Supreme Court Rules on Illegal Immigration Law

Arizona Wins Partial Victory in 5 to 3 Split Decision on SB 1070

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona called the recent Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law SB 1070, “a victory for all Americans.” The central part of the law was upheld in an 8 to 0 decision Tuesday. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from all votes regarding the Arizona law. The reason she gave for recusing herself was that she had been the Solicitor General when the Federal Government first sued Arizona over this matter. All of the other Liberal Justices on the Court voted with the conservative members to uphold the most important aspect of the Arizona law, however the victory was neither unqualified nor complete. There is still much more work that needs to be done. There were three other parts of the Arizona law that the Court ruled on and decided against Arizona on.

In a 5 to 3 split decision with only Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting, certain other aspects of the get tough on illegal immigration Arizona law were rejected including the part that allowed for warrantless arrests when there is reason to believe that a person illegally in the country has committed a crime or misdemeanor. That was Section 6 of the Arizona law. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to reject that part of the Arizona law.

Another aspect of the law that was rejected by the same 5 to 3 decision with the same Justices aligning themselves on the same sides of the issue again was found in Section 5 of the Arizona law. This section made it a separate State crime for illegal aliens to work, or to apply for work, or solicit to do work while in Arizona. Again Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal Justices of the Court: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor to strike down that part of the Arizona law. They said that it interfered with Congressional jurisdiction which was delegated by the Constitution to Congress, and specifically to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which did not make it a crime for illegal aliens to work in the country. Again Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were dissenting.

Finally in a 6 to 2 split decision the Supreme Court ruled to strike down Section 3 of the Arizona law, which made it a separate crime…

To read more of this story, see other photos, or find other related articles visit my website

http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Supreme-Court-rules-illegal-immigration-Arizona-wins-SB%201070.html

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach

Posted: June 26th, 2012

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday on illegal immigration gives legislators in his home state a “green light” for a crackdown, but his fellow Republicans still aren’t all behind him.

Kobach, a former law professor who’s advised officials across the nation on get-tough policies on immigration, said he’s pleased with the high court’s ruling on an Arizona law he helped draft two years ago, even though the justices struck down three of the four provisions under attack. The justices kept in place a provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people stopped for other reasons if officers have a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.

Kobach called the “show me your papers” provision the “core” of the Arizona law and said Kansas legislators can pursue a similar measure. He also noted that the Supreme Court ruling didn’t touch on issues that the state’s lawmakers have discussed, such as requiring government contractors or other businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to check the status of new employees.

“If Kansas wanted to take the two strongest steps, which would be an E-Verify requirement for the whole state and an arrest requirement like Arizona’s that we saw reviewed today, they have a green light to do so,” Kobach told The Associated Press in an interview.

But Kobach’s opponents in Kansas scoffed at his description of the high court ruling as a victory and said it’s likely to hinder any effort to enact proposals favored by Kobach. They noted that while the court spared the provision directing police to check people’s immigration status, the justices didn’t preclude legal challenges later when the law is more fully interpreted by Arizona’s courts.

Read More:  CBSNews.com

By Sam Baker and Jonathan Easley
The Hill
06/25/12 10:40 AM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tossed out most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law.

The court upheld the most controversial part of the law, which allows law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense.

But the court sided with the Obama administration on three of the four specific challenges, and said the “show me your papers” section could be challenged again when it is implemented.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, reading the majority opinion from the bench, said the requirement could not be invalidated now because the state has not have a chance to implement it. There is therefore no clear evidence that it conflicts with federal law, Kennedy said.

Although detaining people solely to check their immigration status would “raise constitutional concerns,” he said, the requirement “could be read to avoid these concerns.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor signed on to Kennedy’s decision.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because she worked on immigration matters during her time as solicitor general.

The decision overall appears to be a victory for the Obama administration, which sued the Arizona Legislature over provisions of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, known as SB 1070.

It argued that immigration law is foreign policy and therefore under federal, rather than state, jurisdiction.

Read more: The Hill

TV camera crew protect themselves from the sun during a stakeout at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 21, 2012 (Credit: REUTERS/Jose Luis Magana ).

Source: Reuters.com

By Joan Biskupic

Posted: June 24th, 2012

During a break from the crush of last-minute opinion-writing, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience of 1,000 people last week at a Washington legal convention: “It is flood season at the court.”

For the rest of the country it has been more like a drought, a stretch of weeks without any word in the most closely watched cases – the blockbuster challenges to President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan and Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

The immigration case was heard on April 25, the last day of oral arguments, the healthcare case over the course of three days a month before that. It seems the justices are going for maximum drama as they push these cliffhangers to the end of June. What’s more likely, as seasoned court-watchers know, is that justices are still ironing out the final details of resolutions to the most complex questions they have faced in decades.

Of the 60 signed rulings that have been handed down in the cases heard during arguments in the October-to-April term, many were reached by a unanimous or nearly unanimous vote. In the final days, Ginsburg told the group, “the sharp disagreement rate will go up.” She was speaking about what generally happens at the court – although it might have seemed she was letting slip a clue about the current deliberations.

Read More: Reuters.com

By Patrick Hobin
Newsmax.com

The long feud between “America’s toughest sheriff” and the nation’s president just got longer.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Friday’s move by President Barack Obama to give amnesty to children of illegal immigrants is politically motivated and will encourage more Mexicans to cross the border but that he will still enforce all immigration laws in his state of Arizona.

“It seems to be politically motivated,” Arpaio told a Phoenix ABC News affiliate. “I would rather see the president let the Congress decide what to do with this issue and other illegal immigration problems.”

For the Maricopa County sheriff, this is yet another battle in a simmering war with the White House. Last December, the Justice Department released a scathing report accusing Arpaio and his office of committing a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos. Justice Department investigators said the abuses included a pattern of racial profiling.

The Justice Department also accused Arpaio’s office of a pattern of discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints.

The report was a result of the department’s three-year investigation of Arpaio’s office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency’s top level.

Read more: Newsmax

Obama Pushed Me

By: Mr. Curmudgeon

It was Monday August 20, 1973, and comedian Joey Bishop was guest hosting NBC’s The Tonight Show. As the introduction music played, Bishop stumbled through the stage curtains, righted himself and announced, “I didn’t want to come out here but Nixon pushed me.”

Earlier that day, Watergate-embattled President Richard Nixon was in New Orleans to speak at the Rivergate Convention Center before the Veterans of Foreign Wars. As Nixon and state dignitaries approached the hall’s entrance, the president and his party were elbowed aside by a throng of press in a hurry to get out of the heat and anxious to find good seats. A furious Nixon turned to his press secretary Ron Ziegler, “I don’t want any press with me,” the Associated Press reported Nixon as saying.

The AP further noted, “Then, spinning Ziegler around, Nixon gave him a forceful shove with the order: ‘Take care of it!’”

Needless to say, television cameras captured the incident for that evening’s newscasts.

I thought of Nixon as President Obama made his immigration amnesty announcement from the White House Rose Garden last Friday – only to be interrupted by an elbowing press.

“This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix,” insisted Obama, “This is a temporary, stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is the right thing to do.” With this, a member of the press began shouting questions.

Looking up from his prepared remarks, the president turned his attention to the gaggle of press before him, “Excuse me, sir … ah … er … it’s not time for questions, sir,” said a stunned Obama to the noisy journalist.When the president eventually finished his announcement, he did a quick about face and attempted a hasty escape to the relative safety of the West Wing.

However, the insistent reporter managed to shout one last question before the president could reach the door, “What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?”

Obama’s announced policy allows an estimated 1.4 million illegal aliens now attending U.S. colleges to apply for amnesty. “President Obama has just opened a floodgate of opportunity for young illegal immigrants in the United States, but could it squeeze the aspirations of legal Americans in the process?” asked the Washington Post.

“Half of our college graduates today can’t find jobs, and the unemployment rate for high-school-aged Americans is extremely high. This is unfair to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are out there struggling to get ahead,” Brad Bowin, president of Help Save Maryland, told the Post.

Meanwhile in Florida, Attorney General Eric Holder recently filed suit to stop the Sunshine State from attempting to purge its voter rolls of suspected illegal immigrants, which the state estimates to be around 180,000.

Holder is attempting to enforce a provision of the 1993 Motor Voter Act, which prohibits states from asking individuals to prove their immigration status during the voter registration process. In Holder’s view, voter ID initiatives like Florida’s “have a racially discriminatory effect.”

The two Obama administration schemes above are compelling circumstantial evidence that a desperate incumbent president – confronted by rising unemployment, a shrinking economy, and a public no longer confident in his leadership abilities – is attempting to buy the votes of those in America illegally.

The president adds a new twist to his pandering by calling college-attending illegal aliens “patriotic young people.” By this definition, patriotism does not express love of country (in this case the United States of America), but one’s love of Obama … and the taxes he “invests” in their future.

It’s a clear act of desperation by a failed president to salvage a failed economic plan that is a central component to his party’s failed Progressive ideology.

In a twist of supreme irony, the president and Holder are forced to appeal to illegal voters in whose home country they sell “Fast and Furious” weapons – enabling Mexican drug cartels to murder their suffering countrymen with impunity. Call it blood “stimulus.”

Meanwhile, back in the Rose Garden, the reporter who attempted to challenge the president’s assumptions, it turns out, works for the conservative website The Daily Caller. Neil Munro is a veteran Washington journalist who some may accuse of having an immigration ax to grind. You see, he’s a citizen of Ireland working in the United States legally. He has a valid green card. One can only wonder what will become of Munro’s immigration status in the days to follow – he, after all, does not vote.

At his deportation hearing, Munro can always claim in his defense, “I didn’t want to ask that question but Obama pushed me.”

Source: ABC15.com

By: Erisa Nakano

Posted: June 16th, 2012

PHOENIX – Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio sat down at ABC15 to talk about the new changes by the Obama administration to stop deporting younger illegal immigrants.

The announcement came in around 6:30 a.m. Friday that some illegal immigrants will be granted work permits if they meet certain requirements.

“I think people from Mexico are now going to feel, ‘Hey come on in and we’ll get by with it.’ But it won’t happen in this county. They will still be arrested,” Arpaio said.

According to The Associated Press, this change will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation.

“This seems to be politically motivated,” Arpaio said. “I would rather see the president let Congress decide what to do on this issue and other illegal immigration problems.”

You can watch the interview between ABC15′s Connie Colla and Sheriff Arpaio in the attached video.

More information on the illegal immigration announcement can be found on ABC15.com.

Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

By Matthew Boyle
The Daily Caller

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor’s radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state’s governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue.

“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said

“I have done it once in the past successfully when then-Governor Tom Vilsack thought he could legislate by executive order — and the case of King vs. Vilsack is in the books. And that individual, by the way, is now the Secretary of Agriculture. I wonder if he’s not counseling the president on his legal proceedings.”

Huckabee followed up, asking King: “You plan to sue this administration for implementing something that you believe should have required legislative process and approval?”

“That is correct,” King replied

The Iowa Republican is vice-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.

On Friday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the Obama administration’s plan to selectively enforce illegal immigration law by refusing to deport illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as “young children” — effectively an administrative version of the DREAM Act.

“Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner,” Napolitano said in a statement. “But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/rep-steve-king-to-sue-obama-administration-over-new-immigration-policy/#ixzz1xt7tB8oO

Read more: The Daily Caller

Source: AP News

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to announce the new policy Friday, one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.

Obama planned to discuss the new policy Friday afternoon from the White House Rose Garden.

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.

The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods. It tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the DREAM Act.

“Many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways,” Napolitano wrote in a memorandum describing the administration’s action. “Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”

The extraordinary move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida. While Obama enjoys support from a majority of Hispanic voters, Latino enthusiasm for the president has been tempered by the slow economic recovery, his inability to win congressional support for a broad overhaul of immigration laws and by his administration’s aggressive deportation policy. Activists opposing his deportation policies last week mounted a hunger strike at an Obama campaign office in Denver, and other protests were planned for this weekend.

The change is likely to cause an outcry from congressional Republicans, who are sure to perceive Obama’s actions as an end run around them. Republicans already have complained that previous administration uses of prosecutorial discretion in deportations amount to back-door amnesty. Romney and many Republican lawmakers want tighter border security measures before considering changes in immigration law. Romney opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college but has said he would do so for those who serve in the armed forces.

Read more: Townhall.com

By Porfirio Ibarra Ramirez
Associated Press
11:57am EDT, May 13, 2012

MONTERREY, Mexico (AP) — Forty-nine bodies, at least some of them mutilated, were found Sunday dumped on a highway connecting the northern Mexican metropolis of Monterrey to the U.S. border, officials said.

A law enforcement official said the bodies of 43 men and six women were found in the town of San Juan on the non-toll highway to the border city of Reynosa at about 4 a.m. (5 a.m. EDT; 0900 GMT), but officials were still investigating.

Authorities closed off the highway, blocking the way for hundreds of motorists, as federal and state police, joined by Mexican troops, sealed off the scene.

The law enforcement official asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to release the information. The details, however, match reports in Mexican news media.

The discovery echoes several other recent cases in which drug gangs have left bodies scattered in public places as warnings to rivals. Thirty-five bodies were left at a freeway overpass in the city of Veracruz in September. Twenty-six were found in November in Guadalajara. So far this month, 23 bodies were found dumped or hanging in the city of Nuevo Laredo and 18 were found along a highway south of Guadalajara.

Source: Independent Mail.com/AP News

A defiant Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, pounds his fist on the podium as he answers questions regarding the Department of Justice announcing a federal civil lawsuit against Sheriff Arpaio and his department, during a news conference Thursday, May 10, 2012, in Phoenix. According to the Department of Justice, after months of negotiations failed to yield an agreement to settle allegations that the sheriff's department racially profiled Latinos in his trademark immigration patrols, the lawsuit was filed.(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Source: KTAR.com

By AMANDA LEE MYERS and JACQUES BILLEAUD,

Posted: May 12th,2012

The careers of most politicians would crumble under the heavy scrutiny that the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America now faces.

But despite a mountain of legal troubles, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio remains popular with voters and has more than $3.4 million in the bank for his November re-election campaign.

The Justice Department sued the five-term sheriff on Thursday on allegations that his officers racially profile Latinos- a move that has his critics saying that voters will finally be turned off and his supporters saying the development will only make him more beloved among voters who want a tough sheriff who doesn’t back down from anyone.

“He’s the new Wyatt Earp,” said Tom Morrissey, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party in a reference to the Arizona lawman made famous by the gun fight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone. “The guy’s legendary.

“What he stands for resonates across the country,” said Morrissey, also a retired chief U.S. Marshal. “Hundreds sometimes thousands of people cheer this man, give him standing ovations everywhere he speaks. That speaks volumes.”

He said Arpaio’s hardline stance on illegal immigration and his tough talk have driven his popularity.

“He tells it like it is. He’s not polished, and a lot of times you never know what’s going to come out of his mouth,” Morrissey said. “The truth has a certain ring and Joe Arpaio speaks in that realm.”

Even as the Justice Department brought the lawsuit down against Arpaio, saying that he abused his power and violated the Constitution, the sheriff himself held a news conference and showed no signs of backing down.

“I will fight this to the bitter end,” a visibly angry Arpaio said, adding that the case will give him a chance to finally see what evidence authorities have to back up claims. “I’m very happy that we are being sued because now we can make them put up.”

He said nothing is going to affect his chances of winning in November.

“They know that I’m going to get elected. It’s a national issue,” he said. “I’m the poster boy. The national press is picking this up again … I can get elected on pink underwear.”

Arpaio has built his reputation in part by making inmates wear pink underwear, work in chain gangs and jailing them in tents.

His profile got even bigger when pushed for a stronger role for local police to enforce immigration law, launching 20 patrols looking for illegal immigrants since January 2008.

Thursday’s lawsuit comes as part of efforts to enforce a federal law that bans police from systematically violating constitutional rights.

Justice Department officials first leveled the allegations against Arpaio in December, saying a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights prevailed at his office.

Arpaio denies wrongdoing and dismisses the case as a politically motivated attack by the Obama administration.

Arpaio’s office is accused of punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish and launching some patrols based on complaints that never reported a crime but conveyed concerns about dark-skinned people congregating or speaking Spanish.

The lawsuit also says that Arpaio’s office has virtually no policies or procedures designed to prevent or address discriminatory policing, and has no system in place to track any alleged misconduct by deputies during traffic stops, arrests or complaints.

State Sen. Steve Gallardo, a Phoenix Democrat, said the lawsuit eventually will shed light on corruption within the sheriff’s office.

“It forces Arpaio to go into a courtroom and explain a lot of these accusations,” Gallardo said. “You’re going to see the true Sheriff Joe Arpaio.”

Gallardo said that it may take a few years, but “at the end of the day, once the public sees the truth … I think the public will give a big thumbs down to Sheriff Joe.”

Antonio Bustamante, a Phoenix civil rights attorney and critic of the sheriff’s immigration enforcement, said that “there’s a big swath of voters that this will not sway at all,” calling much of the voting public in Arpaio’s jurisdiction racist and ignorant.

“People come (to Arizona) from other places and want to make it like Kansas or Nebraska,” said Bustamante, who said he’s a fourth-generation Arizonan whose ancestors came from Mexico. “A lot of those folks look upon us as the outsiders, and we’ve been here for generations. And we settled the state and were the pioneers of this state.”

The most recent reliable poll asking voters how they feel about Arpaio- conducted by the nonpartisan Behavior Research Center- showed that 41 percent of the 700 people asked thought he was doing an excellent or good job. Thirty-three percent thought he was doing a poor job and 19 percent said he was doing a fair job, according to the poll, conducted in April last year.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Arpaio has had no problem with fundraising, garnering more than $1.1 million in the past year. The majority of those contributions came from people living outside the state, with 2,700 donations alone coming from California, compared to 2,500 from Arizona.

Donors in Texas, Florida and Washington also made a substantial number of donations to the campaign.

Records show that Arpaio’s re-election committee had $3.4 million on hand as of Dec. 31, the most recent figure available. More updated figures will not be released until June or July.

Justice officials would like Arpaio’s office to seek training in constitutional policing and dealing with jail inmates with limited English skills, collect data on traffic stops and immigration enforcement, and establish a comprehensive disciplinary system that permits the public to make complaints against officers without fear of retaliation.

Separate from the Justice Department’s allegations, a lawsuit that alleges that Arpaio’s deputies racially profiled Latinos in immigration patrols is scheduled for a July 19 trial in federal court.

A federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio’s office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff’s anti-public corruption squad.

The sheriff’s office also has come under fire for more than 400 sex-crimes investigations- including dozens of alleged child molestations- that hadn’t been investigated adequately or weren’t examined at all over a three-year period ending in 2007.

Arpaio has apologized for the botched cases, reopened 432 sex-crimes investigations and made 19 arrests.

Source: KTAR.com

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu

Source: KTAR.com

Posted: May 11th, 2012

FLORENCE, Ariz. — Paul Babeu is dropping out of the race for Arizona’s 4th Congressional District and will instead run for re-election as Pinal County sheriff.

“We have done a great job … at the end of the day, that’s all that really matters,” Babeu said Friday.

The Republican lawman is known for his stance on illegal immigration and border security. His image took a beating this year when a former boyfriend claimed the sheriff threatened him with deportation.

Babeu denied the claim, but the incident led to Babeu stepping down as co-chairman for Mitt Romney’s Arizona campaign.

“Some people may say, ‘Well, gee, all these attacks are why he’s getting out of the race’ … I’ve never run from a fight in my life. I run towards a fight and to problems when people need help,” Babeu said.

Babeu’s campaign released a statement early Friday announcing the decision.

 

First, let me say how much your friendship and support means to me. When I announced my candidacy for Congress, I promised the citizens of Pinal County that I would ensure continuity of leadership in the Sheriff’s Office. Chief Deputy Steve Henry’s candidacy not only ensured continuity of leadership, it also safeguarded the improved service we’ve delivered to Pinal families with the same passion and commitment since taking office.The federal Office of Special Counsel has advised Chief Henry that because our office receives federal funds and Steve supervises those who are in control of federal funds, he is not able to run for Sheriff while serving as our Chief Deputy.

Chief Henry was left three choices, resign his position as Chief Deputy and run for Sheriff, withdraw his candidacy for Sheriff or transfer to a non-leadership position within our office where he would not supervise anybody who handles any federal funding. Forget the politics, none of these options are good to maintain continued success of our Sheriff’s Office. I have decided to end our congressional campaign and seek re-election as Pinal County Sheriff. Yesterday, I informed my campaign staff and our finance team of my decision to run for re- election.

Improvements in service and performance is obvious to residents and evidenced by response times being cut in half, quality annual training and state of the art equipment for staff. The 1,500 inmate Jail in Florence achieved national accreditation, becoming Arizona’s only Jail achieving this high distinction and validation of excellence.

We have enforced all laws and our deputies led the largest drug bust in Arizona history against the Sinaloa $2-3 Billion Cartel operation, netting 76 arrests and seizing 108 weapons. We have created an air operation with 2 helicopters and piper cub fixed wing aircraft at no cost to Pinal taxpayers. We have helped shape discussion on national issues of public safety, border security, illegal immigration, fighting Mexican Drug Cartels, exposing Fast and Furious and defending the constitution.

Only three years ago, just 27 patrol cars had computers to write reports, view maps and receive dispatched calls. Now every vehicle is fully equipped with the most modern equipment. Deputies and Detention Officers were not even trained or certified in First Aid and CPR training, now everyone is certified and countless lives saved by our first responders. The volunteer ranks in our Citizens on Patrol have tripled and a youth Explorer leadership program was created and has earned statewide awards in competition and volunteerism.

I thank all my friends and supporters for their help and loyal support. I ask that you understand my promise to those I serve in Pinal County. The most important issues, our performance and results as Sheriff have brought our Sheriff’s Office to prominence and this must continue. Many Pinal residents have asked me to stay as their Sheriff and continue this fight. Many worried that my voice and impact would be lost if elected as one of 435 members of Congress. I was elected because I listen and respond to the people I represent. I want to continue to serve as Sheriff and focus on performance and results of public safety. No one can argue that our Sheriff’s Office isn’t better off than four years ago.

While serving as Sheriff, I’ve always kept my promises. From ending photo radar, improving response times, providing quality training for nearly 700 full time staff and earning Jail accreditation. Every promise that I made was kept and delivered. We shall continue the true forward movement of law enforcement performance and results. In the end, that’s all that matters. I need your help and ask for your continued support as we seek re-election as Sheriff.

Respectfully,

Paul Babeu, Sheriff Pinal County, Arizona

The decision to run again for sheriff was in response to discovering his chief deputy cannot run for the office. Babeu said when he began his congressional candidacy, he had promised a continuity of leadership in the sheriff’s office.

Federal officials said Chief Deputy Steve Henry oversees those who control federal funds given to the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. Because of that, Henry cannot run while serving as chief deputy.

Babeu was one of three Republicans running for the District 4 seat.

Source:   KTAR.com

By Sen. Russell Pearce

President, BanAmnestyNow.com

On Tuesday, April 24th, I was the lone Republican to testify in a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC. I was the lone voice in defense of Arizona’s SB-1070, a law I was proud to have written and worked for several years to pass. I didn’t mind facing off against senior Democrat U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) and the other witnesses testifying against my bill. In politics, when you’re in the right, you’re never really alone.

Several people have asked me if I was surprised or disappointed that Arizona’s Senator Kyl decided not to attend his own subcommittee? After all, his presence would have doubled the number of voices speaking in support of SB-1070, passed by a majority of Arizona legislators, supported by a majority of Arizona voters, and signed into law by Arizona’s governor?

In truth, no. Senator Kyl understood this hearing was little more than political theater, a protest show staged by Democrats trying to inflame passions with angry rhetoric and score points in an election year more important than any in recent memory. Likewise, Governor Brewer was justified in not testifying. She signed SB1070 into law, but she didn’t write the bill with me, Kris Kobach, or the others who labored for years to finally pass this law. And had she been there, it truly would have been theater because she wears a much bigger political target on her chest than I do.

So why did I agree to testify? Why did I walk into the viper’s nest, knowing I would be surrounded on all sides by career politicians and their cameras? I traveled to Washington and debated Sens. Schumer and Durbin, and the other witnesses, because of the simple reason that I believe our side should never be afraid to stand up and speak what we believe.

In his opening remarks, Sen. Schumer impressed me by calling for solutions to three things that I, and most conservatives, have long called for: (1) ending illegal immigration; (2) fixing America’s broken immigration system; and (3) solving the problem of 23 million illegals currently living in the U.S.

Of course, Mr. Schumer and I differ on solutions to those problems. His calls for amnesty masked under the political rhetoric of “comprehensive immigration reform” ought to be a non-starter. American citizenship should not be rewarded to those who break the law. Similarly, Mr. Schumer’s argument that just as only a federal agency such as the IRS can interpret and enforce the tax code, as opposed to 50 separate state agencies, is irrelevant.

First off, only a career Washington liberal would cite the IRS as an example of something which works and proof that states couldn’t do it better. But more to the point, SB-1070 doesn’t set immigration policy any more than it sets tax policy.

This fear campaign started by the White House, the media and the pro-amnesty groups that Arizona and other states would start trying to dictate new immigration laws is absurd and distracts from what SB-1070 actually does. In short, SB1070 empowers local and state law enforcement to protect their citizens from illegal aliens. And it does so not only in compliance with federal laws, but often written verbatim in concert with federal law.

Believe me, if we were changing immigration policy, America’s borders would be secure, voter ID would be mandatory to both register to vote and cast a ballot, and all employers nationwide would be required to use eVerify to guarantee they were hiring U.S. citizens or legal aliens. But SB1070 doesn’t do any of that, and no amount of posturing, or political theater, will change that fact.

In short, I left a few things for Congress to work on. To all members of Congress, including Senator Schumer, if you decide to get serious on stopping illegal immigration, you won’t be alone like I was in your subcommittee. But if you keep ignoring it, we’ll keep working in the states. I guarantee it.

# # #

Senator Russell Pearce is president of BanAmnestyNow.com and host of The Russell Pearce show.

Supporters of immigration bill SB1070 shout during a rally at the Arizona Capitol prior to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signing the controversial bill into law Friday, April 23, 2010, in Phoenix. The sweeping measure would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally, and would require local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Source:WashingtonPost.com

By: Robert Barnes

Posted: April 21st, 2012

The Supreme Court will conclude one of its most significant and controversial terms in decades by taking on one more issue that has divided the nation: Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The court’s final oral argument on Wednesday — Arizona v. United States — provides yet another chance for the justices to confront fundamental questions about the power of the federal government. And the rulings the court will issue between now and the end of June could dramatically alter the nation’s election-year landscape.

The court has considered President Obama’s health-care law, has taken its first look at the political redistricting battles being fought across the nation and will decide whether federal regulators still hold the authority to police the nation’s airwaves.

The Obama administration has moved aggressively against Arizona’s SB 1070, which directs law enforcement to play a much more active role in identifying illegal immigrants and makes it a crime for them to seek work. The administration has persuaded courts to put aside key parts of the law.

And, as with last month’s hearings on the health-care law, in the Arizona case the government is asking the court to recognize that the Constitution gives the federal government vast powers to confront national problems, such as illegal immigration.

“As the framers understood, it is the national government that has the ultimate responsibility to regulate the treatment of aliens while on American soil, because it is the nation as a whole — not any single state — that must respond to the international consequences of such treatment,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the court in the government’s brief.

Immigration is one of the nation’s thorniest political issues. Obama and his administration have been accused of not properly securing the nation’s borders and criticized for not delivering comprehensive immigration reform. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s tough stance against illegal immigration has angered some interest groups and is said to have cost him among increasingly influential Latino voters.

Read More: WashingtonPost.com

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Out of control activist judiciary panel reports to State Bar, so they rubberstamped disbarment of Thomas

Tea Parties and conservatives are encouraged to show their support for former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas tomorrow as he holds a press conference denouncing a panel’s decision to disbar him, another deputy attorney, and suspend a third deputy attorney. Thomas tried to root out corruption in Maricopa County and was fought every way by powerful, entrenched liberal politicians. When he tried to prosecute crooked County Supervisors like Mary Rose Wilcox and judges, they filed bar complaints against him, knowing that the liberal State Bar would pounce on them.

Thomas has been an activist conservative who stood up for the rule of law, including immigration laws. The panel that made the decision to disbar him was composed of two attorneys and one member of the public. The judge on the panel had ruled against Thomas in the past when he tried to prosecute corruption, so he was already biased against him, and should have recused himself but did not. Those attorneys report to the State Bar of Arizona. The State Bar of Arizona has made it REALLY CLEAR that they will go after anyone who dares defend Thomas. Ernie Calderon, a former State Bar president and Democrat, dared to stand up and issue an ethics opinion defending Thomas. In retaliation, the State Bar removed him from his position as the State Bar’s representative to the American Bar Association.

The press conference will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, April 11, at 10:30 a.m. at the plaza between the Orpheum and the Wells Fargo Building, a public area between Second and Third Avenues on Adams Street in downtown Phoenix. People can park in the Wells Fargo parking lot or along the streets or other parking garages. It shouldn’t take more than half an hour.

People should attend if they don’t want to see our state become as corrupt as Mexico, as we already have the illegal immigration to go with it. The far left is taking down conservatives in Arizona who dare to speak up one by one. First they took out Thomas, then they went after Russell Pearce and successfully took him down. Their next target is Sheriff Arpaio. Click here for their article, “After Attorney’s Disbarment, Latino Groups Want Arpaio Brought Down Next.”

This kangaroo court ignored all the evidence that has come out about how corrupt Maricopa County government is. Here is just some of the corruption that has taken place since the trial – but the panel refused to consider it:

March

–FDIC is suing lenders over a risky loan they gave to Supervisor Stapley. This is a loan that Thomas and Aubuchon tried to investigate Stapley for.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/28/fdic-sues-over-risky-land-loan-to-stapley/

–County employees including County Manager David Smith played in pricey golf foursomes with vendors, in exchange were given lucrative Court Tower contracts. Thomas tried to investigate the Supervisors over the Court Tower.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/16/new-court-tower-scandal-county-corruption-and-golf-tournament/

–Judge who protected the County Supervisors, ruling against Thomas’s investigations, abruptly resigns in the middle of his term with no explanation

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/12/another-judge-who-protected-the-county-supervisors-abruptly-resigns/

–Supervisor Stapley announces he is not going to run for reelection, and won’t even run for Congress – he knows he has no chance since all his corruption has come out

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/04/targeted-by-conservatives-and-tea-party-activists-stapley-elects-to-fail-upward/

–Arizona Project 2012 Tea Party announces victory at stopping two Supervisors from running for reelection. They had made targeting the Supervisors their #1 priority this year due to all the corruption.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/01/arizona-2012-project-rabble-busters/

February

–County Manager David Smith abruptly resigns. Smith had filed the bar complaints against Thomas and his deputies and was the County Supervisors’ hatchetman.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/02/29/corrupt-county-manager-david-smith-abruptly-resigns/

December

–Liberal Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts admits there must have been something to Thomas’s investigation of the Court Tower

http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/12/15/republic-writer-hints-that-court-tower-investigation-was-vindicated/

–Engineer in charge of Court Tower project fired (he’s rumored to want to go public about it)

http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/12/14/high-level-county-employee-managing-court-tower-project-fired/

–Several county employees fired or suspended for accepting bribes from vendors on Court Tower

http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/12/12/county-employees-accepted-free-gifts-from-companies-awarded-court-tower-contracts/

November

–County Supervisors & cronies lawsuits against Thomas & Arpaio thrown out

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/11/01/judge-dismisses-county-officials-lawsuits-against-arpaio-and-thomas/

October

–Supervisors continue firing attorneys who attempt to represent Thomas

http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/10/29/supervisors-continue-to-fire-more-lawyers-from-defending-andrew-thomas/

–Steve Chucri files to run for County Supervisor against Don Stapley since he realizes he will easily win

http://www.icarizona.com/2011/10/steve-chucri-files-candidacy-for.html

Read the full story about this show trial and kangaroo court at Worldnetdaily.
Read a full-page ad taken out in the Arizona State Bar’s magazine denouncing the State Bar’s prosecution of Thomas signed by a former AZ Attorney General, an ethics expert, a former president of the AZ State Bar, a former Chief Justice of the AZ Supreme Court, and a former disciplinary counsel for two State Bars.
Read the Maricopa County GOP EGC resolution denouncing the State Bar.