Association 100 percent,” said Gonzalez, who grew up in both Tijuana and a suburb south of San Diego. “If they leave it up to the players and the law is still there, I’ll probably not play in the All-Star Game. Because it’s a discriminating law.

“I know it can’t be done, but they should take spring training out of (Arizona) if it’s possible.”

All around the league, players are beginning to voice their concerns about the Arizona law. New York Mets catcher Rod Barajas said, “If a blond-haired, blue-eyed Canadian gets pulled over, do you think they are going to ask for their papers? No.” “I don’t know the details, but if I leave the park after a game and I get stopped, am I supposed to have papers with me?” Arizona Diamondbacks infielder Augie Ojeda wondered. “I don’t think that’s fair.”

Calling the Arizona law “racist stuff,” San Diego Padres catcher Yorvit Torrealba said he he’s not anxious to play in Arizona: “Why do I want to go play in a place where every time I go to a restaurant and they don’t understand what I’m trying to order, they’re going to ask me for ID first? That’s bull.” Padres’ closer Heath Bell said Arizona’s law is “mind-boggling.” Padres’ outfielder Scott Hairston added, “It just wasn’t necessary to pass a bill like that.” One player noted that fan reaction to the law will be an important factor:

“I’m not a political guy and I really don’t understand it, but I don’t blame people for protesting if it affects their lives,” third baseman Mark Reynolds said. “If no fans show up at one of our games, I’d better start paying attention.”

The Nation’s Dave Zirin writes, “There are rare historical moments when protest can shape athletes and athletes can in turn shape the confidence, size, and scope of protest. This could very well be one of those moments.” It has been done before in Arizona. In 1990, Arizona voters’ rejection of an MLK holiday set off a cascade of cancellations of conventions and other events. “The NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from the Phoenix suburb of Tempe. The NBA told the Phoenix Suns not to bother putting in a bid for the All-Star game.”

Update Arizona Diamondbacks Managing General Partner Ken Kendrick, who has supported Republican candidates and causes in the past, said he is personally against the new Arizona anti-immigrant law.

Major League Baseball Players Association calls for ‘repeal’ or prompt modification of Arizona law.

By Faiz Shakir

In a statement released today, the Major League Baseball Players Association has issued its opposition to the Arizona’s new anti-immigrant law:

“The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States. These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association. Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans. All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law.

“The impact of the bill signed into law in Arizona last Friday is not limited to the players on one team. The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October. In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks. And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona. All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.

“The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written. We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly. If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.

“My statement reflects the institutional position of the Union. It was arrived at after consultation with our members and after consideration of their various views on this controversial subject.”

Over a quarter of Major League Baseball players are Latino. Major League Baseball and the Arizona Diamondbacks have been pressured by progressive activists to take a stand against the bill. Some have already boycotted the Diamondbacks’ baseball games. Rep. José Serrano (D-NY) has even suggested that the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, scheduled to take place in Phoenix in 2011, should be moved to another location. Thus far, the teams’ front offices have resisted commenting on the law. There are “four managers, one general manager and an owner who are Latino.” This statement by the MLBPA today will likely increase pressure on team owners to comment on the law.

Update The Diamondbacks' public relations office issued a statement yesterday claiming it would be “unfair and unjust” for them to take a position:

Although D-backs' Managing General Partner Ken Kendrick has donated to Republican political candidates in the past, the organization has communicated to Arizona Boycott 2010 leader Tony Herrera that Kendrick personally opposes State Bill 1070. The team also explained that Kendrick is one of nearly 75 owners of the D-backs and none of his, nor do the other owners', personal contributions reflect organizational preferences. The D-backs have never supported State Bill 1070 and have never taken political stances. The D-backs represent all of our employees, players, owners and fans who all have different political affiliations. It would be unfair and unjust for the D-backs to take a position because it can't be reflective upon everybody's views.

Update Crooks and Liars’ John Amato posts video of the protest against the Arizona Diamondbacks at Chicago’s Wrigley Field.

Arizona Expands Its Discrimination: Teachers With Heavy Accents Can’t Teach English, Ethnic Studies Are Banned

By Amanda Terkel Arizona’s supporters of the state’s draconian new immigration law insist that it has nothing to do with race and isn’t meant to discriminate against certain ethnic communities. Their claims are undermined, however, by what else the state government is trying to do to target recent immigrants.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Arizona Department of Education “recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English”:

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators. [...]

“This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state,” said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.

But many schools in the state still have a significant number of teachers who are native Spanish speakers. At one school, state auditors complained that teachers pronounced “words such as violet as ‘biolet,’ think as ‘tink’ and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.” The principal at that school acknowledged that teachers “should speak grammatically correct English” but said they shouldn’t be punished for having an accent.

Teachers that aren’t up to par “may take classes or other steps to improve their English,” and if they still aren’t fluent enough for the state, they will be fired or reassigned.

Adding insult to injury, the Arizona legislature passed a bill yesterday outlawing ethnic studies programs:

HB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity “instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

It also would ban classes that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people.”

The measure is directed at the Tuscon Unified School District’s popular Mexican-American studies department, which school officials say provides only “historical information” — not “ethnic chauvanism” as the state school superintendent has alleged. One state lawmaker tried to show how ridiculous the legislation is by proposing that schools be barred from teaching about 9/11 because it would result in hatred toward Arab-Americans; the measure failed.

M.C.L Comment: Elect a black president and a segment of White America goes crazy.. They passed a law that allow cops to pick people up because they look "illegal" and now if a teacher don't speak prefect English they can be removed or outright fired.

Yet by all means Republicans keep on reaching out to people that already vote for you in the tea party while you push the fastest growing minority group to the Democrats.

EXCLUSIVE: AZ Leg. staffer disputes conservatives' "lawful contact" claims about immigration law

From Media Matters research: Conservative media have claimed that Arizona's new immigration law only allows law enforcement to question a person's immigration status if they are suspected of an unrelated offense. But in a statement given to Media Matters for America, a research analyst for the Arizona House Republican majority disputes these claims.

AZ law: "For any lawful contact" with a person, police shall attempt to determine immigration status if they suspect the person is undocumented

S.B. 1070 states:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Conservative media claim AZ law requires "lawful contact" based on "unrelated offenses" before officer checks legal status

Byron York pushes claim that the phrase "lawful contact" means "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law." From York's April 26 Washington Examiner column:

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Wash. Times: Law applies to those "people already detained for unrelated offenses." An April 27 Washington Times editorial claimed: "The new Arizona immigration law does not institutionalize racial profiling or make being Hispanic a crime. It allows law enforcement officers to conduct citizenship checks of people already detained for unrelated offenses, and only if there is reason to believe someone is in the country illegally."

Hannity: "Proof of citizenship can only be requested by the authorities" when "the individual is already suspected of breaking the law." During the April 27 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity cited York and stated: "Proof of citizenship can only be requested by the authorities during, quote, 'lawful contact' by police. Meaning, the individual is already suspected of breaking the law. It's all right there in the legislation. But the left, well, they don't want you to know that." During the April 28 broadcast, Hannity further stated of the Arizona law: "All they're saying is, if you get pulled over by the police for some other reason and you find yourself in law enforcement custody in some way, shape, matter, or form, that they're allowed to check your status. What's the big deal? What's the big deal with that?"

Daily Caller: "[U]nless an immigrant is committing a crime or some sort of legal violation, no one asks them a thing about their papers." A Daily Caller post stated, "[T]he law requires 'lawful contact' before police can do anything -- so, unless an immigrant is committing a crime or some sort of legal violation, no one asks them a thing about their papers."

AZ House majority research analyst: "Lawful contact" could be with "victims, witnesses" and others interacting with police

AZ House majority research analyst: "[I]t wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer." Media Matters obtained a statement from the Republican House majority's Homeland Security research analyst, Rene Guillen, who stated in a phone message in response to a question about the nature of lawful contact:

[L]awful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire.

Legal experts, law enforcement say "lawful contact" with a person is not limited to cases in which that person is suspected of an unrelated offense

AILA: "If the Arizona legislature had meant to require that the police first suspect a person of an unrelated offense before asking about immigration status it could have clearly put that requirement in the statute, but it did not." David Leopold, immigration lawyer and president elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), stated in correspondence with Media Matters that " 'lawful contact' does not appear to be defined by Arizona statute or case law" and that "the term would appear to encompass many situations involving contact between the police and an individual. If the Arizona legislature had meant to require that the police first suspect a person of an unrelated offense before asking about immigration status it could have clearly put that requirement in the statute, but it did not."

MALDEF general counsel: "[I]t's inaccurate to say that it only relates to someone who's guilty or accused of another offense." During the April 26 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform asserted that "[y]ou have to have another infraction, speeding or reckless driving," before being questioned about immigration status. Dane qualified his comments by saying, "I'm not a lawyer." In response, Thomas Saenz, general counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), stated that "it's inaccurate to say that it only relates to someone who's guilty or accused of another offense":

SAENZ: Well, first, Campbell, it's inaccurate to say that it only relates to someone who's guilty or accused of another offense.

In fact, what the law says is, any lawful contact between a police officer and someone else. That means it could be a victim of a crime, a witness of a crime. Those folks, too, could face reasonable suspicions that they're undocumented and be required by a police officer to produce some proof of their status.

And if they don't produce adequate proof, they could end up being swept in by this dragnet as well.

U of A law professor: "Lawful contact" could "mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people." Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman wrote on April 29 that University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller "says 'lawful contact' could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him -- something police are allowed to do -- he may have established 'lawful contact.' "

AZ police chief: Talking "to a witness of a crime" and "a victim of a crime" are "legal contacts of law enforcement." In an interview on NPR's All Things Considered, Tuscon police chief Roberto Villasenor stated: "I think where a lot of people are getting confused is those instances where we stop someone for a criminal violation, we have some reason for that stop and that contact, but I don't believe that's what we're talking about in regard to this law."

From the NPR interview:

Mr. VILLASENOR: Well, I think it says that you can't use race or ethnicity solely as the means of making that determination. I think that there will be an element of that that's looked at. And I think where a lot of people are getting confused is those instances where we stop someone for a criminal violation, we have some reason for that stop and that contact, but I don't believe that's what we're talking about in regard to this law. This law is talking about in the course of any legal contact, as well as when we talk to a witness of a crime or when we talk to a victim of a crime. Those are legal contacts of law enforcement. Now we look at it in the context of those legal contacts. If in the course of them, we develop reasonable suspicion that the individual we're talking with is illegally in the country, we are mandated to take enforcement action. That's where the questions are coming up is how do you develop that reasonable suspicion that they're in the country illegally if they're there talking to you just about being a victim of a crime. [All Things Considered, 4/26/10]

Cantor Afraid To Say Whether He’s For Or Against AZ Immigration Law, Calls It ‘A False Choice’

By Ben Armbruster

Since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed an over-reaching and radical anti-immigration bill into law last week, various conservative media figures, pundits, and former officials have spoken out against it. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called it “un-American,” while Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio said he has “concerns.” However, Republican members of Congress have largely remained silent — with only a handful offering support, coming out against the law, or declining to pick one side or the other.

Yesterady on ABC News’ Top Line, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) chose the non-committal route. Top Line hosts Rick Klein and David Chalian asked Cantor where he stood on the law four times, but the Virginia Republican refused to go on record either way. At one point, Cantor tried to dismiss the questioning, calling it “a false choice,” without any real explanation as to why:

CHALIAN: How is that a false choice?!

CANTOR: Because no one is going to accept the lawlessness. First and foremost, we are a country of laws. Now are you asking whether I think that America is a country of opportunity? Absolutely. Are we a country built on immigrants? Absolutely.

CHALIAN: I’m asking you if you agree with Marco Rubio that the law goes too far. That’s what I’m asking.

CANTOR: Listen, I can tell you this, I am for making sure that America remains a country that stands of freedom and opportunity for everyone and that means we ought to concentrate on enforcing the law and making sure that we enhance legal immigration so that we can continue to grow and prosper so that we can get America back to work.

Watch it:

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, it appears that some Republicans are unwilling to alienate the right-wing base of their constituencies by coming out against the law. But at the same time, they are afraid to drive the GOP further away from Latinos. Cantor is trying to walk this fine line in a not-so-clever way.

Transcript:

KLEIN: Congressman a big debate going on right now over immigration reform and we know what’s going on in Arizona. I just want to ask you this has kind of split Republicans almost down the middle. Do you support what Arizona is doing, this new law that they passed?

CANTOR: Look, Arizona is a border state. You know, events on the ground gave rise to what that legislature in Arizona had to do because of the lawlessness that started to occur. And frankly what that speaks to is a federal government, an administration that has just not done its job. That’s where the focus needs to be. The people of Arizona again, they’re living in a border state. When you’ve got killing going on, trespassing on property, and lawlessness in our country, no wonder people are upset.

CHALIAN: Right but Congressman, you are a national Republican voice, are you in the Jeb Bush – Marco Rubio – Karl Rove camp that this law that Jan Brewer signed in Arizona, goes too far, is unenforcable, or lots of questions around how it will be enforced. Or are you in the McCain – Kyl – Brewer camp in support of the law? Which camp are you in?

CANTOR: I think that’s a false choice.

CHALIAN: How is that a false choice?!

CANTOR: Because no one is going to accept the lawlessness. First and foremost we are a country of laws. Now are you asking whether I think that America is a country of opportunity? Abosolutely. Are we a country built on immigrants? Absolutely.

CHALIAN: I’m asking you if you agree with Marco Rubio that the law goes too far. That’s what I’m asking.

CANTOR: Listen, I can tell you this, I am for making sure that America remains a country that stands of freedom and opportunity for everyone and that means we ought to concentrate on enforcing the law and making sure that we enhance legal immigration so that we can continue to grow and prosper so that we can get America back to work.

Behind the Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

by Greg Palast

[Phoenix, AZ.] Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.

I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.

What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.

What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.

In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.

Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected. That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.

Captives of Sheriff Joe's prison, Maricopa County, Arizona

So I asked Brewer's office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?

No, not one.

Which raises the question: were these disenfranchised voters the criminal, non-citizens Brewer tagged them, or just not-quite-white voters given the José Crow treatment, entrapped in document-chase trickery?

The answer was provided by a federal prosecutor who was sent on a crazy hunt all over the Western mesas looking for these illegal voters. "We took over 100 complaints, we investigated for almost 2 years, I didn’t find one prosecutable voter fraud case."

This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.

Iglesias' jurisdiction was next door, in New Mexico, but he told me that Rove and the Republican chieftains were working nationwide to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria with public busts of illegal voters, even though there were none.

"They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments," Iglesias told me. The former prosecutor, himself a Republican, paid the price when he stood up to this vicious attack on citizenship.

But Secretary of State Brewer followed the Rove plan to a T. The weapon she used to slice the Arizona voter rolls was a 2004 law, known as "Prop 200," which required proof of citizenship to register. It is important to see the Republicans' latest legislative horror show, sanctioning cops to stop residents and prove citizenship, as just one more step in the party's desperate plan to impede Mexican-Americans from marching to the ballot box.

[By the way, no one elected Brewer. Weirdly, Barack Obama placed her in office last year when, for reasons known only to the Devil and Rahm Emanuel, the President appointed Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano to his cabinet, which automatically moved Republican Brewer into the Governor's office.]

State Senator Russell Pearce, the Republican sponsor of the latest ID law, gave away his real intent, blocking the vote, when he said, "There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country."

How many? Pearce's PR flak told me, five million. All Democrats, too. Again, I asked Pearce's office to give me their the names and addresses from their phony registration forms. I'd happily make a citizens arrest of each one, on camera. Pearce didn't have five million names. He didn't have five. He didn't have one.

The horde of five million voters who swam the Rio Grande just to vote for Obama was calculated on a Republican website extrapolating from the number of Mexicans in a border town who refused jury service because they were not citizens. Not one, in fact, had registered to vote: they had registered to drive. They had obtained licenses as required by the law.

The illegal voters, "wetback" welfare moms, and alien job thieves are just GOP website wet-dreams, but their mythic PR power helps the party's electoral hacks chop away at voter rolls and civil rights with little more than a whimper from the Democrats.

Indeed, one reason, I discovered, that some Democrats are silent is that they are in on the game themselves. In New Mexico, Democratic Party bosses tossed away ballots of Pueblo Indians to cut native influence in party primaries.

But what’s wrong with requiring folks to prove they’re American if the want to vote and live in America? The answer: because the vast majority of perfectly legal voters and residents who lack ID sufficient for Ms. Brewer and Mr. Pearce are citizens of color, citizens of poverty.

According to a study by prof. Matt Barreto, of Washington State University, minority citizens are half as likely as whites to have the government ID. The numbers are dreadfully worse when income is factored in.

Just outside Phoenix, without Brewer's or Pearce's help, I did locate one of these evil un-American voters, that is, someone who could not prove her citizenship: 100-year-old Shirley Preiss. Her US birth certificate was nowhere to be found as it never existed.

In Phoenix, I stopped in at the Maricopa County prison where Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses the captives of his campaign to stop illegal immigration. Arpaio, who under the new Arizona law, will be empowered to choose his targets for citizenship testing, is already facing federal indictment for his racially-charged and legally suspect methods.

I admit, I was a little nervous, passing through the iron doors with a big sign, "NOTICE: ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING ANYONE IN THIS JAIL." I mean, Grandma Palast snuck into the USA via Windsor, Canada. We Palasts are illegal as they come, but Arpaio's sophisticated deportee-sniffer didn't stop this white boy from entering his sanctum.

But that's the point, isn't it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona -- after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? -- but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.

Arizona Sheriff Says He Won’t Enforce New ‘Racist’ Anti-Immigration Law

By Amanda Terkel

Last night on Fox News, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin criticized opponents of Arizona’s draconian new anti-immigration legislation, SB-1070, for making it into a “racial issue” by “perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law.” As usual, host Sean Hannity agreed with her, saying, “It does not encourage profiling. It specifically prohibits it.” Supporters of the law like to stress that police will be able to question people only during “lawful contact,” such as a traffic stop.

However, in Arizona, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who has been a cop for 52 years, says it will definitely lead to racial profiling. He told local TV station KGUN9 that the law is “racist,” “digusting,” and “unnecessary,” and he won’t enforce it. While the law may not explicitly mandate profiling, Dupnik said that there’s no way to enforce it without doing so; the “lawful contact” provision will become nothing but a “flimsy excuse” to target certain people:

The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn’t comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. “So we’re kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation. It’s just a stupid law.”

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. “If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they’re going to do it. They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.“

Watch it:

Another high-profile law enforcement official who has condemned what Arizona is doing is former Bush Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, who told the AP yesterday that “he’s uncomfortable with Arizona’s new immigration law, saying it allows police to question people without probable cause.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was also the governor of Arizona, said it shackles law enforcement officials by not allowing them to focus on the priorities in their own communities. There are also now significant concerns that immigrants will be less likely to cooperate with police in other matters. As one officer has said, “How do you police a community that will not talk to you?”

M.C.L comment:. What shocks me is that no high level Republican advised the governor to veto the bill or at least come up with a better explanation on why she's signing it. But I guess since the Hispanic population in Arizona are trending Democratic the Repubs decide what the hell, they're not going to vote for us anyway so F 'em.

Why Aren’t Tea Partiers Protesting Arizona’s Big Government Overreach On Immigration?

By Amanda Terkel Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), a Tea Party backer.

According to a new survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, white Tea Partiers tend to be “predisposed to intolerance,” pointing to a possible reason the movement has been reluctant to join with immigration reform activists:

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Also, if Tea Partiers really do feel like they’ve been taxed enough already, they should support immigration reform. As Andrea Nill has reported, “In January, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress found that legalizing undocumented immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue within three years. The study predicted that ultimately the benefits of immigration reform would go beyond pure tax revenue and would yield at least $1.5 trillion in cumulative U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years.”

Update In an op-ed today (via Steve Benen), Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse writes that she isn't "going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state":

What would Arizona's revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made "any lawful contact" and about whom they have "reasonable suspicion" that "the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?" Wasn't the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

Update On the Daily Caller, Matt Lewis argues that Brewer should have vetoed the anti-immigration bill. M.C.L Comment: I'll tell you why the Tea party klan are not upset with this bill is because it only impact people with brown skin. Once again the Tea Party have display their hypocrisy on issues they didn't protest during the Bush Administration and they're not protesting now when BIG government is actually interfering with the lives of people. Their whole movement is based on hating that n-word president nothing more and nothing less. Anytime I encountered a tea bagger on the net I ask the same question every time where were you when Bush and his Republican foot soldiers passed the Patriot Act, where were you when Bush suspended Haebas Corpus, where were you when Bush and the Republicans turned surplus into debt, where were you when 9 billion dollars of tax payers' money went missing in Iraq and where were you when Bush admitted he wiretap American citizens? And what I get back from them is always the same they either repeat the GOP talking point that was popular when that issue was going on or they act like they have short term memory. If President Obama was a white Republican president and still he accomplished the things he accomplished there would be no tea party events.