Let Illegal Immigrants stay, Deport the Juggaloes!
Let Illegal Immigrants stay, Deport the Juggaloes!
Beyond that it sounds like your concerns are with the federal laws rather than the newly revised Arizona laws. And, well, yeah, I certainly have problems with federal laws on the subject and the immigration process... but that means that those are what the problem is, not AZ law.
Similarly if people are concern that barking dogs or open container laws (right turns into anything but the right hand lane, or jaywalking, etc) or other relatively minor laws will lead to or be used as pretexts for checking legal status... then that is a problem with those laws.
I don't think I'm hosting a 2016 collaborative playlist.
I would think if they were concerned about being in the country illegally then they would be a bit more careful and avoid breaking any law no matter how small.
Looks like the tea partiers are on it already. The deportation of natural born citizens who have illegal immigrant parents.
Huh. I wonder how those're legal.
I'd like to think that when these new bills actually go into effect people arrested - or even just questioned as to their legal status - could sue (and make a good case, I mean)... but that is probably just wishful thinking.
I don't think I'm hosting a 2016 collaborative playlist.
Aren't those sweeps, profiling in general and abuse of power the reason Joe is has been under federal investigation for the past year? I'm surprised they haven't found anything. I remember the mayor of Guadalupe wanted the profiling and sweeps to end and Joe decided he would blackmail the town by letting their law enforcement contract expire. It seems there are so many reports of him influencing others and abusing his power yet no hard evidence to support any of it.
Which would lead to more costs for the state.
Also, I think the new "section" that was passed really does nothing. It is way too broad with way too many loopholes. If what you stated is true, then it is exactly what was already in place; police had the right to check status during another law related matter (speeding ticket, red light running, etc). Since that is the case, 1070 should be stripped from the record completely.
So, I've got a question for y'all: has anyone read the bill yet?
I just did, and while some of the language goes along with federal law and is not at all shocking in the context of US law, some of the other stuff in here is pretty wild. It's now illegal to pick up someone or enter a car for purposes of employment if that car in any way impedes the flow of traffic. A traffic officer can stop a car on reasonable suspicion of human trafficking (the only reasonable suspicion of human trafficking that I could really ascertain at a traffic level would be a very crowded car.) It's illegal to transport an Alien throughout the state once you know they're an alien, and your car can be impounded for doing so. For this, they use a recklessness standard, so you simply should have known.
Phoenix Suns owner's bold statement on immigration changes focus of Game 2
by Dan Bickley, Republic Columnist - May. 4, 2010 06:50 PM
The Arizona Republic
On an off day in Portland, Robert Sarver went to work with his basketball team. He put on a Suns' T-shirt and black silk shorts. And as players mingled with the media on the main floor of the Rose Garden, Sarver began sprinting up the steps of the arena, one section at a time.
Some reporters were stunned. Was he that desperate for a workout? Or was he that desperate for attention?
Like it or not, the Suns owner has caused a huge stir this time around. His team will wear orange "Los Suns" jerseys Wednesday night in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals against the Spurs, a maneuver designed to celebrate the NBA's diversity and illustrate his displeasure with Arizona's new immigration law.
"It's two-fold," Suns General Manager Steve Kerr said. "One, it is Cinco de Mayo. And, two, it is a political statement. We felt the law, however well intended, was not right."
Sarver is a banker by trade, and his stance is as much about money as it is about civil rights. As a businessman, he does not want to see economic boycotts, cancelled conventions and big events removed from our region. That lowers the tide for everyone in Arizona, at a time when his basketball team is struggling to sell tickets for playoff games.
It's also brilliant public relations. The move comes during peak visibility of the NBA season. The Suns and Spurs have all the ingredients - a history, a rivalry and a stunning contrast of styles - to guarantee great television ratings. This decision will help soften the national image of Arizona, countering all the body shots we've received from pundits, politicians and late-night comics.
It also will mute the scene expected outside US Airways Center before Game 2.
"We hear there will be some protesters outside the building," Kerr said. "From what I gather, there will be a march from a local church to the arena. So there was going to be some hoopla anyway."
Kerr said the idea occurred to Sarver during a recent road trip to Portland. The Suns quickly received an endorsement from the league, which doesn't like anything interfering with potential customers and revenue streams.
Before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, LeBron James and other NBA players said they were going to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur, and bring attention to China's history in human rights. The league effectively stifled that banter, reminding the players that they all had huge economic stakes in China, a market the NBA and Nike both consider an untapped gold mine.
Yet even with the NBA's blessing, say this for Sarver: He had the good sense to ask his team for permission, and not jam it down its throat.
"They were all for it," Kerr said. "We said, 'Look, if this is going to be a distraction, you guys tell us and we won't do it.' For them, it means they answer some questions (Tuesday) and they wear orange jerseys (Wednesday night)."
To the contrary, the Suns seemed stoked to make such a bold statement. Amar'e Stoudemire said it was great to "let the Latin community know we're behind them 100 percent."
Then again, though most professional athletes prefer the politics of richness, the Suns are a bit different this way. Especially their point guard, who tends to care deeply about things such as global warming, human rights and gun control.
"I think it's fantastic," Steve Nash said. "I think the law is very misguided, and unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties. And I think it's really important for us to stand up for things we believe in . . .
"It doesn't feel good to have people around the world and around the country look at our state as less than equal, less than fair. So as a proud (resident) of this state, I want us to be held in the highest esteem. I think we have a lot of great attributes and a lot of great people, and I think we need to be very cautious in how we respect our civil liberties, and the tone we're setting, and the precedent we're setting going forward."
The statement doesn't come without risk. In his statement, Sarver called the immigration law "flawed," and that won't endear him to people who support the measure. And if the Suns stink up the place in Game 2, losing home-court advantage in the process, the entire organization will be criticized for distracting the great focus the team displayed in Game 1.
"Look, it's a major issue here in Arizona," Kerr said. "It's much bigger than a basketball game. It doesn't mean we're crafting a new immigration bill. We're not claiming to be politicians and we don't have the answer. But there were Latino people who feel offended. A lot of people feel offended. I felt offended. I don't think we should live in a country where you have to show papers wherever you are."
Say this for the Suns owner: It's a bold move. And much trickier than any of those steps he scaled in Portland.
Fresh off his "JUICY AUSTRALIA TOUR"
Add Boulder Colorado to the gov't that are now banning any travel to Az ....
Have Another Hit Of Colorado Sunshine
Governor Jan Brewer apparently has time to write op eds for ESPN and address the sports community. She is worthless. She has over 100 bills on her desk right now that demand attention and she's writing ESPN?
By Gov. Jan Brewer
Special to ESPN.com
In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a federal government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona is left with little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been agreed to for 70 years, but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes no sense. Although I recognize that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not the entire solution to our illegal immigration problem in Arizona, most people are united in the hope that it will finally inspire the politicians in Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.
By now, sports fans everywhere have heard something about the passage of Senate Bill 1070, a measure I signed into law. It has resulted in protests outside ballparks hosting our Arizona Diamondbacks and has led to calls on Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig to strip the City of Phoenix's opportunity to host baseball's Midsummer Classic in July 2011.
Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070 have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests. As a border state, Arizona has already paid a heavy price for the federal government's failure -- hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in unreimbursed costs -- and its citizens should not be punished further.
It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this new law and have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is in a massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because of Washington's failure to secure our southern border, Arizona has become the superhighway of illegal drug and human smuggling activity. In December 2008, the U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316 kidnapping cases, turning the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of the persons kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.
Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very same week that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican cartel operatives suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted.
While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence problem, many of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of drop houses, where illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise severely abused, are not uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.
Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals, representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners -- only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona: They will not pay the bill.
When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for weeks with legislators to improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and strengthen its civil rights protections. I issued an executive order to implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is already against the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.
I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and practically. I have done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the rule of law.
This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights.
There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.
So here are the facts:
1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime. Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis," actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar laws.
2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here illegally.
"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights and siren.
3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.
President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona has acted to enforce the rule of law equally and without bias toward any person.
It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an economic boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent families and businesses merely seeking to survive during these difficult economic times.
A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs. Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our communities.
Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.
"The protester, who identified herself only as Karen from Glendale, held a sign which read The Phoenix Suns support drug runners; armed coyotes; drop houses; extradition; forced labor; forced prostitution of illegals; murder of Arizona citizens on their own property; assault on law enforcement officers."
MOTHER FUCKIN' ARMED COYOTES.
I'm terribly sorry if this was already posted. Very interesting/fucked up:
Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English
Arizona's new immigration law is just about crime, its supporters say, but given that the state's new education policy equates ethnic studies programs with high treason, they may not be using the commonly accepted definition of "crime."
Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
As ThinkProgress notes, the Tucson Unified School District's popular Mexican-American studies department is the target here. The state superintendent charges that the program exhibits "ethnic chauvinism."
Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes.
As outlined by the Journal, Arizona's recent pattern of discriminatory education policies is ironic -- and is likely a function of No Child Left Behind funding requirements -- given that the state spent a decade recruiting teachers for whom English was a second language.
In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.
Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.
Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English, the Journal reports, but if they fail to reach the state's targets would be fired or reassigned.
seandlr, that was posted but my question is why people would be angry about holding teachers who are teaching the language to students who don't know the language to higher fluency standards. Supre tripped out about that but never responded to my questions.
It seems they also offer those teachers who would be harder to understand more training in fluency as well.
It's not like they are saying someone with an accent can't teach social studies or science. They are saying they want those who are teaching english to be be understandable.
If i'm taking spanish the person teaching better speak the language well. If there was language saying these heavily accented people were going to be fired then sure I would have an issue. They are teaching english though so have someone who speaks it well teach. That's all.
I have to admit that other than the sore thumb sports terminology and the conflation and confusion of the immigration issue with the drug and kidnapping issues... that is a reasonable statement on the issue. There really is a lot of disinformation out there; hopefully some will read that and have a better understanding of what is going on.
It is only through understanding what we're opposing that we're going to be able to effectively fight it.
I don't think I'm hosting a 2016 collaborative playlist.
I'm wondering which side of the marijuana legalization the tea partiers are going to fall on. The governor I would assume is going to be against it. I haven't heard a whole lot but i'm wondering what legalization would do to the gang violence and kidnappings we constantly hear about. Not to mention the budget crisis.
It's helpful as long as it's clear and perfectly understandable. It says they will get them the training to get them up to those standards you speak of or they will teach other courses. I would like to know how they figure out these fluency standards though. They have people monitoring but what are the guide lines?
I'm also in favor of mandatory spanish in grade school by the way. I just don't understand who's losing their job and why higher standards are a bad thing.
The bill clearly states "heavy" accents and "ungrammatical". My grandfather had a heavy accent, you could understand him but it was difficult. Why would we want to make things more difficult. That sounds counter productive to getting these children a good education.
I also don't understand the tie in to the illegal immigration debate.
I do like the WSJ article as it gives some specific examples, gives numbers of schools and explains how it has effected some schools. Nobody has lost their job or been fired and from what I can tell they basically shuffle teachers around so to fit the strengths of the teachers ability.
It's all pointless really. Our schools are terrible and more budget cuts are coming so this is going to be a non issue for the most part and in the few cases where a teacher is reassigned, I don't think it's a bad thing or has anything to do with being anti mexican or whatever.
This op ed makes me very sick to see how Brewer is completely shut off to the other side of the argument.
EDIT...the only good thing this op ed piece shows is that the boycotts are working, as Brewer is basically pleading for MLB to keep the All Star game in Phoenix in 2011.
Last edited by westcoastpirate; 05-06-2010 at 12:54 PM.
Fresh off his "JUICY AUSTRALIA TOUR"