The lightning bolt in nature is so spectacular it is beyond words for normal people to describe. Living in San Diego the lightning bolt is the stylized symbol of the half-century old National Football League San Diego Chargers. Famous for long touchdown strikes, the Chargers AKA BOLTS can strike from anywhere on the field. So can the federal courts; strike, that is, like lightning and in so doing judges certainly disappoint some citizens, local and state governments and sometimes the federal government itself. As it is often said, there are two sides to every story and case. Case in point: Valle del Sol v. Whiting, an Arizona case stemming from the state’s passing into law SB1070.

Kris Kobach, Author of SB1070

John Tanton

This law was written by Yale-educated Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach while moonlighting for the man the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an American bigot, John Tanton.

Dr. Tanton founded the Federation for Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and Official English groups, all funded by an outlier foundation that studies Black penis size relative to crime rates. He also comes from population control groups like Zero Population Growth and Planned Parenthood.

A federal district judge eviscerated SB1070 and she was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States with one exception, that of a “papers please” section of SB1070 that allows local and state police to demand proof of legal residency when people are detained. It declared that issue not legally “ripe” but suggested that when that provision was enforced the courts would rule on it when someone with standing sued.

In the meanwhile, two other controversial SB1070 provisions jumped from the district court to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s junking of these provisions of SB1070.

Politico:

The provisions in question make it illegal for a person in a car to pick up and hire a person for work, and for someone to enter a stopped car for that purpose, if the vehicle blocks traffic.

The judges agreed that the State of Arizona simply failed to prove the lower court injunctions wrong when SB1070 criminalized stopping on a road to offer someone a job or for an individual to ask for a job or enter a stopped car after accepting a job offer. The court said it was a broad assault on commercial and free speech. They also ruled that Arizona failed to show how traffic safety was actually involved.

Judge Raymond Fisher

Judge Raymond Fisher writing for a unanimous three-judge panel:

Arizona … has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the state’s pre-existing traffic law. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than necessary violate the First Amendment.

That pesky 1st Amendment to the Constitution — if only we had a President like Venezuela’s now-deceased Hugo Chavez who simply closed down newspapers, television and radio stations when they criticized him.

Another interesting part of the court’s decision was how the judges smacked Arizona around for trying to cover unconstitutionality by claiming it was trying to improve traffic safety. Judge Fisher wrote that SB1070 was a “classic example” of limiting free speech to a narrow band consisting of making it a crime to offer someone a job or to accepting one from a roadside or sidewalk.

On Arizona’s claim that the intent of the law was only “traffic safety” the court ruled:

The district court reasonably determined that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech rather than to promote traffic safety. Significantly, the purposes clause introducing S.B. 1070 describes it as an immigration bill, not a traffic safety bill…Finally, the day labor provisions’ punishment is far out of line with punishments for other similar traffic violations. For example, conduct that recklessly impedes traffic is punishable by 30 days’ imprisonment, but day labor solicitation that is not dangerous or reckless, but merely impedes traffic, is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment.

The decision does not rule these provisions unconstitutional but it prohibits them from being implemented. The judges also stated that if these provisions were enforced, they would most likely be ruled unconstitutional at the first opportunity in front of a judge.

Once again, the John Tanton/Kris Kobach legal conspiracy to attack legal and illegal immigrants with laws at the state (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia) and local levels (Texas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania) that violate the federal constitution’s power in Article 1, Section 8 for Congress to “make a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration)” suffers extreme mortal wounds in judicial courts.

Reposted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

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.

National pro-immigration reform group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to the presidential election debacle. Bob Quasius, president, said

Yesterday’s election results show it is imperative that the Republican Party improve Latino outreach or become permanently uncompetitive in presidential and many other races. Exit and election-eve polls put Mitt Romney’s votes among Latinos at 23%, although over 60% of Latinos are center-right, according to Pew Research.

Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, including a path to legalization, and a PEW Research poll from May 2011 showed that even among staunch conservatives there is a 49/49% split on immigration reform. However, due to lack of engagement and outreach and shrill rhetoric on this issue from a small minority of Republican politicians, Democrats have been successful in unfairly framing the Republican party as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, particularly in states where there has been harsh rhetoric on immigration.

This trend started in California. Prior to proposition 187, Republicans were competitive in statewide races, but since Governor Pete Wilson jumped on the proposition 187 bandwagon, many Hispanics left the GOP and since then the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California.

Latino outreach improved during the Reagan/Bush years, and President Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote during his reelection campaign, proving that Latinos can be swayed to vote Republican with the right messaging and sensible solutions to issues of interest to Latinos like immigration.

However, since SB1070 and other harsh laws were passed, mass exodus of conservative Hispanics has occurred in Colorado following Tom Tancredo’s candidacy for Governor, in Arizona following SB1070, and in Nevada due to harsh rhetoric from Sharon Angle in the U.S. Senate race.

Cafe Con Leche Republicans initially supported Newt Gingrich, and one of our reasons is that Newt’s campaign recognized the importance of outreach to Latinos and a sensible stance on immigration reform, neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations but a solution that addresses our broken immigration system and seeks to strike a balance between accountability for illegal immigration, and the need to keep families together and avoid damaging our economy. Newt’s campaign reached out to us, and ultimately Cafe Con Leche Republicans provided five members of Newt’s national Hispanic leadership team.

When Newt dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney became the nominee, we decided to support Mitt Romney. Numerous attempts to connect with the Romney campaign’s Hispanic outreach proved fruitless. In our one year of existence, we’ve also had just one conversation with the RNC’s Latino outreach, and were left with the impression the RNC wasn’t interested in working with us due to our pro-immigration focus.

A common complaint among Latino Republican leaders is that RNC Latino outreach is dominated by a small clique of Latino Republicans from Washington DC and Florida, to the exclusion of others, particularly from the Southwest. We share the frustration of Latino Republican leaders from outside the DC/Florida clique that Mitt Romney received bad advice to largely ignore immigration, and some of Mitt’s rhetoric and association with immigration extremist Kris Kobach early in the campaign provided useful fodder for Democrats to frame Mitt Romney as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, which we don’t believe is the case.

It’s time to root out the small minority of immigration extremists from the GOP. That process is already underway, for example Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, has now twice been defeated by conservative Republicans who differed mainly by having sensible positions on immigration reform. We’d like to see Kris Kobach leave the party. Kobach is a top lieutenant to John Tanton, a notorious bigot and population control progressive, who once bragged how he manipulates Republicans. In a letter to a supporter, Tanton in 2001 stated:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

It’s time for the GOP to recognize this pattern of manipulation, and fully embrace immigration reform based on free market principles, and not arbitrarily low quotas promoted by population control progressives like Tanton. Harsh rhetoric on immigration coupled with lack of adequate engagement with Latinos and race baiting by Democrats has resulted in very low GOP support among Latinos, and we ignore this at our own political peril.

The 2012 election served up lemons for Republicans, but with sensible changes in strategy and direction we can make lemonade instead. Already we’re hearing that party leaders have woken up and ‘smelled the coffee’ and we’re hopeful this situation can be turned around.

President Obama promised to pursue immigration reform during his second term. Due to President Obama’s history of immigration fakery and failure to put anything on the table during his first term, we have reason to doubt this promise, but he is welcome to surprise us. With the election behind us, we have put our partisan hats and boxing gloves aside, and we stand fully ready to work with President Obama and Democrats on immigration reform, which won’t happen without bipartisan support. We hope that President Obama will ‘hit the reset button’ in his relationship with Republicans in Congress, as the hyper-partisanship that has characterized the last four years has been a major stumbling block to governing our nation.

Original link here.

####

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 members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, 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.

By Thomas Martin Salazar, (content originally Published through Cafe con Leche Republicans)

In 2008 President Obama made a promise to many Hispanics and Latinos that said he would make immigration reform priority. He promised that immigration reform was an important issue that should not wait to be addressed down the road, but during his first term.

Here we are four years later and in an interview with Univision, Obama tells the American people that his greatest failure was not passing comprehensive immigration reform.  This would be ironic if it was not such a tragic understatement. In fact, President Obama and his administration are aggressively  enforcing  immigration laws.

In the last four years President Obama rounded up and deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Moreover, he masqueraded as an immigration reformer – working to seduce the Latino community, by suing Arizona all the way up to the Supreme Court for passing SB 1070 and by opposing Maricopa county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Yes Obama and his campaign surrogates boast with pride about how Obama is the immigrant’s champion, but they neglect to tell the truth about Obama’s own immigration policies.

They conveniently ignore the fact that Obama has pioneered the Secure Communities program. According to a Research Report by Aarti Kohli, Peter Markowitz, and Lisa Chavez, President Obama took this pilot program, which was started under President Bush, from 14 jurisdictions to 1,595. This program empowers state and local police all throughout the United States, to do the very exact things for which his administration sued Arizona and Maricopa county Sheriff Joe Arpaio. More revealing statistics from the same research study states,

“Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States;”

And

“Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge as compared to 14% of all immigration court respondents who are granted relief”

This is unequivocally a disproportionate assault on Latinos. But the facts do not stop here.  The President has deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants, which averages to just below 400,000 people a year. Furthermore, Obama’s immigration policies have left more than 5,000 American citizens in foster care because their parents were rounded up and deported. His administration in the name of national security continues to deny passports to United States citizens whose birth certificates came from midwife and not through a hospital. This has disproportionately affected Latinos. This new policy of no longer accepting midwife birth certificates as an acceptable form of Identification goes far beyond just impacting Latinos who are seeking to obtain passports; in fact, there are even incidents where Federal immigration officials coerced United States citizens into signing away their citizenship. These are not the actions of a man who cares about immigrants and their families nor is it the actions of an immigration reformer.

Recently Obama has again been making his rounds – reaching out to Latinos with his promise and message of reform. Ironically, Obama and his campaign want Americans to believe that immigration reform will become a reality within the next four years. Indeed, it is such an important issue to our President that he failed to even reference immigration in his new glossy pamphlet. Thus it seems that immigration reform is not as important as the President claims.  Then again, in the first four years immigration reform was supposedly a high priority.

While the President plays the victim, blaming lack of bipartisanship for why he has failed to pass immigration reform, I would ask you to look at his real record on immigration. Look at the millions of people he has rounded up and deported. Moreover, how debased it is that our government would see fit to seize children from their own parents, and place them in the foster care system. What type of nation have we become, when basic parental rights and child rights are neglected? Sadly, under President Obama this is a reality. Obama needs to be held accountable for his deception. In the end, Latinos have a choice of either voting for the deporter-in-chief or they can vote for a new direction.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

Immigration touches on every facet of America.   It is embedded into economics, education, healthcare, and even in the Constitution of the United States. More significantly, “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws.” See Arizona et al. v. United States, No. 11-182, Sup. Ct. (decided June 25, 2012). For the many benefits that legal immigration brings to this country, it also brings a myriad of confusion spread by politicians from both parties who force states to create their own laws that clash with powers clearly given only to the Federal Government.  As a result, this confusion has States trying to implement laws over issues that are fundamentally out of their reach.

The Constitution specifically delineates what powers the Federal Government possesses over federal issues and which ones states possess; and while we may disagree on this distribution of power, States cannot superseded this law.  They, therefore cannot write or enforce laws that are not within their authority according to  Article I Section 8: Clause 4, which states that the Federal Government governs those laws on Naturalization.  More importantly, the Supreme Court agrees.

In its recent ruling, The Supreme Court held that the Arizona lawmakers cannot overstep their boundaries especially if the laws are posed to create chaotic conflict with Federal laws.  Moreover, the Supreme Court ruling stated that even if federal laws are not written to exactly address an issue according to Article I, the States may not impose their version of enforcement or control over the issue of immigration because Federal law preempts it.

One hundred years after the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. enjoyed prosperity and worried little about the borders. In fact, one could say that it enjoyed an open border policy which helped it to grow and prosper. Those who were a threat to the nation were deported, without hesitation. Those who helped the U.S. flourish were allowed to remain. Throughout the years, immigration law has been amended, simplified, re-codified, so much that its application is contradictory at many times. Not even a sense of discretion by officials or judges can make sense of it. States, especially in our southern border, have had trouble controlling the inflow of some unwanted aliens such gangs and cartels who may indeed threaten U.S. populations.  This fear has culminated and given a hurried passing to more complicated laws.  States are reacting by taking matters into their own hands and enacting laws that are strictly reserved for the Federal Government.

In Section 3 of SB 1070, Arizona called for aliens to register into a database to keep track of immigrants present in the state. Failure to do so, would have charged immigrants with a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court ruled that alien registration  was not only unnecessary, it was already done so by the Federal Government.  SB1070, therefore, was overstepping its boundary.

The Court further stated that States cannot criminalize an alien who is soliciting work in the U.S.  Under Federal law, in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 and a court case of Hoffman Plastics, employers must already verify someone’s work status. The Arizona requirement would not only double the work but would be “unnecessary and unworkable” according to public policy. To apply this law would be a hindrance to the “accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, (1941).

Further, the Court stated that contrary to popular belief, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the U.S.  In fact, the Federal government already has a procedure in place to arrest and have them appear in court and Section 6 of SB1070 would only interfere with this federal power. Additionally, state agents do not have the proper training that would help them discern what makes someone a “probable cause” nor would they know what makes someone “removable” from the United States without having to inquire about their legal status.  Moreover, without the proper training an error in requesting proof of this, would create an  offensive situation to some Americans which could be illegal as well.   The Federal Government, already has authority over those “policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are…..entrusted to Congress.” Truaz v. Reich, 239 U.S. 33, (1915).  States can enjoin to help federal agents when there is a “cooperation” agreement with the Federal Agencies or there exists a joint task force. However, other than this, states cannot act unilaterally to apply Immigration laws.

What remained then of the skeletal version of the SB1070 was the 2(B) section that allows state officers to make a “reasonable” assessment to determine someone’s status, which includes anyone who is stopped, detained, or arrested. State police agents then have the power to determine if there is a “reasonable suspicion” to determine if that person is unlawfully present in the U.S.   However, logic would follow that if you are not properly trained, how would you know to assess what is a “reasonable” characteristic.  And if state police agents are to be trained, are they not once again overstepping the federal police powers already entrusted to agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol, and United States Customs and Inspections Services?   The Supreme Court did not state that this part was constitutional, but rather stated that this issue is not yet “ripe.”  “It is not clear at this stage,” was the wording they used.   In other words, the law has not been enforced to cause an injury where a court can remedy it.

It was a subtle warning by the Court to States including Arizona who now have options.  The manner of enforcement, then, will determine if SB1070 is to return again to be addressed before The Court.  States must be careful to ensure that state officers not infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens. Therefore, the  law must have a compelling state interest to achieve its purpose and must pass the following tests:

1.     it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never clearly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the idea is that it touches on something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. In other words, is it necessary to protect national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, while not violating explicit constitutional protections.

2.     it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest of the law. If the state action is overbroad or does not pinpoint the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

3.      it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest; meaning that there are not other means that are less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive.

States who are considering implementing the 2(B) version of SB1070 must carefully consider whether they can write and enforce laws that are not targeting a certain class of individuals who are protected in this country. The court did not state that this portion was Constitutional as it was written, only that it could not determine whether its application violated any citizen’s rights since it was not currently enforced. If Arizona, then,  decides to implement this portion of the law, it should be careful. If the law cannot meet the strict scrutiny test it should consider the Court’s ruling as a warning.  If you pick on a certain class of people, the portion of the law cannot be upheld as Constitutional regardless of how loud you scream. States must carefully walk through the tests already in place via the Constitution. The law must protect before it can gain momentum of acceptance.  More importantly,  if  the law cannot seek to remedy injustices,  States should reconsider implementing something that could divide our country rather unite it.

by Andy Kirchoff (Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with permission)

It’s been a tumultuous 3 years for the U.S. Catholic Bishops. The Obama Administration’s HHS mandate caught even the most liberal Catholic by surprise, and the economic recession has forced many a Diocese to either close or consolidate many parishes and schools. At the administrative level, the Bishops’ Conference is undergoing a period of “generational shift”: as many elderly Bishops retire, Pope Benedict XVI has often assigned young, conservative-leaning Priests to take their place. Many prominent laity have quietly retired from influential positions in the USCCB’s lobbying arm (the retirement of 30-year USCCB lobbying veteran John Carr being the most recent example), leaving a void that only the new “John Paul II” generation of Catholics seems eager to fill. Demographic shifts among the laity, largely due to immigration, continue to transform parishes and schools from “close-knit” mono-cultural institutions into multi-ethnic communities.

Needless to say, these changes are having profound impacts on the Bishops’ political advocacy. It has left them open to charges of “Republican partisanship” because of their strong pro-life advocacy and their admirable defense of their religious freedom, even as their lobbying efforts include promoting issues such as immigration reform, environmental sustainability, and other causes more often associated with political liberalism.

Additionally, for some Catholics, the Bishops’ efforts to be pro-life without being partisan aren’t enough. A petition to “stop the scandal” of Obama’s appearance at the Catholic Charities annual Al Smith Dinner has been making the rounds among conservative pro-life Catholics, despite Cardinal Dolan’s insistence that his decision to host the dinner doesn’t amount to an endorsement. Likewise for liberal Catholics, opposing Paul Ryan’s budget plan isn’t enough; no, protests at Georgetown University and castigations of Ryan “the Ayn Rand worshipper” are the response the Bishops should take, as far as these “more Catholic than the Pope” types are concerned.

The reality that escapes both of these sects (and other rabble-rousing groups within the Church) is that the Bishop’s methods of non-partisan advocacy is the correct course of action, from both a Catholic and a political point of view. Indeed, it is because of these lobbying methods that the USCCB commands bi-partisan respect on Capitol Hill. It’s also the reason why Obama’s HHS mandate is causing such angst among even the most liberal Bishops in the Conference today.

Catholics of all political persuasions would do well to support their Bishop’s recent advocacy campaigns, rather than whining that these efforts are somehow insufficient. As a Catholic who also happens to be a Republican, I applaud the Bishops’ method of utilizing their moral authority without descending into partisan politics. To quote my own Ordinary, Cardinal Francis George, “The Church cannot be seen as yet another political party, because it would lose its moral voice.”

Nowhere is the fruit of this strategy more apparent than in Arizona, where the Diocese has been careful to both praise Gov. Jan Brewer’s laudable pro-life/pro-religious liberty legislation as well as denouncing her trademark immigration legislation, sb1070.

Contrast the Diocese’s statement regarding HB2625…

“PHOENIX (May 11, 2012) — The Bishops of the Arizona Catholic Conference are grateful that Governor Jan Brewer has signed HB 2625 into law.
HB 2625 will be very helpful in protecting religious liberty for religiously affiliated employers who have an objection to abortion inducing drugs and contraceptives.

This new law will not preempt the HHS contraceptive mandate, if it is upheld. However, if it is not, religious freedom in Arizona will be better protected.

We also want to especially thank the bill’s sponsor Representative Debbie Lesko, as well as Senator Nancy Barto, for their tremendous effort in shepherding HB 2625 through the legislative process and their unwavering support of religious liberty.”"

…with their reaction to today’s injunction regarding sb1070:

PHOENIX (Sept. 19, 2012) — Yesterday, in accordance with the earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the injunction was lifted against the provision essentially requiring state and local officers to inquire about the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or arrested, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is not lawfully present in the United States.

With SB 1070 now in effect, it is imperative that racial profiling does not occur in its implementation. In particular, the Arizona Catholic Bishops are sympathetic to the difficult situation facing police officers throughout Arizona who will face intense scrutiny while trying to properly implement this new law without unjust discrimination.

As we noted in our earlier statements, this provision of law does not fix the broken federal immigration policy in our country, but has the possibility of heightening fear in the immigrant community, sowing seeds of distrust, and separating families.

Accordingly, the Arizona Bishops will continue to work with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in advocating for comprehensive immigration policy reform that will address needed border security, provide legal avenues for workers to assist employers in our country, and to resolve the legal status of nearly 12 million hard working people who now live in the shadows.”

These are very different reactions to very different pieces of legislation, but that doesn’t mean the Bishops are “showing weakness” or are “politically schizophrenic.” It’s an acknowledgement that morality transcends political partisanship. In a hyper-charged political environment, that’s a message that desperately needs to be heard, and one that all Americans – and indeed, all people – will benefit from.

So, fellow conservative Catholics: How about a prayer of thanksgiving for the Bishops, instead of a whining session? I guarantee you that Obama – who only reluctantly accepted Cardinal Dolan’s offer to pray at the DNC in Charlotte – fears the former more than the latter.

By Andy Kirchoff (re-posted with permission – original)

Today, the Supreme Court released its decision on SB1070, the “papers, please” immigration law that sparked a nationwide re-examination of immigration policy. You can read the full text of the Court’s opinion here.

As a conservative, I remain opposed to sb1070 on the grounds that Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, articulates so well. We have over a century of jurisprudence now that has recognized immigration as something exclusively within the parameters of the federal sphere; Arizona’s law goes above and beyond any existing federal immigration enforcement codes, and is thus unconstitutional.

But for those conservatives who concur with Justice Scalia’s “state’s rights” approach to this issue, I would direct you to the following video, featuring one of the most prominent state’s rights conservatives alive today.

Original
Marshall, MN – Today’s decision is a mixed bag for Latinos, but a political victory for Obama. Three of four provisions under consideration were struck down, while the centerpiece “papers please” provision  remained largely intact.

As we said in April, the Obama administration did a particularly poor job of arguing the case before SCOTUS, leaving out racial profiling, the most powerful argument against state and local police enforcement of immigration law.  During oral arguments, 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.

There can be little doubt that involving police in immigration enforcement results in racial profiling. Numerous studies nationwide prove statistically that racial profiling is a problem even without immigration enforcement, with blacks and Hispanics typically 1.5 to 3 times MORE likely to be stopped by police for traffic infractions, substantially MORE likely to have their vehicle searched, and substantially LESS likely to be found with contraband. A 2008 poll by Pew Research found 9% of adult Latinos reported they had been stopped by law enforcement and asked legal status during the previous 12 months. Not surprisingly, 81% of Hispanics do not want police involved in immigration enforcement. A recent study found that Latinos represent 93% of those arrested under secure communities program are Latino, versus 77% of the undocumented population, and nearly 50% of those arrested under secure communities are NOT arrested for criminal offenses but rather traffic infractions, which suggests strongly that Latinos are being arrested rather than cited so they can be funneled through secure communities at jails.

The best example of the impact of immigration enforcement can be found in Maricopa County, which placed great emphasis on immigration enforcement, even at the expense of its core public safety mission. 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 287(g) program, which authorizes designated state and local police officers to enforce immigration law, also has been the subject of widespread complaints about racial profiling, the failure to follow priorities, etc., as reported by ICE’s own Inspector General. Amazingly Obama’s solicitor general never raised racial profiling with the Supreme Court in this case!

We predict eventually the “papers please” provision will be struck down in its entirety due to racial profiling that will likely result, and clear contradiction with federal law. Section 287(g) of the INA provides for police immigration enforcement through agreements with ICE, requiring supervision by ICE, 4-5 weeks of training, background checks, etc. SB1070 prohibits racial profiling but then fails to provide any remedy if that section is violated, while providing that anyone can sue police if they are not enforcing SB1070.

SB1070 and similar laws clearly contradict 287(g) by not providing any federal oversight over immigration enforcement, no training requirement, and no accountability except through costly litigation. Indeed, when SB1070 became law, Arizona’s training plan consisted of having police officers watch a 90 minute video, versus 4-5 weeks of intensive training. Immigration law is very complex, and without a basic understanding of immigration law it is very easy to make mistakes and arrest law abiding citizens or legal immigrants. Thousands of U.S. citizens are mistakenly arrested as undocumented immigrants every year just from Secure Communities alone, according to a recent study.

In our opinion, Obama wanted the centerpiece police enforcement provision left intact as a powerful wedge issue, which explains the failure to raise the most powerful argument in this case. SB1070 is extremely unpopular among Latinos, who are already experiencing racial profiling. In losing on this “papers please provision” Obama wins politically, at the expense of Latinos and others who are often perceived as immigrants.

Mitt Romney made some excellent points in his statement today, though we disagree about states fashioning their own immigration enforcement solutions:

 Today’s decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President.

Obama’s recent actions are stop gaps intended more to shore up flagging support among Latinos than long term fixes to our broken immigration system.

#####

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, 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.

By Raoul Lowery Contreras

The State of Arizona and the states of Alabama, South Carolina, Utah, Indiana and Georgia have been squashed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of the State of Arizona against anyone-looking Mexican.

This is a day of celebration for those that believe in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire opinion written by Justice Kennedy in essence it states that only the federal government can regulate immigration based on the Constitution which clearly states that the Congress and only the Congress can “establish a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration).”

Three sections of (Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach-written law) SB 1070, were declared invalid and one was left to be decided when there is a factual case presented in court.

SB 1070 was sponsored by the now disgraced former State Senate President Russell Pearce – Republican — who was thrown out of office by his constituents last November. Kobach also wrote similar laws for other states which are now invalidated by this decision, Arizona et al v. the United States of America.

What is fascinating is that despite the obvious incompetence of the Solicitor General of the United States, a top Obama official of the Justice Department who is almost the equal of Attorney General Eric Holder, and the inadequate presentation he made to the Court in April, the Court overwhelming ruled against Arizona by a vote of 5 to 3 with Justice Kagan not involved. Had she voted the score would have been 6 to 3.

Here are the exact words of the decision that slam the door shut on the states that have tried to implement a legal secession from the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution:

1. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law.

(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate.

(b) Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system.

(c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process.

The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no fed­eral warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited au­thority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but on­ly where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be ob­tained.

The only contested provision the Court allowed to stand is not a victory for Arizona and Kris Kobach, it is only a remand to the lower courts to examine this provision when it has actual facts in hand. Here is what the Court said:

4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s en­forcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objec­tives.

Here is the vote and it is found in these precincts that not only is the Kennedy vote noteworthy but so is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts supported the majority:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissent­ing in part. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case…

In essence, this Arizona decision clearly signals that this court will not tolerate rogue laws created by rogue states that attempt to argue that they are sovereign unto themselves and can do as they wish in the face of clearly stated “enumerated” duties of the federal government.

It also puts certain constitutional subversives like Kris Kobach on notice that they cannot evade the Constitution because of racial malice that they clearly manifest.

For example, the uneducated (no college) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says that the Court’s sending Section 2B of SB 1070 back to the lower courts for a case with facts is a “victory” for the people of Arizona and the country. Kris Kobach also says that.

How ignorant can these ersatz public officials be? Lady, the Court simply stated that a factual situation must present itself before this section can be judicially examined for Constitutionality.

The first time a local yokel high school drop-out Arizona cop demands proof of citizenship from a driver he pulls over for a broken tail light and that person tells the cop to take a hike, the facts will draw the case back into the courts and the Supreme Court will never see the case again if the Mexican-looking person is legal.

Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

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.

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.