Phoenix, Arizona – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is pleased to endorse George Benavides for State House of Representatives, Legislature District 20.

George has an exemplary record of public service, starting as a decorated Viet Nam Air Force veteran, and has worked for and with local, county, state and federal leaders, including the Arizona Department of Revenue, the Maricopa County Assessor Office, Maricopa County Community Colleges District, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and the Arizona State Board of Equalization (SBOE).

George’s solid record public service includes the Maricopa County Board of Equalization (1993); Arizona State Board of Equalization (SBOE – 2001 – 2011); Served as a Hearing Officer to Maricopa County; Pima County; Pinal County; Yavapai County; Mohave County; and Navajo County; City of Glendale Housing Authority (Vice Chair – 2002); and (volunteer as the Chairperson – 2002) of the Glendale Sister Cities Program.

George has been a life-long Republican, and was very active in the Republican Party of Texas. He was one of the first Hispanics elected to the Texas presidential electoral college, and worked on the campaigns of President George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

George has solid conservative values and is very pro-business and can be expected to promote Arizona and grow our economy. We believe his background as both a life-long conservative Republican and Hispanic gives him a unique perspective, and the ability to reach out beyond the traditional GOP base in Arizona. He is already an exemplary leader with deep knowledge of how government works – and sometimes doesn’t work – and we heartily endorse George Benavides for Arizona State House of Representatives, Legislature District 20!

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have chapters in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.
original post

Marshall, MN – We’re quite frankly perplexed that the Obama administration did not use the most powerful argument against Arizona’s immigration law at today’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing today. Chief Justice Roberts even opened the door with the question “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling?” and yet Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. still declined to raise the issue.

The most controversial part of the Arizona law is the mandate that police inquire about immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that a person stopped by police may be subject to deportation. The U.S. Department of Justice invested considerable resources into investigating widespread complaints of racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, headed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and based on Arpaio’s own records concluded that Latinos are 4-9 times as likely to be stopped by police for traffic violations, and 20% of the stops of Latinos lacked probable cause for the stop. The USDOJ even sued Arpaio to obtain cooperation when Arpaio refused to cooperate, and is preparing another lawsuit to force Arpaio to reform his department to end the abuses. Ending racial profiling often requires years of complex litigation, and it is difficult to hold police accountable, which is why the practice continues.

Arpaio’s department remains the only police department in the U.S. ever stripped of 287(g) immigration enforcement authority by ICE, due to the widespread evidence of civil rights abuses such as racial profiling. Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law was introduced shortly after Arpaio lost street immigration enforcement authority, and appears intended to provide Arpaio legal cover to continue his immigration enforcement authority, as well as force all Arizona police to follow Arpaio’s failed policing model. Eight Arizona police departments and jails already have 287(g) authority and don’t need SB1070 to engage in immigration enforcement, and many Arizona police chiefs opposed SB1070 because it would force them to divert considerable resources from crime fighting to immigration enforcement.

The 287(g) program has been plagued with problems as detailed by ICE’s Inspector General, and yet offers more protection against civil rights abuses than SB1070. A formal agreement is required before state and local police can engage in immigration enforcement, background checks and a minimum of one year experience are required of police officers, officers must complete several weeks of training, and work under supervision of ICE. In contrast, SB1070 does not mandate any training requirements, does not mandate ICE supervision, or background checks. SB1070 prohibits racial profiling but makes no provision for holding police accountable for racial profiling, only for not vigorously enforcing immigration law. Racial profiling is already illegal but pervasive, as evidenced in the USDOJ report on Arpaio’s department and numerous other credible studies.

SB1070 is clearly at odds with federal law and should be preempted. Unfortunately, due to Verrilli’s incompetent representation it seems likely that the most controversial aspect of SB1070 will be upheld. If SB1070 and copycat laws are upheld, we predict that racial profiling against Latinos and others who ‘appear’ Latino will become even more pervasive. A 2008 poll by Pew Research found 9% of adult Latinos reported they had been stopped and asked legal status during the previous 12 months. Not surprisingly, 81% of Hispanics do not want police involved in immigration enforcement.

Already, there is solid evidence that Secure Communities drives racial profiling against Latinos. According to a recent report, 93% of those detained under Secure Communities are Latino versus 77% of the undocumented immigrant population, and the percentage of those detained for non-criminal offenses (i.e. traffic infractions) is approaching 50% recently. Clearly, police are using Secure Communities as a funnel, often arresting Latinos rather than issuing citations for minor traffic infractions, so jails can investigate their legal status. Unfortunately, in the process an estimated 3,600 U.S. Citizens have already been arrested and detained by ICE, and many Latinos are being jailed for offenses where others are cited. For example, a Latino man in the twin cities area was stopped and arrested for a broken tail light on his bicycle, while it is doubtful most bicyclists would even be stopped for a broken tail light!

Original

by Bob Price (original blog re-posted with permission. Bob Price is the Texas leader of Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

As you are reading this post, the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration Refugees and Border Security is meeting to debate Arizona’s 1070 law. This law is also being heard this week by the US Supreme Court as it is being challenged by Obama’s Department of Justice.

While one can debate the merits of the 1070 law and even its constitutionality, it is an interesting exercise in the status of the 10th Amendment and state’s rights in general. There is ample evidence that 1070 has caused economic damage Arizona and to other states that have enacted similar legislation. At the same time, other states like Texas and Utah, have stayed away from these types of legislation and have avoided the economic collateral damage these types of laws have created.

Many are saying this hearing is of little or no value. But for others it is an opportunity to bring forward a debate and discussion that needs to happen in our county. When are we going to get serious about border security and meaningful immigration reform?

In an article by Erin Kelly of the Republic Washington Bureau, Louis DeSipio, a professor of Chicano/Latino-studies at University of California-Irvine said, “It’s political theater… That doesn’t mean the debate won’t be valuable, but I doubt it will lead to any action on immigration reform in an election year.”

Responding to a question from TexasGOPVote, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “This is not an attempt at having a sincere hearing on the merits. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority seems to have embraced President Obama’s ‘mañana’ approach to immigration reform.”

Unfortunately, this is what the federal government keeps doing on immigration reform and border security. This leaves those who support open borders and the abuse of workers who are not protected under our current system of chaos, with a de-facto victory of sorts. The longer we ignore this issue, the longer there is a virtual amnesty and continued illegal migration.

Sen. Cornyn went on to say, “This hearing does nothing to advance immigration reform in Congress or otherwise fix our broken system. It is no more than election-year theater. The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Arizona’s SB1070 on constitutional grounds. Yet none of the majority’s witnesses is an expert on the complex questions the Court will consider.”

The hearing was apparently only attended by Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

Also testifying today is Mr. Todd Landfried, Executive Director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform. Following is a copy of his testimony, obtained in advance of the hearing. He begins with a quote from Dr. Douglas Massey, Co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, “A salient characteristic of the current debate on U.S. immigration policy is the high ration of hot air to data.”

LANDFRIED’S TESTIMONY:

(For entire testimony document including footnotes and charts, CLICK HERE)

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for inviting me to speak today.

For the record, my name is Todd Landfried, and I am the Executive Director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (AZEIR). AZEIR is a 501(c)(4) organization with approximately 350 small, medium and large member businesses who want to see sensible immigration reform passed at the federal level. It was formed in response to the introduction of Arizona’s Employer Sanctions law and has been active in the state ever since. We were the only business organization actively opposing SB1070 in 2010 and have been a persistent voice for reasoned solutions to the immigration problem. We have filed an amicus brief opposing SB1070 to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the case tomorrow.

I’m going to focus my remarks not on whether there is problem with our country’s immigration laws (there is), or whether states have any inherent authority to inject themselves into federal immigration enforcement (they don’t), or whether we support SB1070 (we don’t). Rather, I’ll focus on whether laws like Arizona’s SB1070, Georgia’s HB87 or Alabama’s HB56 and others are good public policy and something that should be copied in other states or as a federal solution.

By “good public policy,” I mean what are the outcomes? What are the results of these laws? Do they have the intended consequences? Do they secure the border? Do they open up jobs and reduce state expenses? Do they fulfill any of the numerous promises their proponents make?

It’s a legitimate question that more and more people are starting to ask, because they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results and at a time when government programs fall under increased scrutiny, it’s only fair that state-level laws are examined using the same microscope.

The members of this committee may not be aware of it, but the “SB1070″ approach has been tried before.

2006 – Farmer’s Branch, TX
2006 – Hazelton, PA
2007 – Oklahoma HB1804
2008 – Prince William County, VA
2010 – Arizona SB1070
2011 – Georgia HB87
2011 – Alabama HB56
2011 – South Carolina Act 69
2011 – Indiana SB590
So, this idea of “attrition through enforcement” has been tried before at each and every level of government: local, county and state. At each of these levels, the same groups have been behind it: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and their Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). At each of these levels, the only research used to justify the action came from FAIR, FAIR-sponsored, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) or Numbers USA. To my knowledge, at no time has any other group approached any governmental jurisdiction with the same issue. None. Most importantly, at every level of government where this strategy has been tried, it has failed. Let me repeat that statement: at every level of government where this strategy has been tried, it has failed.

Failed as in doesn’t work. Failed as in causes more harm than good. Failed as in killed jobs, businesses, markets, trade relationships, real estate markets, tourism, stifled cooperation with law enforcement, damaged reputations and the ability to attract high-skill workers to the state.

For any serious practitioner of public policy, this should raise a red flag and I’m happy to say it has. You heard earlier that SB1070 is wildly popular and that 35-odd states have introduced versions of it. But as elected officials, each of you knows there is a huge difference between a bill that is introduced and one that becomes law. Let’s look at SB1070′s record in state legislatures.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 30 states introduced SB1070 copycat bills in 2011.i Not 34 or 35, 30. Of those 30 states, direct copycat legislation was passed in four. Now I’m not a lawyer or a politician, but simple math tells me that four in 30 are not good results. Put another way, nearly 87% of the states -­rejected-Arizona’s approach. In the business community, an 87% failure rate is hardly indicative of success and any product with an 87% failure rate won’t be on the market very long.

In fact, if you look at all 1,592 all immigration bills introduced in 2011, only 162 passed, which is a 90% failure rate. So what caused 87% of the states to reject SB1070 copycat and 90% of all immigration bills? They failed because legislatures were shown the simple fact that these bills never work as planned. Here are just a few examples and data points. There are many more.

Oklahoma Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act

After Oklahoma passed HB1804 in 2007, the Oklahoma Bankers Association commissioned a study that found the loss of 90,000 unauthorized workers and their families resulted in a $1.9B loss to the state’s Gross State Product.ii

A study by the Urban Institute and the Migration Policy Institute found negligible impact on savings on public services from departure of the undocumented because by law they’re ineligible for those benefits anyway.iii

Georgia – HB 87

According to a Georgia Restaurant Association survey in November 2011, 71% their members were experiencing labor shortages and 88% were concerned they would experience labor shortages in the future. They estimate the average monthly sales loss due to the labor shortage was $21,000.iv

Georgia farmers told Governor Deal in a Georgia Department of Agriculture survey they needed 11,080 workers to bring in that spring’s spring fruit crop or they faced the loss of $330M due to the labor shortage.vvi Governor Deal offered up probationers as a solution and on the first day, 11 showed up. That’s .001 percent of the number needed. According to news reports, two remained a week later. The resulting losses to farmers were significant, with one small grower losing $250,000 due to the labor shortage and an estimated total state loss of $391M.vii

One aspect of using probationers or prison labor is the increased liability insurance costs to adequately protect business owners from any problems caused by these workers. This is an additional unintended consequence of such suggested solutions and programs.

Fourteen days after the bill was signed into law and after the complaints started rolling in, Governor Deal asks for an economic impact study. Shouldn’t that have been done -before-the bill was passed?viii

Alabama HB 56

1. An analysis by the University of Alabamaix cites a number of troubling impacts to their economy. Each one was easily predictable if they would have examined what happened in other states
a. Reduction of 70,000 – 140,000 related jobs, causing a loss of up to %5.8B in earnings
b. $2.3 M- $10B loss in state GDP
c. $56.7M- $264.5M loss in state income and sales tax collections
d. $20M – $93.1M in lost local sales tax collections

2. Business and dog owners have been caught up in Alabama’s law by being required to prove their U.S. citizenship to renew their business license or to register their dog. Mobile County reportedly spent over $150,000 just on equipment to enforce the citizenship provisions of HB56. The county even gave back $30,000 in fines collected because business owners needed more time to prove their citizenship before their licenses were renewed.x

Arizona – SB 1070

1. Immediate impact on the tourism industry:

a. Losses from conventions already cancelled: $490M and 2,761 jobs
b. Potential losses from future convention booking declines: $262M and 1,475 jobs
c. Total losses from cancellations and booking declines: $752M and 4,236 jobs
d. Companies paid Arizona convention centers up to $60,000 to break their contracts.xi

Loss of an estimated 150,000 consumers from the Arizona economy at an estimated decline in Gross State Product of $24.4B (9.6%), a loss of 291,000 direct and indirect jobs and resulting loss in tax revenues of $2.1B in tax revenues xii

Farmers are letting planting less acreage and letting some land go fallow not due to market conditions, but labor shortages.

Construction firms are concerned they will not be able to find enough workers to fill job openings, putting projects and contracts at risk.

Prince William County. VA

$14.1M to fund police staffing, training and overtime, evaluation, public education and ADC farmouts directly related to PWC ordinancexiii

$3.2M to fund cameras in all PWC police cruisersxiv

$750,000 per year to County foreclosure rate 3X regional rate and contributed to falling property values

Violent crime increased 10.9% in 2009xv Contributed to extending the recession’s impacts in PWC.

In March of 2011, when it was learned five more SB 1070-related immigration bills were being introduced in the Arizona legislature, 60 Arizona CEOs wrote a letter to former Senator Pearce asking him to refrain from moving the bills. They sent the letter knowing the negative impacts SB1070 and the boycotts had on the state’s convention and tourism, agriculture and construction industries and rightly feared the passage these five bills would further harm Arizona’s economy at the worst possible time. Fortunately, thanks to the letter and a galvanized business community, none of those bills got out of the Senate.

In July of 2011, the leaders of 64 agriculture associations wrote Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas asking him to not hear H.R. 2164 stating it threatened $5B to $9B in annual agriculture production and hundreds of thousands of upstream and downstream jobs. Given the experiences of the other jurisdictions who have had to live with these laws, they were rightly concerned.

Reports and findings like these are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Study after study on jurisdiction after jurisdiction; year after year, whenever and wherever these laws are tried, the results are always the same and they’re always bad. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of a single study in the public domain that indicates any one of these jurisdictions have experienced any positive economic impact. Not one.

To be fair, there are studies that show these laws are successful in one aspect: they cause undocumented immigrants to move. Whether they move within the state, out of state, or back home is a difficult question to answer. But what tends to happen to those who remain is we push them deeper into the underground economy, where these workers suddenly become entrepreneurs and open cash businesses, thereby taking even more money out the economy that we would be better off having in it. xvi

This begs the question of if these laws are so good for us, how can the impacts be so universally bad? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is simple: you have bad outcomes because you have bad inputs. The claims used to justify these laws are largely wrong or distorted.

How Can Good Laws Create Bad Results?

You heard in earlier testimony about the supposed $2.5B it costs Arizona each to “educate, medicate and incarcerate” illegal aliens. You heard that 17 percent of the inmates in Arizona’s prisons are illegal aliens. You heard that crime in Arizona is at a 30-year low as a result of SB 1070. You heard that 9,000 Americans are killed each year by illegal aliens and you heard that Arizona is now saving $500M a year by the departure of the children of illegal immigrants from the school systems. The casual listener would hear these statements and be concerned. But the problem is, not a single one of these statements is true. In fact, nearly every statement made to justify SB 1070 has serious factual problems with it, with many being completely unfounded.

Inflating and Misleading Data Is The Norm

The $2.5B cost number comes from a 2004 Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR) study that uses data from 1994 to draw their conclusions on the costs of undocumented immigrants to the state.xvii This report’s most significant flaws include using decade old data and purposefully overestimating costs while ignoring revenues. As members of Congress, you know there are two sides to the fiscal ledger (at least we hope you do) and you can’t choose to ignore where the tax dollars come from.

In Arizona, education is funded primarily through sales and property taxes. If there are taxes we know everyone pays it’s sales and property taxes. Just like everyone else, immigrants pay sales taxes when they buy clothes, cars, furniture, tickets, etc. Just like everyone else, they pay property taxes either directly or indirectly through their mortgage or their rent. There is also significant evidence that many of these workers pay income taxes, which flow into the state’s General Fund and other accounts, which pay for other government services such as health care and law enforcement.

Studies by the University of Arizona that looked at revenues and spending in 2004 found that the costs to the state were $1.4B and the revenues were $2.4B, creating an annual net benefit of nearly $1B.xviii Other studies, such as ones by New York’s Fiscal Policy Institutexix and the Cato Institutexx have examined this “they don’t pay their way” argument and found they do. Is it no wonder then that when they, as consumers, are pushed out, the impacts such as those discussed earlier are felt throughout the economy.

The flip side of this coin is asking how much better off we would be if we brought all of these people above board and made them active contributors to our economy. Most economists would and do argue the benefits would be significant. In the case of Arizona the IPC study says it would add 261,000 jobs and increase tax revenues by $1.68B.xxi Our state could sure use those dollars.

Misleading Crime Claims

There is no report available from Arizona Department of Corrections (AZDC) that indicates the “criminal alien” population has ever been 17%.xxii Currently, the “criminal aliens” population makes up just over 13% of all inmates in Arizona prisons. But exaggerating the numbers isn’t the only problem with this statement.

Another problem is its purposeful and misleading use of the term “criminal alien.” As any law enforcement official should know, “criminal aliens” are not just those here illegally. They include visa and green card holders. Permanent legal residents who are in the nation’s prison system are classified as “criminal aliens.” Add on to this the fact no law enforcement agency collects or reports crime statistics according to immigration status., and you’ll see the problem. Therefore, anyone or any statistic that represents “criminal aliens” as synonymous with “illegal immigrants” is over-exaggerating the data in order to make the problem appear worse than it is.

SB1070 Is Not Responsible For Crime Rate Reduction

It has been suggested that SB1070 is the reason for largest drop in crime in Phoenix in 30 years. Unfortunately, there are no data from the Phoenix Police Department, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the FBI or anyone else to substantiate or use as a basis for justifying in any manner whatsoever this claim. None.

Crime rates in Arizona and Maricopa County have been dropping for several years and to suggest that the results of the largest decline in 30 years happened since 2010 (it hasn’t) and are because of SB1070 is reckless at worst and misleading at best. To further substantiate this point, the Arizona Department of Corrections FY 2011 annual report listed several reasons for the reduction in the number of prison inmates and the six characters missing from any of those reasons are “S-B-1-0-7-0.”xxiii

Contrary to the rhetoric, crime studies have found that undocumented immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes than their domestic counterparts. A 2006 Migration Policy Institute study found that non-citizens are five (5) times less likely to be incarcerated than non-immigrants.xxiv The reason for this is if they are caught, they will be likely, and appropriately, deported. The reality is they commit crimes in percentages equal to their numbers in the population, which any statistician will tell you is what we should expect.

One of the more outlandish claims is 9,000 Americans are murdered each year in the U.S. from unauthorized immigrants. While no disputes its unfortunate occurrence, were this claim to be true, it would mean that according to FBI statistics, undocumented immigrants are committing 63% of the crime in the U.S. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to justify taking this statement seriously. xxv

Immigrations Claim Are Wrong 9-out-of-10 Times

“The greatest threat to democracy is having a public that thinks it is fully informed, but really isn’t very well informed at all.” – Linda Foley

Major news organizations are also finding fault with these claims. Using just two of the major news organizations “Fact Check” services, “PolitiFact” by the Tampa Bay Timesxxvi and “AZ Fact Check’ by the Arizona Republicxxvii, have both found that when the topic turns to immigration, more often than not, false.

PolitiFact Immigration Statements (3/14/12)

I know there are a lot of lawyers in the room and I will presume that many of you have either been to trial or had witnesses swear an oath to tell the truth when they give sworn testimony. Even on TV, we hear that familiar oath spoken by witnesses as they take the stand. I have yet to hear of any instance when a witness is sworn to “Tell the truth, mostly the truth, or half of the truth.” Yet based on the independent analyses of these news organizations, 88.7% of the statements examined by PolitiFact and 91.8% of those checked by AZ Fact Check fail to meet the standard for truth used in our judicial system.

AZ Fact Check (3/14/12)
Bad Data Equals Bad Public Policy

These data help make my final point. The reason every political jurisdiction experiences significant negative impacts from the passage of local, county or state immigration enforcement laws is because elected officials and the public are being fed bad data from which they make bad decisions. As the quote at the beginning of my remarks states, the significant characteristic of the immigration debate is the high ratio of hot air to data. Given what we know from prior experiences, why are we surprised when these policies fail?

We spend way too much time asking the question “Are you for or against SB1070?” We should be asking, “Does SB1070 work and if it does not, then what should we do next?” With all of the proof that “attrition through enforcement” had plenty of negative and unacceptable impacts, it should concern everyone that SB1070 was apparently the best idea anyone could come up with. We should have known better.

Because we are distracted with SB1070, we have not spent enough time looking for alternative solutions. We have not listened to the many informed and insightful idea that have been proposed by business, law enforcement, faith and community leaders. There are very good ideas and you would be amazed how close people from the political right and the left end up when they talk about how to solve the problem-and none of them include amnesty, open borders or anarchy.

On May 1 in the Rayburn Office Building Gold Room, AZEIR, Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy (TxSIP), the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Immigration Forum are sponsoring a conference we’re calling “The Congressional Immigration Solutions Conference. At this event, we will present information and solutions those of us who live, run businesses, conduct research and enforce the laws near the border feel are worthy of Congressional consideration. It will likely be the best three hours you or your staff could spend as you consider how to solve this vexing problem. All of your offices have received invitations.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for your time and attention. I am prepared to answer any question you may have for me.

by Bob Quasius

As I read this Fox News story and watched the video, two things impressed me.

First, crossing our borders illegally is really very dangerous, and the conditions the former INS agent talks about were many years ago when there was less border security. Nowadays it costs thousands of dollars to pay a smuggler to cross our border, and hundreds die every year from exposure, dehydration, etc. As border security has become tighter in recent years, migrant workers depend more and more on criminal cartels who also smuggle drugs too. When migrant workers get into trouble, quite often their coyotes simply abandon them to the elements. Many also drown crossing the river.

Paradoxically, some immigration attorneys have told me that because it became so much more difficult to cross illegally, many migrants began staying here in the U.S. all the time and brought their families, rather than leave family members in Mexico and return for 2-3 months each year after earning money working in the U.S. Without fixing legal immigration, the unintended effect of more border security increased the number of undocumented wives and children in the U.S. Tighter border security not only reduces the numbers entering the U.S., but also deters those here illegally who wish to leave.

Second, why would anyone pay thousands of dollars and take such risks to life and limb if all they had to do was ‘stand in line’ as anti-illegal immigration activists constantly harp about? Some statistics help put things in perspective. First, according to the 2011 DHS Immigration yearbook, 1.7 million non-citizens were admitted to the U.S. for work or training. Various other estimates peg undocumented workers in the U.S. at seven million, which is reflective of our economy’s needs for mostly unskilled workers. Only 20% of ‘guest workers’ are here with some type of visa! Visas are nearly all subject to strict quotas arbitrarily set by Congress. This sad situation reflects on just how broken our immigration system has become. We expect people to wait in a line that for most is non-existent, but then we have unmet labor needs for jobs that most Americans are unwilling to take!

Bottom line: the best way to reduce illegal border crossings, at least for the large majority who simply want to work here, it so fix legal immigration so crossing our borders illegally is not necessary to work in the U.S. We even have a plan to overhaul legal immigration to be much more in harmony with our economy, which you can read here.

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (original posting)

A famous French Army Marshall, Ferdinand Foch, declared during the darkest days of WWI that: “Hard pressed on my right; center is yielding; impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent, I shall attack!”

Today’s version among the far right anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican lunatic fringe that has controlled the immigration issue for several years is just the opposite of Marshall Foch.

They are in full retreat, not because they have lost their CHUTZPAH or have run out of lies, but reality and common sense have overtaken them in the legislative halls, in public opinion and in courage of Republicans who refuse to bow to cowardly immigration restrictionists.

The national restrictionist cabal is led politically by the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its myriad affiliated front groups like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA and intellectually by their supplicant publication “The Social Quarterly” and a web site of author Peter Brimelow’s, Vdare.com, named for the first white child born in Virginia circa 1607.

The founder of these groups was a man named John Tanton who previously served as head of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) who also served in high Sierra Club office and founded Planned Parenthood locals. His underlying theme is that the U.S. is being caught by people – Mexicans – with their “pants down” versus America being caught with its “pants up.”
He also targets all Roman Catholics.

Facts contradict their old time racist (as declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center) views of Mexicans breeding like rabbits as the Mexican birth rates of old have been slashed to almost U.S. rates by decades of birth control education by the Mexican government.

Nonetheless, the Tanton/FAIR groups and their paid lawyer, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach are busy on many fronts trying to pass laws that attack people who may be in the country illegally, especially if they are Mexican. Towns in Pennsylvania, Texas, Nebraska and the states of Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia have all passed Kobach-written laws that are attacks on Spanish-speaking immigrants even if they are legal.

Central to these “laws” is racial profiling by authorities of people who they “suspect” of being in country illegally. Authorities are not permitted by federal civil rights laws to profile by race or ethnicity. Nonetheless, these laws have common corollary elements of allowing almost every single public employee to confront people they “suspect” of being illegally present, to demand proof of legal residency.

We speak of building inspectors, municipal bus drivers, meter maids, school teachers, school administrators and office clerks, not just sworn police officers.

In Alabama, the legislature has pulled back from its passage of a highly dubious anti-illegal resident law passed last year and mostly stopped by a federal court. It has introduced new legislation eliminating highly controversial elements that do not pass constitutional muster. In Arizona, before its infamous SB 1070 even went into effect, the legislature made major changes that a federal court invalidated anyway. In Texas, the town of Farmer’s Branch with its own Kobach-written law has spent mucho dollars in the federal courts defending its law and has lost at every level almost bankrupting the city. In Nebraska, a Kobach-written town law has never been implemented because the town has no money to fight for it in court. They know they will lose.

And now, Nebraska hits the news again. Right wing Republican legislators tried to defeat a pre-natal care bill that would be available to expectant mothers regardless of legal residency. Governor Dave Heineman weighed in on the question with this statement:

“We should only be using taxpayer funds for legal Nebraska citizens, not for illegal aliens. I am going to fight against LB 599 because it’s not right (April 3, 2012).”

This statement, of course, proves the Governor has a very limited view of reality.

First of all, people in Nebraska who might not be legally-present pay taxes thus are “taxpayers.” Secondly, though he claims to be “pro-life” he refuses to acknowledge that pre-natal care is not to treat a woman but to make sure her baby-to-be is born healthy. That baby will probably be born in Nebraska, born a United States citizen as per the Constitution.

Governor Heineman declared he would veto the bill if passed. It passed because Republican legislators ignored the ignorant governor and voted “Pro-life” for LB 599 31-15, a veto proof majority.

The question, then, has the anti-immigrant, anti-illegal-immigrant; anti-Mexican provocateur of the Tanton-type hit the high tide mark of the movement? Its corollary question is: is it receding in the face of court injunctions and opposition based on the Constitution and common sense?

And, where do we place the credit for this triumph: The Courts? The people…Common sense…The Constitution?

How about, all of the above?

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

by Bob Quasius (original blog posting)

The 234 page disciplinary report about Andrew Thomas and two of his deputies is shocking in it’s description of the breadth of corruption and abuse of power by former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio is not subject to discipline from the panel making the report, but it’s clear from the report that Arpaio is at least as guilty as Andrew Thomas. It’s especially galling that in a 30 minute time span, Joe Arpaio testified 27 times that he “didn’t recall” anything about the events in question, yet from the 234 page report it’s obvious he’s a central figure in this travesty of justice! This news report does a good job of explaining the scandal.

The disbarment case is especially compelling regarding Judge Donahoe, now retired, who was the top criminal court judge at the time and highly respected for his integrity. From the report (reformatted for easier reading) it’s obvious that Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio, along with their henchmen, cooked up a criminal case against Jodge Donahoe to intimidate him on another case. The fact that several police officers refused to swear a complaint against the judge despite intense pressure from higher-ups is especially noteworthy.

THE CORE FACTS REGARDINGTHE FILING OF CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE DONAHOE

Judge Donahoe had scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of December 9, 2009 regarding the Notice and Motion filed by Thomas Irvine and Edward Novak on behalf of the County. The motion filed for MCBOS by Irvine and Novak sought an order prohibiting special deputy county attorneys from appearing before a grand jury.

On December 9, 2009, under Mr. Thomas’s authority and with his approval, Ms. Aubuchon through MCSO detectives filed a criminal case against Judge Donahoe. Mr. Thomas made the decision to file a direct complaint against Judge Donahoe following a meeting with Ms. Aubuchon, Mr. Hendershott, and Sheriff Arpaio. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon denied that they wanted to file the charges against Judge Donahoe to stop that hearing. However, as discussed below, the Hearing Panel concludes that the evidence is clear and convincing that Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, Sheriff Arpaio and then-Deputy Chief Hendershott decided to file the charges against Judge Donahoe so that he would not hold the December 9, 2009 hearing.

Ms. Aubuchon and Detective Gabe Almanza signed the direct complaint. It charged the judge with hindering, obstruction and bribery. There was no investigation in this matter prior to the filing of the direct complaint. Only after the direct complaint was filed did MCSO create a report.

Ms. Aubuchon attempted to file the charges against Judge Donahoe a day earlier on December 8, 2009, after a meeting with Mr. Thomas, Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Hendershott.

On the afternoon of December 8, 2009, Chief Deputy Hendershott of MCSO called Sgt. Rich Johnson about filing a case against Judge Donahoe. Chief Deputy Hendershott told Sgt. Johnson that they needed it done “now.” MCSO Sgt. Brandon Luth, Sgt. Johnson and Deputy Chief Young called Ms. Aubuchon on the afternoon of December 8, 2009, to ask her what was going on and what they needed to charge. Ms. Aubuchon stated they needed a Form 4, a DR (departmental report) and a probable cause statement. Ms. Aubuchon told the MCSO officers she wanted to charge bribery and related charges. Sgt. Luth did not know what to write. Sgt. Luth’s orders were to put the case together and accompany Detective Cooning to “walk it through” that evening.

Later in the afternoon of December 8, 2009, Ms. Aubuchon, Chief Young, Sgt. Luth, Sgt. Johnson and Chief Hendershott met. Chief Hendershott told them about the racketeering lawsuit, and that they thought Judge Donahoe was going to throw MCAO off all County investigations. Chief Hendershott said that he had met with Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, and Sheriff Arpaio, and that Sheriff Arpaio came up with the idea of charging the judge. Chief Hendershott told Sgt. Luth to use as the material for the Form 4, or probable cause (“PC”) statement, a complaint that the Chief Deputy had submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Donahoe. Chief Hendershott printed off his complaint and wrote the charges on it. At the hearing in this case, Mr. Hendershott was unable to describe any criminal conduct by Judge Donahoe.

Sgt. Luth drafted the PC statement using Chief Deputy Hendershott’s judicial complaint at Ms. Aubuchon’s direction.

Sgt. Johnson called MCSO’s dispatch unit and obtained a Departmental Report number for the case. At about 5:00 p.m., Sgt. Luth took the Donahoe charging documents to Ms. Aubuchon. She read them. She said that “it worked for her.” Ms. Aubuchon signed the complaint as Deputy County Attorney.

Ms. Aubuchon attempted to have an investigator from MCAO file the direct complaint in Superior Court in the late afternoon or early evening of December 8, 2009. Ms. Aubuchon assigned the task of filing the direct complaint to MCAO investigator Lt. Richard Hargus. Lt. Hargus then asked MCAO Detective Timothy Cooning to meet an MCAO clerk in front of the court at 5:30 p.m. Det. Cooning did so, and the clerk handed him the Donahoe file. Det. Cooning read the file, returned to his office, and informed Lt. Hargus that he felt uncomfortable swearing to the truthfulness of the complaint against Judge Donahoe because he had not investigated the case. Det. Cooning also was uncomfortable signing the probable cause statement because it was unclear what crimes had been committed and who had investigated them.

Lt. Hargus told his superior, Commander Stribling, that Lt. Hargus and Detective Cooning did not want to file the complaint because there was no probable cause to support it. Commander Stribling agreed that none of his detectives should be put in the position of walking through a complaint on a sitting Superior Court judge when he knew nothing about the investigation that led up to the filing of the complaint. The commissioner assigned to the evening court might ask the detective questions, and the detective would not know what to say.

Commander Stribling called Mr. Thomas. Commander Stribling informed Mr. Thomas that Ms. Aubuchon was asking Lt. Hargus and Det. Cooning to get the Donahoe complaint filed.

Commander Stribling told Mr. Thomas that based on what Lt. Hargus and Det. Cooning had told him, there was no probable cause to support the complaint. Commander Stribling told Mr. Thomas that he refused to have his detective walk through a complaint about which the detective had no knowledge. Mr. Thomas agreed, but insisted that the complaint be filed no later than the next morning.

Commander Stribling then called Ms. Aubuchon to explain his decision. The conversation was heated. Commander Stribling suggested that MCSO Sgt. Brandon Luth file the complaint, since he was with the MACE Unit. Eventually, Ms. Aubuchon acquiesced.

Because Commander Stribling had refused to have MCAO investigators “walk it through,” Ms. Aubuchon turned to the sheriff’s office to assist her in filing the Donahoe complaint. At Hargus’s instruction, at 6:00 that evening Det. Cooning met Sgt. Luth in front of Det. Cooning’s office and gave Sgt. Luth the direct complaint. Det. Cooning told Sgt. Luth he refused to swear to the complaint. Sgt. Luth called Ms. Aubuchon and handed the phone to Det. Cooning. Ms. Aubuchon told Det. Cooning she “can’t believe this” and “this is outrageous” and hung up on Det. Cooning. Det. Cooning then agreed to meet Sgt. Luth at the IA court a few minutes later, where Sgt. Luth was to file the complaint. Once there, however, Sgt. Luth refused to file the complaint.

Sgt. Luth did not want to file the complaint against Judge Donahoe because he did not want to answer questions by the court about the case when it was filed. He arranged for Det. Almanza and Det. Tennyson to meet with him the next morning.

On the morning of December 9, 2009, Sgt. Luth, Det. Almanza and Det. Tennyson met with Ms. Aubuchon. Ms. Aubuchon handed Sgt. Luth the complaint against Judge Donahoe, which she had drafted, with the probable cause statement attached.

Sgt. Luth asked Ms. Aubuchon whether she had enough evidence to charge Judge Donahoe. Ms. Aubuchon referred to past court filings and decisions and outlined for Sgt. Luth why she believed Judge Donahoe should be charged with crimes. This struck Det. Almanza as bizarre because Ms. Aubuchon was telling Sgt. Luth what the evidence was, rather than the usual procedure, in which the investigator informs the prosecutor of the evidence.

Sgt. Luth and the detectives left the meeting. Sgt. Luth took the complaint he had received from Ms. Aubuchon, along with documents Ms. Aubuchon had printed off of her computer.

The complaint was filed the same morning of December 9, 2009. Detective Gabriel Almanza signed it under oath. Sgt. Luth told Det. Almanza to sign it. Det. Almanza was not comfortable doing so, because he had not been involved in drafting the complaint and he had no knowledge as to the truth or falsity of it. Det. Almanza had never filed a complaint before. Sgt. Luth assured Det. Almanza that Ms. Aubuchon believed she had enough evidence to charge the judge. Det. Almanza signed it based on his reliance on Ms. Aubuchon’s good faith.

MCSO Detectives Almanza and Tennyson served the direct complaint on Judge Donahoe. They secretly recorded the service. After Judge Donahoe was served, Sgt. Luth was ordered to take a copy of the direct complaint to Ms. Aubuchon and Chief Deputy Hendershott. When Sgt. Luth gave the copy of the complaint to Ms. Aubuchon, she said she already received an email notifying her that Judge Donahoe had vacated the hearing that had been set for later that afternoon. She appeared pleased and happy. Sgt. Luth then gave the complaint to Chief Deputy Hendershott, explaining that the complaint had been served and that he had just met with Ms. Aubuchon. Chief Deputy Hendershott said, “checkmate.”

Tucson, Arizona – We applaud today’s Arizona Bar Association Disciplinary Panel decisions to disbar former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his deputy Lisa Aubuchon, and to suspend the law license of Rachel Alexander for six months, for their role in the malicious prosecutions of Joe Arpaio’s critics and opponents, intended to intimidate them into silence. Andrew Thomas was Joe Arpaio’s hand-picked County Attorney and right-hand man, elected with heavy backing from Joe Arpaio.

We look forward to justice for Joe Arpaio, who has not yet been indicted or charged in this scandal, though clearly he is a central figure in this repugnant behavior. Arpaio is always talking about upholding the ‘rule of law’, yet his conduct in this scandal reflects badly on his office and shocking lack of integrity. This ugly chapter in Arizona history will not be closed until Joe Arpaio is also held accountable for his utterly disgraceful conduct.

We also call on Joe Arpaio to resign and leave the Republican Party, as his values clearly are not representative of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. As Republicans, we believe in the ‘rule of law’ and personal responsibility, and the ‘rule of law’ does not include abusing one’s authority to persecute one’s critics to intimidate them into silence.

As of today, there are no other registered Republicans in the race for sheriff of Maricopa County, but with Arpaio out of the race we hope that a qualified Republican candidate will enter the race. Joe Arpaio is not fit to serve.

by Bob Quasius (original post)

Raúl Grijalva has a perfect score…isn’t that awesome? Raúl Grijalva has now received an ‘F’ from the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in Congress, and that ‘F’ doesn’t stand for ‘fantastic’ unless of course you’re a liberal, and then ‘A’ probably means ‘awful’ and ‘B’ means ‘bad.’

You can find Raúl’s ‘perfect score’ here.

Raúl Grijalva clearly has forgotten who he was elected to represent in Congress, not special interests but the taxpayers! It’s time to vote Raúl out! Please join us in supporting Blanca Guerra for Congress!

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (CA Leader of Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original blog post)

Not since the armies of the United States and Mexico chased Apache hero Geronimo all over Arizona and Northern Mexico has the United States paid much attention to Arizona until a car bomb killed a reporter who was investigating deep corruption of Arizona Republican politicians who were bought and paid for by gambling interests.

The bomb’s target died and Arizona press reporters mobilized to expose his murderers and in the process started a deep political anal examination that would eventually run two Republican governors out of office and into jail.

The state’s well-connected non-profit Fiesta Bowl Association’s bowl game would be exposed for a corrupt organization that had politicians enjoying five-star hotels (e.g.: in Chicago) and who-knows-what-else on tax free dollars including State Senate President – Russell Pearce — who the press exposed for taking $40,000 in “goodies” that led along with other political foibles to his being thrown out of office by his district voters.

To prove the deep-seated corruption of Arizona politics, that same recalled State Senate President had previously been fired from his governor-appointed job as Director of the state’s Motor Vehicle Department for criminally tampering with a woman’s driving record. Why? That was a felony. Unfortunately he was not prosecuted for political reasons.

Now, a new investigation is under way of the newly elected (2010) state Attorney General of Arizona, Republican Tom Horne, for illegally working with a Political Action Committee on fundraising, comingling of funds and campaign direction of his campaign. Already under the microscope for appointing a woman lawyer to a lucrative job in his office who has been in legal trouble with the State Bar more than once and has demonstrated that she is a terrible lawyer,

Attorney General Tom Horne previously served as the State Superintendent of Education and banned teaching of subjects he doesn’t care for in the Tucson schools that are available all over the Southwest. That case is in the courts.

Into this cesspool of corruption AKA The State of Arizona is the continuing saga of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the 78-year-old former federal drug cop who runs the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) in and around Phoenix. He has been investigated by the federal government starting with complaints filed in 2008 to the Bush Department of Justice that accused him of running the worst racial profiling department in the entire country – an illegal activity by any department.

Famous for massive raids on Hispanic neighborhoods in his 24/7 hunt of illegally present aliens, specifically those of the Mexican bloodline, the irascible sheriff is to be dragged into court. A judge has ordered a July 19 trial for the case of Melendez v. Arpaio in which Arpaio is being sued for racial profiling which is illegal by all public agencies, including Arpaio’s MCSO.

This is bad news for Arpaio for he stalked out of a mediation conference with the federal government recently. It was ordered when the federal government released a report of the illegal racial profiling used by Arpaio deputies. He continues his hysterical hunt for bus boys, dishwashers, plant-tending nursery workers and waitresses.

The federal government will now sue. Arpaio says he will fight with taxpayer dollars, of course.

Arpaio’s next door neighboring Sheriff Paul Babeu (Boo-Boo) is being investigated by the State and Federal governments for allegedly threatening his former boy friend the (self-admitted) homosexual sheriff dumped when he announced for a congressional Republican nomination.

Amidst investigations, extensive racial profiling and massive corruption that has sent two governors to prison, the disgraced recalled former State Senate President Pearce has announced a run for a new unoccupied state senate seat this fall.

Worse, his pet project, the anti-illegal alien/immigrant SB 1070 law, will be scrutinized by the U.S. Supreme Court after it has been stopped cold by an Arizona federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The corrupt State of Arizona, its corrupt Republican Party, a failed politician that was fired for committing felonies as Director of the state Motor Vehicle Department and recalled by voters, lie exposed under a bright sun’s light in more ways than one.

Currently being offered by those very same corrupt legislators and politicians is a bill that would punish “offensive” “offending” online speech, photos and references that tend to aggravate or bother people like former State Senate President Russell Pearce or Sheriffs Arpaio or Boo-boo or Attorney General Horne – like this very article. It will be e-mailed to over 600 newspapers, media and readers. In Arizona under this proposed law I could be arrested.

Arizona may or may not be a good place to visit or to do business in but it obviously is not a good place in which to live if one has brown skin and/or believes in the U.S. Constitution that is respected by 49 other states.

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (California Leader of Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original blog)

P. T. Barnum’s oft-quoted “There’s a sucker born every minute” is appropriate today in the US of A. Why? Because of illegal immigration that has generated an April session in the Supreme Court of the United States on the State of Arizona’s declaration of war on the United States and the Constitution that formed and governs the country.

Defenders of Arizona’s anti-Mexican SB 1070 law often insist that the infamous law enjoys considerable public support. It certainly doesn’t have much support in the federal courts what with an Arizona-based federal district judge stopping the law’s critical provisions cold. The 9th Circuit upheld the judge’s injunctions and now those injunctions are up for review by the United States Supreme Court.

Most polls taken after the law’s passage showed something between 60 and 70% public support nationally. Of course, most people are ignorant of the Constitution as a whole in particular of Article 1, Section 8 which explicitly enumerates the power of the United States Congress “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” which means immigration.

Millions of people are unaware of the constitutional congressional mandate on naturalization/immigration, nonetheless P.T. Barnum “suckers” line up to support the Arizona law, especially the “usual suspects” who apparently lack detailed knowledge of the Constitution.

When I speak, I speak of people like Bill O’Reilly at Fox News and Laura Ingrahm, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity of radio fame and myriad other constitutionally unread public figures, the “suckers.”

There really aren’t that many suckers because if there were the Supreme Court would have been inundated by mountains of legal briefs supporting Arizona’s law. It wasn’t and those that were submitted look like “cut and paste” jobs by legal shops that represent a monolithic Arizona defense that is at best ludicrous and unconstitutional in spirit and in word. These silly supporting briefs are mostly from ultra-conservative congress people, a few other conservative officials and a number of hate groups organized by the country’s most active racist, Dr. John Tanton. These are hate groups like FAIR and its non-profit arm, the Center for Immigration Studies (organized by Tanton to fight any immigration including legal especially Catholics from Mexico).

Numerous well-known and influential outside parties oppose the law:

• Sixteen current and former chief law enforcement officers filed briefs opposing SB 1070, including the former Phoenix police chief and the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, which shares a longer border with Mexico than any county in Arizona. Two law enforcement officials – only – filed supporting SB 1070, including Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who is being investigated by the federal government that accuses his deputies of the worst racial profiling in the country.
• One brief filed to oppose SB 1070 was joined by a former Secretary of State (Madeline Albright, Democrat), a former Secretary of Defense (William Cohen, Republican), and two former ambassadors to the United Nations (Albright and John Negroponte, Republican).
• Another was submitted on behalf of two former commissioners of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Doris Meissner, Republican and James Ziglar, Republican). No member of any prior Presidential administration (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) joined a brief supporting SB 1070.
• Eleven states with a combined population of nearly 100 million—submitted a brief opposing SB 1070, including California, New York, and Illinois. More than 40 cities and counties filed opposition to 1070, three of which are in Arizona (Tucson, Flagstaff, and San Luis).
• A brief filed on behalf of 68 pro-immigrant members of Congress was joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other high-ranking members of the House Democratic leadership. No member of the House Republican leadership signed a pro-SB 1070 brief filed on behalf of fifty conservative lawmakers.
• The government of Mexico filed opposition to SB 1070 that was joined by sixteen other Latin American countries.
• Finally, a dozen briefs were filed on behalf of more than 50 national organizations ranging from the ultra-liberal ACLU, to the AFL/CIO, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Briefs here, briefs there, briefs everywhere. None with pro-signatures from the Republican Congressional leadership, none with pro-Governors other than the high school-only educated Arizona governor who did not attend a four year college or took academic college courses even in community college unless they came under her medical office worker certificate program.

The law’s sponsor, Russell Pearce (who was the Arizona Senate President then) was flushed down a recall toilet last November when his conservative constituency threw him out of office.

Arpaio is being investigated by the feds for alleged criminal acts. SB1070 supporting Arizona sheriff Paul Babeu (Boo-Boo) is also being investigated for criminal acts.

Support for and supporters of SB1070 are narrow in scope and numbers. Question: do they have five “sucker” supporters on the Court?

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.