Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

How Dare States Do a Job the Feds Won't Do!

A Federal judge seems to think that states can, indeed, do just that:

A federal judge on Wednesday said Alabama law enforcement officers can try to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, but blocked other parts of the state’s new crackdown law, which is the toughest in the country.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn said Alabama is allowed to tread anywhere that federal law doesn’t explicitly prohibit states from acting, which means the state can enact its own penalties for immigrants who fail to carry their registration papers, and can enable its state and local police to check immigration status.

“Local officials have some inherent authority to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law, so long as the local official ‘cooperates’ with the federal government,” the judge said in her 115-page decision.

And in a key part of her ruling, Judge Blackburn said the state can require schools to determine the legal status of students’ parents, though children of illegal immigrants may not be denied attendance.

But the judge did block four parts of Alabama’s law that she said go beyond what federal law allows: One provision created a civil action against employers who hired illegal immigrants over legal workers; another banned illegal immigrants from applying for a job; one made it a crime to harbor an illegal immigrant; and the other prohibited businesses from claiming tax deductions on wages paid to illegal immigrants.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley called the decision vindication for the state, and promised to appeal those parts of the law that were blocked.

“This fight is just beginning,” he said. “I am optimistic that this law will be completely upheld, and I remain committed to seeing this law fully implemented. I will continue to fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges.”

The ruling marks a setback for the Obama administration, which had challenged the law along with several Alabama immigrant rights and religious groups, arguing only the federal government can regulate immigration.

Judge Blackburn, a 1991 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, disagreed, saying there are places where federal law invites cooperation, and places where it explicitly precludes it, and states are free to help in the former instance — as long as they don’t go beyond national law.

“Nothing in the text of [federal immigration law] expressly preempts states from legislating on the issue of verification of an individual’s citizenship and immigration status,” she wrote. “There is also nothing in the [law] which reflects congressional intent that the United States occupy the field as it pertains to the identification of persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

Late last month, Judge Blackburn had halted the entire law, saying she needed time to study it before issuing a full ruling, which she had promised before the end of September.

Her ruling puts her at odds with other federal courts that overturned Arizona’s crackdown law, passed last year. In that case, a district judge and then a three-judge appeals court panel both ruled that the federal government has primary authority in immigration law.

In that appeals court ruling, one judge dissented, and Judge Blackburn quoted heavily from Judge Carlos Bea’s opinion making the case that the federal government hasn’t precluded all state action.

In addition to its law enforcement provisions, the Alabama law requires all businesses to use E-Verify, a national database run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that allows employers to check potential hires’ Social Security numbers to see if they are authorized to work.

“We’re very pleased to see that 85 percent of our law will go into effect, and we can finally begin dealing with the problem of illegal immigration in Alabama,” said Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, a Republican. “The E-Verify provision is among the most meaningful and effective parts of this law. If we’re going to stop the flow of thousands of illegal immigrants into Alabama, we must shut off the magnet that is drawing them here.”

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Yes, that's right. Indiana Democrats are now trumpeting the big catch they landed to speak at their annual dinner.

Meet Debbie Wasserman Schultz, speaker at the annual dinner for the Indiana Democratic Party and new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee:

The Democratic National Committee chairwoman, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida will headline the Indiana Democratic Party's spring fundraising dinner.

Wasserman Schultz will be the main speaker at the June 10 event at the JW Marriott hotel in Downtown Indianapolis.

First lady Cheri Daniels was the headliner at the GOP's recent fundraising dinner.

When it comes to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I am for some reason reminded of Mitch McConnell's utter destruction of his liberal Democrat opponent in 2002, Lois Combs Weinberg.

His campaign relentlessly mocked her in ads by emphasizing the length of her last name(s): Lois Cooommmmbbbsss Weiiiiinnberrrrrrg. McConnell's campaign quite literally made a thirty second ad out of saying her name three or four times and coupling it with assorted variations of the words "trial lawyer." It was classic.

Anyhow, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a deep connection with the people of Indiana. She has many things in common with Hoosiers, just like the speaker (Cheri Daniels) that spoke at the annual Republican dinner. Right?

Let's just take a look-see...

Let's take illegal immigration as an example.

Hoosiers think that illegal immigration is, you know, illegal.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz disagrees:

I think the president was clearly articulating that his position — the Democrats position — is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if — the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all. I mean that was the legislation that Jim Sensenbrenner advanced a couple of years ago.

Heaven forbid that Hoosiers view something illegal as a crime. That's just not how Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz see it.

Well, that's just one issue. Surely we can find many things Debbie Wasserman Schultz has in common with Hoosiers, right?

How about abortion, since most Hoosiers are pro-life.

No luck there either.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks that your tax dollars should go to fund abortions. This includes funding Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America.

That happens to be a position so radical that many Hoosier Democrats in the Indiana General agreed with blocking tax dollars from funding abortions in the legislative session earlier this year.

Of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz probably isn't aware that some Hoosier Democrats feel this way. Wasserman Schultz wasn't aware that Democrats in the House of Representatives--where she serves and is currently Deputy Minority Whip under Nancy Pelosi--voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Why would Debbie Wasserman Schultz know what Hoosiers think when she doesn't know what her fellow Democrats she is serving with think:

The Weekly Standard: But there were eleven [correction: ten] Democrats who voted against funding for Planned Parenthood, so are those eleven Democrats anti-woman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, they’re not, because if you, when I declare someone, when I make a broad statement like that, I look at the balance of somebody’s–where their priorities are, the balance of their record. And so one individual isolated vote here and there does not make you anti-woman.

TWS: So what are the broader votes that make those Democrats who voted on those same issues–on Planned Parenthood on H.R. 3–what makes them not anti-woman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don’t think there are any Democrats.

TWS: Eleven.

Okay, nobody's perfect.

What else might Debbie Wasserman Schultz have in common with Hoosiers?

Maybe she believes in buying American. Just try winning a local election in most of southern Indiana if you drive a foreign car, particularly if you drive one in a parade.

So I bet that Debbie Wasserman Schultz believes in buying American, and driving an American car.



The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) appears to drive a foreign car, despite criticizing Republican presidential candidates for supposedly favoring foreign auto manufacturers.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the DNC, ripped into Republican presidential contenders who opposed President Obama's 2009 bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler.

"If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes," she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.

But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.

And Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't drive just any foreign car, either. Not just a Nissan, a hoity-toity upscale flavor of Nissan, an Infinity.

Normally, if you're going around complaining that people should support American car companies and attacking people for being against taxpayer bailouts of car companies, you shouldn't be driving a foreign car.

Let's see... Surely we can find some place where Debbie Wasserman Schultz has something in common with the supposed principles of Hoosier Democrats.

Maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz stands up for union workers.

Guess not. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Infinity (assuming it wasn't made in Japan) may have actually been made in the United States, but at a non-union plant in a right-to-work state.

We know what Hoosier Democrats think of right-to-work measures. They walked out to kill a right-to-work bill. I wonder if any of them will walk out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's speech because she drives a non-union car made in a factory in a right-to-work state.

I doubt it. But such hypocrisy isn't likely to magically restore southern Indiana conservatives to the solidly Democrat column. They're bitter clingers, you know, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a firm advocate of gun control (another place where she doesn't have a whole lot in common with Hoosiers).

Debbie Wasserman Schultz also voted for Obamacare.

Perhaps her speech will involve explaining to Hoosiers why she thought it was a good idea to slash half a trillion dollars in Medicare funding to fund Obamacare.

Don't hope for an explanation any time soon:

Reporter: Do the Democrats have a plan?

Wasserman Schultz: Like I said, the Republicans have a plan to end Medicare as we know it. What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the healthcare insurance market, we’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.

We've already seen Debbie Wasserman Schultz's plan for Medicare: slash its funding by half a trillion dollars.

Paul Ryan sort of sums it up:

Obamacare kills Medicare. Obamacare raids $500B from Medicare to spend on Obamacare, puts in place a 15 member board to ration Medicare – of bureaucrats. Our budget repeals the raiding, gets rid of the rationing board, preserves this program, makes no changes to the program for a person 55 years of age or older, and saves Medicare by reforming it for our generation, but it’s solvent.

The president’s plan does not save Medicare. It allows it to go bankrupt. It rations the program and raids the program. We will stop the raiding, and we save the program from bankruptcy.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

That's who Hoosier Democrats brought in to speak for them. A supporter of illegal immigration, a clueless supporter of taxpayer funding for abortions, an advocate of gun control, a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-drive union hypocrite, and an Obamacare supporter who voted to slash Medicare.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a typical university liberal who has never held a real job and who doesn't have anything remotely resembling solutions to the very real problems facing Hoosiers, and Americans.

Which, when you think about it, is something Debbie Wasserman Schultz has in common with Hoosier Democrats. They don't have anything remotely resembling solutions to our problems either.

Apparently, that's similarity enough for them to sit down to dinner with her.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Lugar Drops Sponsorship of DREAM Act, But Says He Will Still Vote for It

On the one hand, this has been touted as a result of Richard Mourdock's conservative primary challenge to Lugar.

On the other hand, it's a game of smoke-and-mirrors, seeing as how Lugar's spokesperson openly admits that the move is entirely symbolic, since Lugar would still vote for the bill anyway. It's not like the DREAM Act loses anything material by him no longer being a sponsor.

It just highlights that Lugar is sufficiently worried about Mourdock to attempt to pander to some element of the conservative base of the Republican Party (which runs counter to his traditional strategy of late of calling conservatives "dupes" and telling them to "get real"). Somehow, I don't think that anyone is going to be "duped" by Lugar still supporting the DREAM Act even if he isn't sponsoring it.

The Indy Star:

WASHINGTON -- As the politics of the 2012 election heat up, GOP Sen. Richard Lugar declined Wednesday to join Democrats in reintroducing an immigration measure he's long supported.

Since 2005, Lugar has co-sponsored with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a bill to let illegal immigrants who grew up in the United States earn legal status through college or the military.

But Lugar, who faces challenges from a Republican and a moderate Democrat in his bid for a seventh term, did not sign on to the latest introduction of the bill, announced Wednesday by Durbin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Lugar may still vote for the bill if it comes up for a vote, according to spokesman Mark Helmke. But that depends "on the circumstances in which the bill was brought to the floor and the political posturing surrounding such a vote," Helmke said.

Lugar continues to work with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on a different bill that would help immigrant entrepreneurs get visas if the immigrant has the backing of an investor.

Lugar's spokesman said the senator did not join Democrats in reintroducing the federal legislation to help children of illegal immigrants -- known as the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors -- because he said Democrats have politicized the issue.

The Democrats? Politicize immigration? Surely they would never do such a thing. Surely they've never done something like that before, right? This pandering must be something entirely new, not something that existed long before Lugar decided to no longer sponsor the bill. Perish the thought.

Lugar was one of three Republicans who joined most Democrats in December in a failed try to consider the House-passed DREAM Act.

State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has cited Lugar's support for the DREAM Act as one reason he's challenging Lugar in the primary.

Rep. Joe Donnelly, who announced Monday that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for the Senate race, opposed House passage of the DREAM Act last year.

Mourdock chimes in:

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock indicated his surprise that Senator Dick Lugar has reversed himself on the DREAM Act and will not co-sponsor the legislation this session. Senator Lugar was a major proponent of the DREAM Act during last December’s lame-duck session of Congress. It is unclear whether Senator Lugar will vote for the legislation, which seeks to provide amnesty for certain illegal immigrants.

“I have opposed from the beginning legislation that would open the door to amnesty for illegal immigrants, including efforts that would provide U.S. citizenship to their children. When you reward a bad behavior, you only get more of it. We need to stop illegal immigration not encourage it,” explained Treasurer Mourdock. “While I commend Senator Lugar for rethinking his co-sponsorship of this misguided legislation, I have to question whether he would be changing his position if I had not decided to challenge him in the Republican primary.”

Earlier this year, Senator Dick Lugar received an award from the LYC, La Plaza, and the Indiana Latino Scholarship Fund for his efforts in trying to push DREAM Act legislation through the lame-duck session last December.3 Senator Lugar showed his public support for the LYC’s hunger strike against U.S. immigration laws last year according to a video of Senator Lugar posted on the group’s website.4

“The Latino Youth Collective organization is an “Obama-esque” group, which has members who promote illegal activities in Indiana. Senator Lugar should disassociate himself from this group entirely and return the award he was given by them,” stated Treasurer Mourdock.

And the more things change, the more they stay the same. Lugar is still supporting the DREAM Act. He just doesn't want to "sponsor" it. It's a distinction without a difference. It's long past time for him to go.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Obama Calls for “Civil & Constructive Debate” on Immigration, Then Accuses Opponents of Wanting Moats with Alligators on the Border

All in the same day.

It's pathetic.

But, on top of that absurdity, ABC News actually fact checked Obama's speech on immigration and found his claims to be entirely untrue.

That's nothing new, really. Earlier this week, the Washington Post did a fact check on claims by Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary, that Republican efforts to save Medicare would cause seniors to "die sooner." Their conclusion? It was so untrue that "She should be ashamed."

Commentary adds:

There he goes again, reassuring us that he, the president, wants to have a “civil and constructive debate” on yet another issue. Of course he does. Obama would have us believe he is always and forever in search of a civil and constructive debate on the issues.

Except when he’s not.

For example, in his George Washington University budget speech a few weeks ago, Obama’s civility took the form of accusing Republicans of wanting the elderly, autistic children, and Down Syndrome children to fend for themselves. It was a presidential speech that was uncommonly ugly and dishonest, even by today’s standards. On that occasion civility was set aside—but for a perfectly justified reason, of course. The president needed to score cheap partisan points.

Once again a “civil and constructive debate” on the issues is getting in the way of Obama’s political ambitions. Which is the more likely to prevail when the two are in conflict? And which is the more likely to be tossed aside like used tissue? Obama is set in his ways.

The game that the president is playing is almost comical at this point. Portraying himself as the American Socrates—the only responsible and thoughtful adult in a country full of rancorous children—Obama incessantly lectures us about the quality of our public discourse, even as he, his administration and political aides, and members of his own party routinely employ arguments that are dishonest and language that is sulfurous.

The president believes he can get away with this bait-and-switch. It is the job of the opposition party to make sure he doesn’t.

One would think it is also the job of the media to call attention it when the President and his administration are lying to people. The Washington Post and ABC News are making a good start on what is, it must be said, far from a new phenomenon on the part of Obama (and one they have previously largely ignored).

Friday, February 4, 2011

More New Tone: State Senator Target of Death Threats

Did I even need to mention that he's a conservative Republican?


From the Indy Star:

Indiana State Police are investigating a threatening e-mail that suggested the man who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords should have shot an Indiana state senator instead.

The e-mail, sent this week to Sen. Mike Delph, gives an angry denunciation of a bill the Carmel Republican authored targeting illegal immigration.

Delph had no comment on the incident, and State Police did not return calls seeking comment.

Jeff Papa, the Senate chief of staff, said an aide to Delph read the e-mail Thursday and brought it to the attention of Senate leaders because of the reference to Giffords, a Democrat who was shot in Tucson, Ariz., last month, and because it mentions Delph's wife and five daughters by name.

The e-mail, apparently sent by a woman, is addressed to "Dear Senate Racist Delph."

In it, the writer criticizes Senate Bill 590, saying it should be called "the racial profiling and discriminating bill."

"You better believe you are losing votes for your next elections! Jared Lee Loughner should of (sic) shot a (expletive) like yourself and not Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords," the e-mail states. "A man with a family like yourself . . . should know better than to break families!! Is this the example you want to give your kids?? That they should go around asking people if they are legal???"

The e-mail concludes with a demand that she hear back from Delph "because I want answers to my questions!!"

Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said that given the emotional issues lawmakers sometimes deal with and the volume of e-mails and letters received, "you're going to have some people who are crackpots like the one who sent an e-mail to Senator Delph. That's unfortunate."

Mentioning Delph's children, he said, "takes it to a whole new level of seriousness, and I turned it over to the State Police and asked them to investigate. . . . That set off alarm bells."

That information is easily obtained online, including in Delph's page on the state Senate website.

Long said other lawmakers have received threatening communications over the years, "but it's rare."

Delph's bill is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Senate chamber. Long said that, as is usual when controversial issues are being heard, there will be additional security on hand.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Sheriff Joe Visit Media Roundup, Part II

This is the article that followed Sheriff Joe's visit to Harrison County (and the rest of Indiana). There will probably be an article from the Corydon Democrat later in the week.

The Courier-Journal:

The Arizona sheriff who bills himself as “America’s Toughest Sheriff” said he was “a little disappointed” in his visit Saturday night to Harrison County to raise money for local Republican political candidates.

“Wherever I go I have demonstrators. I haven’t had any demonstrators,” Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said while meeting with reporters at the First State Office Building in Corydon.

Arpaio, who often speaks around the country, made sure reporters understood how to pronounce his name: “It’s Ar-pie-o, none of this Ar-pay-o.”

Arpaio began his Corydon visit with a $500-a-person reception at the office of attorney Maryland Austin, which was closed to the media. That was followed by a reception at the office building, where about 250 people paid $120 each to meet and have their picture taken with Arpaio and attend a dinner at St. Joseph Catholic Church, where he was the featured speaker.

Arpaio has received a lot of national attention recently for his hard stance on immigration. He had his deputies check the immigration status of people they think might be illegal aliens long before Arizona passed a controversial state law requiring such checks. The law was slated to take effect last month but a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction stopping its most controversial features from being enforced.

The 78-year-old Arpaio, who wore a gold-colored Glock pistol tie tack with his dark suit, proclaimed with a smile that he was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for possible racial profiling for his enforcement of immigration laws.

He encountered only admiration at the event.

New Albany resident Sarah Spivey was typical of those who approached Arpaio.

“You are my hero. May I shake your hand?” Spivey said as she made her way toward the sheriff. “My sons and I follow your life and history as much as we can.”

Spivey’s friend, Virginia McGuirk, told Arpaio, “I wish we had a bunch of sheriffs around here like you.”

The present sheriff of Harrison County, Democrat Mike Deatrick, is under indictment for sexual battery and criminal deviate conduct against two sheriff’s department dispatchers. Deatrick has pleaded not guilty.

Rod Seelye, the Republican nominee in the November race to replace Deatrick, is one of the candidates who will benefit from the money raised by Arpaio’s appearance.

“I think some of the models that he’s set in Arizona will play well here,” Seelye said.

Arpaio has long been controversial for his hard attitude toward jail inmates. Among other things, he’s known for housing some jail inmates in tents, starting a female chain gang and making all inmates wear pink underwear.

Seelye declined to endorse any specific policies of the Arizona sheriff, saying only, “I think he runs a tight ship. … I’m talking about running a very professional law enforcement agency.”

Notable observation from the CJ comments:

I was at the dinner as a guest of relatives. Sheriff Joe Arpaio didn't say anything radical; he just advocated the enforcement of the laws on the books. He also said that if you have a problem with the laws that are on the books, then you need to get the legislature [or the Congress, as the case may be] to change the laws...that selective enforcement is NOT the answer. As a libertarian, I couldn't find anything to disagree with in his words...and I was mildly [but pleasantly] surprised at that. I also liked his comments about "anchor babies" vs. the 14th Amendment...if we enforce the immigration laws, then "anchor babies" cease to be a problem, and the 14th Amendment can stand as it is. I'm sure that riled up some Republicans there, but he's absolutely right. He also said that, contrary to the opinion of a questioner, Americans WILL work if you pay them what the job's worth. That also probably didn't sit well with some Tea Party types. I have a newfound appreciation for him.


Harrison County Ind. is finally going to have a sheriff they can be proud of and his name is Rod Seelye. Seelye is an honest, hardworking, family man and a Desert Storm veteran. The only people who’ll have a problem with Rod Seelye are the criminals.

And one last one:

Replying to chayse:
Replying to BillAdkins1:
One would have to know about it to be there to protest. Joe Arpaio, the 21st Century's own Bull Connor, sneaked into town and back out again. Typical coward.

It has been advertised in this paper, so he didn't sneak anywhere. It's so easy to call someone a coward while sitting @ your keyboard...

GT, the church was not in the "political arena". Those putting on the event simply chose to use the large hall that is attached to the church and school. If this is a problem for you, that's sad and too bad...

I'm not so sure you can say there is no connection. Do they let anyone regardless of their beliefs or type of event rent the hall? ... like a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood?

Hopefully the church received a rental fee if not I think it would be considered an in-kind donation to the party.

First of all, the article I linked to earlier was the above-the-fold top headline on the front page of the Indiana section of the Courier-Journal. It can't be said that the event was secret.

Second of all, the local Republican Party paid a rental fee for the use of the hall. Interestingly, the local Democratic Party (whose platform advocates for unrestricted abortion) is renting the same hall in December. Neither rental is without controversy for St Joseph's. EDIT: I've since been told that the Democrats inquired about renting the hall but decided not to do so.

Sheriff Joe actually didn't speak all that much about immigration. It certainly wasn't the focus of his remarks. He talked at length (with great humor and considerable wit) but only got to immigration toward the end.

When he started taking questions from the audience, virtually all of their questions concerned illegal immigration. Arpaio himself didn't spend a whole lot of time on it compared to the other things (the jail, the ways he saves taxpayer dollars, his background, a number of funny stories, etc).

Anyway, good coverage on Sheriff Joe's visit to Hendricks County is available from the Chicks on the Right, here and here.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Sheriff Joe Visit Media Roundup, Part I

These are the articles that preceded Sheriff Joe's visit to Harrison County (and the rest of Indiana).

From the Courier-Journal:

Controversial Arizona lawman to keynote Harrison GOP fundraiser

Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who has drawn national attention for his tough law enforcement style, said Monday he’ll talk about immigration and his state’s effort to crack down on illegal immigrants when he speaks Saturday night at a Harrison County Republican Party fundraising dinner and reception in Corydon.

“People in this country … are angry that Washington is not doing more” about illegal immigration, Arpaio, the 78-year-old sheriff of Maricopa County that includes Phoenix, said in interview Monday.

Arpaio’s visit will be one of three stops in Indiana aimed at boosting GOP candidates as the fall campaign approaches. Dee Dee Benkie, a Republican national committeewoman who arranged the Indiana visits, offered to include Harrison County on Arpaio’s swing through the state and local party leaders jumped at the chance, said Scott Fluhr, Harrison’s central committee chairman.

“There’s no denying that Sheriff Joe is controversial, but most voters in Harrison County are conservative regardless of the letter they associate with their names, whether they’re Republican or Democrat,” Fluhr said.

A former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, Arpaio has been elected to five terms in the Southwest U.S. locality that has a population of roughly 4 million people. During his tenure, he has drawn attention for housing inmates in a tent city in the desert to avoid early jail releases for crowding. He also instituted chain gangs and ordered inmates clothed in pink boxer shorts and pink sandals and restrained in pink handcuffs.

In the past three years, the sheriff has come under fire in some circles but won praise in others for extensive raids on Latino towns and neighborhoods in a crackdown on illegal immigration. A 2009 New Yorker magazine article portrayed Arpaio as a grandstanding opportunist who has been accused by other Arizona leaders of abusing his power and sparking civil rights litigation that has cost millions of dollars in settlements.

A news release on the sheriff department’s website about Arpaio’s appearance at a recent tea party rally on the U.S.-Mexican border mentioned threats that some parties in Mexico have placed a $1 million bounty on his head.

And from the Indy Star:

Fiery Arizona sheriff elevates immigration debate with visit
Appearance at GOP fundraisers sparks protest

The debate over illegal immigration that has boiled over in some states has merely simmered in Indiana's political campaigns -- until now.

Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- a folk hero to some and a villain to others for his tough crackdowns on illegal immigration -- is bringing his celebrity and his message to Republican political fundraising events today and Saturday, raising dollars and controversy.

Arpaio, who bills himself as "America's toughest sheriff," will headline a reception and dinner in Plainfield today for State Treasurer Richard Mourdock and two events Saturday in Southern Indiana for Republicans.

But while an estimated 200 people will be paying to hear Arpaio's get-tough message in Plainfield, organizers of a counter-rally in Indianapolis expect about the same number to gather at City Market. They argue that Indiana shouldn't import an Arizona sheriff who is under federal investigations for discriminating against Hispanics and intimidating political opponents.

Dee Dee Benkie, the Republican National Committee member who invited the man she calls "Sheriff Joe" to Indiana, says it's about money -- but also about tapping into an issue that resonates with many Hoosier voters who are angry at government's failure to secure the borders.

And, she said, she doesn't see any downside for Republicans. If anything, she said, the fact that Arpaio is controversial "will just raise more money for us."

Mourdock said when the idea of having Arpaio at a fundraising event first came up, "My first question was, 'Gee, will the guy sell tickets?' And, secondly, is there any reason I would fundamentally disagree with this guy?"

The answers, in order, were yes and no. Arpaio's name has helped Republicans sell tickets to all three events, and immigration is a top concern -- second only to the economy, Mourdock said -- with tea party activists who are among his strongest supporters.

And, Mourdock said, he considers himself "simpatico" with Arpaio. They both, he said, have stood up for the Constitution, Arpaio by fighting illegal immigration, he by opposing a Chrysler bailout that he felt violated the law.

While critics argue that immigration enforcement isn't among the duties of a state treasurer, Mourdock said that voters these days are "connecting the dots" between issues.

"Is there a cost to Indiana because of illegal immigration, and does that affect the state's treasury? Well, of course it does," he said.

"Immigration in Indiana to this point has not been a huge issue" in this year's elections, said Celestino-Horseman, a former Democratic City-County Council member. "We believe in reasonable, practical immigration reforms. But to bring in someone like Arpaio to whip people up just for the sake of getting them mad and angry and provoked, I personally believe that's immoral."

Harrison County GOP Chairman Scott Fluhr, though, is thrilled Arpaio is coming to his county for a party fundraising reception and dinner Saturday, after appearing in Sullivan County for a noon event for 8th District Republican candidates.

"There's not a whole lot of bleeding hearts in Harrison County," Fluhr said. But, he said, county voters see this as a national issue symbolic of government's failures.

Still, not every Republican is rushing to share a stage with Arpaio. Former Sen. Dan Coats, the Republican nominee for Senate, said he didn't know Arpaio was coming and had other campaign plans. Matthew Ballard, a campaign spokesman for Larry Buchson, the GOP nominee for Congress in the 8th District, said Buchson had other campaign plans on Saturday, too.

Besides, Ballard said, the issue Buchson is focusing on is jobs.

Trent Van Haaften, the Democratic nominee for Congress in the 8th District, said jobs is the issue -- but that that is one reason why Hoosiers are concerned about illegal immigration. They think illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Hoosiers, he said, and want to see the laws enforced.

"When you've got this cloud of unemployment and joblessness hanging over you and you're trying to do things the right way and you see here or other places where people are getting a job and doing it in an illegal way, that gets to you," he said.

He doesn't, though, think the issue will impact his election -- precisely because he makes a point of addressing it with pledges to both seek secure borders and to cut off the incentive for illegal immigration by penalizing employers who knowingly hire them.

Robert Dion, a political science professor at the University of Evansville, said unemployment has made illegal immigration a more emotional issue with voters -- even those who live in areas like Harrison County.

"People get all worked up about it," Dion said. "Why is unemployment so sticky? Why are jobs so scarce? It must be somebody's fault."

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Zoeller Won't Have Indiana Join Fight Over Arizona's Immigration Law

...because Indiana hasn't passed such a law and Indiana law limits the powers of the Attorney General and thus wouldn't let him, basically.

The Richmond Palladium-Item:

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Thursday that the state would not get involved at the district court level in Arizona's efforts to enforce its strict anti-immigration law.

Zoeller noted that the Indiana General Assembly failed to pass a law he described as similar to Arizona's.

"Since Indiana does not have that statute, I did not feel it was a direct threat to the laws of Indiana," Zoeller said, adding that could change at the appellate level to protect the state's interests if it is determined the appellate issues "have a direct impact on Indiana."

Zoeller, visiting Connersville and Richmond on Thursday afternoon, told the Palladium-Item that he had signed an understanding with Mexico's top government lawyer to bring 40 prosecutors and 40 law enforcement officials to Indianapolis for training in U.S. trial court procedures.

Zoeller said he thinks the agreement with Mexico is the first involving a non-border state.

"What's important is that some of the problems in Mexico are based on their battle with maintaining the rule of law," Zoeller said. "In this country we take it as a birthright. But in Mexico they're really struggling with having a system of justice that will protect public safety.

"It's not just that they're all coming to the United States for jobs. Some of them may be coming to flee this growing problem in Mexico of public safety."

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Romney Now Pushing for Amnesty Before 2012 Presidential Election


Their hope now is that Republican presidential candidates and former operatives under Bush, a reform proponent, can convince GOP congressional leaders that the issue needs to be dealt with before 2012 — or that they could risk alienating the burgeoning Hispanic vote in the crucial swing states of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a front-runner for the nomination, has signaled quietly to Graham that Republicans must address immigration before the campaign heats up, according to several sources familiar with the conversation.

Graham’s push against birthright citizenship prompted this response on POLITICO’s Arena from Cesar Conda, a former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney: “If the Republican Party embraces ending birthright citizenship, then it will be assured losing Latino and ethnic voters — and presidential elections for the foreseeable future.”

Hat tip: Hot Air.

Perfect Timing, Democrats: Appeal of Arizona Law to Be Argued on Election Week

This wasn't quite the outcome that I mentioned in my prior post (of the court's decision on the appeal coming down around the election).

This outcome is, for Democrats, even worse.

Legal Insurrection:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the State of Arizona's motion to expedite the appeal from the preliminary injunction enjoining key provisions of S.B. 1070. (h/t Michelle Malkin) The Department of Justice has objected to an expedited briefing schedule.

The case now will be argued the week of November 1.

That may make DOJ lawyers happy, because they will have more time to put together their brief.

But it will not make Democratic politicians happy to have the Arizona case on the front page as voters are walking into the voting booth on November 2.

Democrats wished too hard for something, and they got it.

Handcuffing Arizona

Handcuffing Arizona

Immigrant Shopping

Immigrant Shopping
Interesting commentary from north of the border:

When the President proceeds to declare that any future immigration bill must likewise “make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs,” he is acknowledging the fact that most immigrants to the United States — even the legal ones — are not being imported for any clear economic purpose. It’s a little-discussed fact that most legal US migrants in any given year are simply refugees or the family members of existing immigrants, with qualified, accredited, ready-to-work professionals only representing a minority.

At some point Americans need to have a frank discussion about what they want and need their immigration system to actually do — both for the betterment of the nation, and the interests of its existing, native-born citizenry. Illegals may grab everyone’s attention, but they are hardly the only issue in a very complex and multi-dimensional national dilemma.

There's a whole lot of focus (rightly) on illegal immigration and what to do with those that are coming here illegally and those that are already here illegally, but there's very little attention at all given to restructing the policy that governs those that want to come here legally.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Two National Figures Headed to Indiana to Help with Fundraising

And both of them courtesy of the tireless efforts of Dee Dee Benkie, Indiana's GOP national committeewoman.

One is Karl Rove:

The other is Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is attending events outside Indianapolis, in the 8th District up in Sullivan, and right here in God's Country (aka Harrison County):

Sheriff Joe ArpaioThe Harrison County Republican Party invites you to join us on the evening of Saturday, August 21, to welcome America's Toughest Sheriff, Joe Arpaio.

Sheriff Joe, famous for making inmates in the Maricopa County Jail in Arizona wear pink underwear and housing them in a tent city in the desert to save taxpayer dollars, will be in Corydon for a reception and to speak at dinner.

The dinner will be held at the Parish Hall at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Corydon and will be preceded by a reception at the First State Office Building in support of Harrison County's candidates in the 2010 election.

Tickets to the reception are $120.10 per couple (for the 2010 election) and $80 per individual. The reception will include a photo taken with Sheriff Joe. Doors open for the reception at 5:45 p.m. Tickets to dinner are included in the cost of the reception.

Tickets to dinner are $25 per person for regular seating and $35 per person for reserved priority seating. Doors open for dinner at 6:45 p.m. Dinner will be served at 7:30 p.m.

Join us for an exciting evening with America's Toughest Sheriff. You've heard about Joe Arpaio on television and probably read about him in emails forwarded to you by family and friends. Now meet him in person.

Tickets will be limited.

Click here to register online:

You can also register by calling the Harrison County Republican Headquarters at 225-5551.

Payment is accepted online via credit card or by check (via mail or dropped off at the headquarters).

Click here to tell your friends about this event on Facebook.

Click here to read Sheriff Joe’s bio.

Get your tickets soon, before they sell out.

Arizona Blues

There's been a lot of interesting writing in the past couple of days about the Federal judge's decision to basically gut Arizona's immigration law.

For Obama and the Democrats, it is a Pyrrhic victory. They may have gutted the law, but they have outraged the American public in how they did it. The decision seems to have quite questionable reasoning.

Andy McCarthy at National Review:

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

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

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

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

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

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.”

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

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

The result of the injunction granted today by the federal court in Arizona preventing the key provisions of S.B. 1070 from taking effect is not just the maintenance of the status quo.

At a legal level, it is true that nothing has changed. S.B. 1070 never took effect, so no law was lost.

At a more realistic level, everything has changed.

States have been left helpless to deal with the anarchy created by the failure of the federal government to enforce border security. Whereas yesterday it was unclear how far states (such as Rhode Island) could go, today states are powerless.

The inability of a state to implement a policy of checking the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime is remarkable.

While I cannot blame the Judge for striking some provisions of S.B. 1070 (particularly those creating independent criminal sanctions), the ruling as to checking the status of people already under arrest is mind-numbing.

As a reader to my prior post points out, states already routinely run searches for a variety of statuses, including outstanding warrants, child support orders, and non-immigration identity checks. Each of these checks potentially could delay release of an innocent person or burden some federal agency.

The Judge's reasoning, particularly that the status check provision violated the 4th Amendment even as to persons already under arrest, applies just as easily to these other status checks.

With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on "comprehensive" immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.

As it stands this afternoon, it is perfectly rational for someone faced with the choice of obeying the immigration laws or not, to choose not to do so. The choice of lawlessness makes a lot more sense than spending years winding through the byzantine legal immigration system, because the end result will be the same but lawlessness gets you here more quickly.

When the law and the federal government reward lawlessness, something is very wrong.

Update 7-29-2010: As others have noted, the Judge enjoined the checking of status of arrestees by reading the second sentence of Section 2(B) ("Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is arrested") as completely independent of the first sentence, which requires reasonable suspicion prior to a status check. That reading by the Judge plainly is wrong, since the first sentence specifically references the requirement of reasonable suspicion after "any lawful stop, detention or arrest...." (emphasis mine) The language of the statute fully supported the state's position, which the judge rejected, that the state only intended to check the status of arrestees as to whom there was reasonable suspicion, and who did not have any of the accepted forms of identification. Given the Judge's rulings on preemption and the 4th Amendment, I'm not sure the result would have been any different had she read the statute correctly.

Jacobson has a bit of what is, in a way, good news:

Arizona has requested that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set an expedited briefing schedule which would have the case fully briefed in just over one month. This is about half the time normally allotted for briefing in appeals from a preliminary injunction.

The U.S. Department of Justice has just filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that the regular schedule should be followed, which would not have the case fully briefed until October 7, 2010. DOJ stated that it did not want its usual 28 day time period shortened, even if Arizona shortened its own time for briefing.

The longer the delay on the court ruling on this, the more time this issue will be in the public spotlight, getting attention and media coverage and hurting Obama and the Democrats for their craven refusal to deal with illegal immigration.

And, with court hearings starting on October 7, at the height of the fall campaign, this is likely to be a significant issue in many races nationwide. The decision might even come down before the election, providing a moment of clarity for voters.

Lindsey “Amnesty” Graham Calls for End to Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegals


Sure didn't see this one coming.

And, yes, he posted that was posted to Graham's own YouTube account.

Allahpundit at Hot Air notes:

Seriously, I’m not sure how to read this. Either he’s now so terrified of a serious primary challenge — and rightly so — that he’s going to push mighty uncharacteristic base-pleasing policies over the next few years or, more intriguingly, he thinks that the country has shifted far enough to the right on immigration that something like this will now have to be included for any comprehensive bill to pass. In other words, The Great Compromiser may have surmised that any compromise now requires enforcement measures above and beyond merely sealing the border or building the hugely popular fence. That’s an amazing turn of events if so, and likely to be influential among Republicans in the next congressional term given Graham’s status as a benchmark of how far towards the center a GOPer can reasonably be. No one but no one wants to hear it said of him/her by grassroots conservatives, “They’re worse than Graham is!” Susan Collins and Scott Brown, take note.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Arizona's Immigration Law Is Impacting Party Alignment in Maricopa County

From Geraghty:

This June in Arizona’s Maricopa County, 227 voters switched from no affiliation or some other party to the Democratic party. This includes 44 former registered Republicans.

Another 211 voters switched to “independent”; this total included 55 Democrats and 69 Republicans.

Another 217 left the Democratic party to become “Party Not Designated.”

And 530 joined the Republican party, including 190 former registered Democrats and 252 who were “Party Not Designated.”

Tell me again why Obama thinks his lawsuit is such a good idea?