The Washington Post:

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the most contested provisions of an Arizona immigration law passed last year will remain blocked from taking effect, handing the Obama administration a victory in its efforts to overturn the legislation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that put on hold key provisions of the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people whom they have a “reasonable suspicion” are illegal immigrants. The measure has triggered a fierce national debate, and the legal case is being watched by other states and advocates on both sides of the issue.

In a split decision, a three-judge panel found that U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton “did not abuse” her discretion in blocking parts of the law that, among other things, require police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws.

 The 8th Circuit ruling  should not affect how things are run in Prince William County since our law enforcement officers must check all immigration status upon arrest, regardless of the person.  We need to watch carefully to make sure that none of our elected officials get some bee in the bonnet to start it up again.

The WaPo  further adds:

Judge Richard A. Paez, who wrote the majority opinion, used strong language as he appeared to endorse the administration’s position that Arizona’s law intrudes on federal immigration enforcement and is “preempted” by federal law.

“Arizona has attempted to hijack a discretionary role that Congress delegated to the Executive,’’ the decision said, adding that the Arizona law would “usurp” the U.S. attorney general’s role in directing any state enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Judge Carlos T. Bea dissented from parts of the ruling.

Where does SB 1070 go now?  Was it just a national attention-getter to pump up the immigration issue to get Jan Brewer elected?  Will the components from SB 1070 go to the Supreme Court or more to the point, will they agree to hear the case?

For those of us here in Prince William County, does this ruling affect us?  Does it affect Corey Stewart’s Rule of Law Campaign? 

Last week, anti-immigration activist Shawna Forde was convicted of murdering nine-year old Brisenia Flores and her father Raul Flores.  On Tuesday she was sentenced to death by an Arizona jury. 

Forde and her accomplices led a group of anti immigrant vigilantes on a raid of the Flores home where they pretended to be immigration agents and barged through the door.   The father was shot and then the child.  The mother faked death and survived. 

According to the Huffington Post:

The case was not designated as a hate crime, despite Forde’s long history with anti-immigrant organizations. She once maintained a Tea Party blog, was a member of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and has presented herself as a representative of Federation for American Immigration Reform. (All three have since distanced themselves from her.) After being cast out from the Minuteman group due to erratic behavior, she formed her own vigilante group, called Minutemen American Defense, which also patrolled the United States-Mexico border trying to detect illegal immigration.

This is an example of what happens when a person just goes too deep into their ideological.  How sad that hatred can turn anyone into a murderer.  Hopefully, Forde will not become a martyr.   

How do we know when anyone has gone into ideology too deep?  When does interest become cult-like?  What has become of her accomplices? 

The next chapter of the immigration battle is over the birthright of those babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States.  For starters, we dislike the expression ‘anchor baby’ to be derogatory.  It implies an intent that simply might not be there. 

The first volleys lobbed in the birthright battle might be coming from Arizona.  According to the New York Times:

Arizona — whose tough law granting the police the power to detain illegal immigrants is tied up in the courts — may again take the lead in what is essentially an effort to redefine what it means to be an American. This time, though, Arizona lawmakers intend to join with legislators from several other states to force the issue before the Supreme Court.

This coalition of lawmakers will unveil its exact plans on Wednesday in Washington, but people involved in drafting the legislation say they have decided against the painstaking process of amending the Constitution. Since the federal government decides who is to be deemed a citizen, the lawmakers are considering instead a move to create two kinds of birth certificates in their states, one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants.

The theory is that this could spark a flurry of lawsuits that might resolve the legal conflict in their favor.

“This is not a far-out, extremist position,” said John Kavanagh, one of the Arizona legislators who is leading an effort that has been called just that. “Only a handful of countries in the world grant citizenship based on the GPS location of the birth.”

Most scholars of the Constitution consider the states’ effort to restrict birth certificates patently unconstitutional. “This is political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test,” said Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona whose grandfather immigratedto the United States from China at a time when ethnic Chinese were excluded from the country. “It strikes me as unwise, un-American and unconstitutional.”

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a repudiation of the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that people of African descent could never be American citizens. The amendment said citizenship applied to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple.

The plan to issue 2 different kinds of birth certificates sounds rather devious.  Apparently these activists are looking for activists judges to settle the issue rather than go through the legislative process.  It seems to me that the only honest way to solve this issue is to amend the Constitution and change birth right by location (Jus Soli) to birthright based on parentage (Jus sanguinis).   Of course the question remains–is it even possible to push through a Constitutional amendment?  Probably not.  (See The Christian Scientist Monitor)

Blended families in the United States are very much a reality.  There are cases where one spouse is documented and the other is not.  In other cases, there are undocumented parents with citizen children, or some citizen children. 

A study released in August by the Pew Hispanic Center found that about 340,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in the United States in 2008 and became instant citizens.

In April, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, one of those pushing for Congressional action on the issue, stirred controversy when he suggested that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should be deported with their parents until the birthright citizenship policy was changed.

“And we’re not being mean,” Mr. Hunter told a Tea Party rally in Southern California. “We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls.”

Mr. Hunter seems to be taking a lot on himself  to declare what it means to become an American citizen.  Being born here sure has worked for me.  As for what’s in people’s souls…how dare he!  Such arrogance.  Perhaps what he really fears is that one day, in the not too distant future, those ‘anchor babies’ will come of age, and at election time, kick his tale right out of office.   Isn’t that what its really all about?

Further Reading:  Christian Scientist Monitor

It’s R on R.   The Stewart/Cuccinelli saga plays on. 

Corey Stewart, head bloody but unbowed, takes another poke or two at the Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli.  Actually, it was a bit more than a poke.  He compared the AG to a first year law student.  This comparison is before he paints the AG as a  ’pro-Amnesty liberal.’

According to the News and Messenger:

The opinion showed that that provision had the potential to “run afoul” of federal law.

The memo also stated that Stewart’s proposal also contained provisions similar to those found in Arizona’s illegal immigration law that were enjoined by federal court.

Stewart said that a ruling on  Arizona law would not affect laws in  Virginia.

 “He said that the federal district court’s decision in Arizona was binding on Virginia. That’s simply untrue. Any first-year law student would tell you that that’s incorrect,” Stewart said.

Ouch.  Moving right along, one has to figure out how Corey Stewart, a mere county supervisor, is going to get legislation passed on an omnibus illegal immigration package after another state, Arizona, has brought on national attention, lawsuits, and injunctions from the  federal courts.  Perhaps, after all this, Stewart, who is not a state legislator, wasn’t planning anything really happening with the Virginia Rule of Law Campaign anyway. 

That’s what we’re trying to do is take Prince William County’s policy and adopt it on a statewide basis,”Stewart said.

Stewart’s latest proposal contains considerably more provisions than the Prince William County resolution and Cuccinelli objected to many of those provisions, including one that allows a person’s immigration status to be allowed in any court.

So what is the Virginia Law of Rule Campaign then if all Corey is trying to do is find someone to pass the Prince William County resolution?

Corey is quoted in the News and Messenger:

… the additional provisions were a list of various pieces of legislation introduced by various states across the nation.

“It was never meant to be introduced as legislation,” he said.

Stewart said he was surprised at the opposition from Cuccinelli’s office.

“I’m very disappointed. I run into a lot of opposition in fighting illegal immigration and almost all of that opposition comes from either pro-amnesty and the Washington Post  and other liberals. I certainly didn’t expect this  attack from the back by Cuccinelli,” Stewart said

So what is the Virginia Rule of Law Campaign really?  What is Corey objecting to?  Why is he sporting it around?  If  it wasn’t supposed to be legislation, what was it supposed to be?    Perhaps it was just a fund-raising tool for  Corey.  If he put a bunch of BS and bluster out there, got people hooked and donating money, then he didn’t have to do anything with it at all.  He could just take people’s money and keep feeding them bull. 

So why the mock fighting with Cuccinelli?    It’s just a plain ole pissin’ contest.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear Arizona’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that blocked the most-contested provisions of the law from taking effect. The law, signed in April by Gov. Jan Brewer (R), empowers police to question people whom they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally.

Amid a fierce debate over the measure, the Justice Department sought to overturn the law by taking the rare step of suing Arizona. Government attorneys won the first round in July when U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton, seated in Phoenix, put on hold provisions that would require police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws, allow for warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants and criminalize the failure of legal immigrants to carry their registration papers.

The case will be heard by a 3 judge panel.  2 judges were appointed bya Republican and 1 by a Democrat.  Either Arizona or the U.S. government can appeal the panel’s decision.  Should that happen the case will go to the full  9th Circuit Court.  The WaPo further adds:

Brewer, whose outspoken criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, has vowed to take her appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit hearing in San Francisco is the next step, and legal experts say the case likely will wind up before the high court within several years.

The lawsuit ratcheted up the political and legal debate over the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, with Republicans condemning the administration and civil rights groups praising it for fighting a law that they contend targets Hispanics.

Talk of immigration has receded somewhat in the runup to the elections, especially compared to the economy, but it has been a key factor in a number of races. Monday’s argument, which Brewer plans to attend, will shine an even brighter light on the issue.

Perhaps all will become quiet once this election is over.  Arizona has problems for sure.  So does California, New Mexico and Texas.  The drug violence along the border towns in Mexico continues to rage on.  Our border states must be vigilant that the violence doesn’t creep or stampede into our country.  However, SB 1070 isn’t the way to stop the drug violence and that is what Arizona should be worried about.

Probable cause as a police tool is always rife with problems.  There are other ways, such as PWC recently found out, that are far better.  And like PWC, Arizona probably doesn’t have the money to waste on endless lawsuits.

The illegal aliens cross over at night through the mountains rather than the more direct route through the desert. This blimp has infrared detection so can see people at night in the dark – and radio down to troops on the ground their position. The blimp is unmanned and remote controlled, according to people here. Second picture I took using the zoom feature of my regular camera to get a more closeup view. This is from the hotel parking lot at 6:45 AM before I left for work. This blimp is a good 20 miles away from where I am.

Blimp in center over peakClose up of blimp

Obviously this blimp is an example of your government at work. Blimps aren’t cheap. Our government is using all sort of technology to curtail illegal entry into the country. Millions of dollars are spent on this endeavor annually. Yet the sound byte remain the same: Do your job

The sound byte is an election tool. People that continue to believe the government is doing nothing are being duped by politicians who simply want their vote. Too many people have fallen for this trick already.

The Logo of Cave 97.7 FM

Editorial for Oct 23-25, 2010

I’m CAVE MANager Paul Lotsof. Many years ago I was living in California and had some dirty clothes to wash. I put them in a basket and walked into a laundromat in Rialto. I found a washing machine and put my clothes in it, poured in some detergent and inserted some quarters. Not wanting to read the religious literature that is found in all laundromats, I just sat and stared at the washing machine while it did its thing.

A few minutes later, two police officers walked into the laundromat and headed to the rear of the building where they had a brief conversation with someone. Then the officers walked up to me and started asking questions: “What are you doing here?”

“I’m washing my clothes. What does it look like I’m doing?”

“How long have you been here? Where do you live? How long have you lived there? Where do you work?” The questions went on and on. Finally when I was able to get a word in edgewise, I asked the officers why they had singled me out for questioning. Their answer was that someone had complained that I appeared to be suspicious and they had to respond to the complaint. Eventually the officers decided that it was perfectly legal to wash clothes and they left.

After this incident I began to wonder what would have happened if the officers had checked their computer and found that I was wanted for not paying a speeding ticket? Would they have had grounds to arrest me? And if they had arrested me, could I have gotten off because they had no reasonable grounds to detain me? I think that I would have had a good case in arguing that the officers lacked reasonable cause.

In this country, the police don’t have the right to stop you just because they don’t like the look on your face or because they think your hair is too long. Similarly, they can’t stop you because of the color of your skin or because you’re speaking Spanish. And there lies a major flaw in SB-1070 which is the recently passed Arizona law that supposedly is going to force vast numbers of illegal aliens to return to Mexico. SB-1070 requires police officers to demand evidence of citizenship if they have reasonable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally.

But what would be considered reasonable cause? Being caught selling tamales? I don’t think so. Even if someone had dark skin and was smoking a joint that wouldn’t constitute reasonable cause for suspecting that the person is in this country illegally.

SB 1070 has been the law for three months and I haven’t heard of vast numbers of Mexicans being arrested because of it. Of course, a federal judge has barred enforcement of much of 1070 because it is of doubtful constitutionality but even if the questionable provisions are upheld, it is highly unlikely that 1070 will have much impact. Why? Because the state government is nearly broke and it lacks the resources to kick tens of thousands of people out of the state.

1070 has a nice emotional appeal because we’re saying that if the Federal Government won’t do its job the State will step in and do it. But the truth is that 1070 is much less than it is cracked up to be. 1070 is all smoke and no fire to speak of. SB 1070 is a farce and its purpose is to get poorly informed people to vote for Republicans. That’s what its supporters are trying to accomplish and getting Republicans elected is all it will accomplish .

I’m CAVE MANager Paul Lotsof and the opinions you’ve just heard are mine and not necessarily anyone else’s. If you’d like a copy of this editorial or you’d like to express your opinions, go to the CAVE web site at www.cavefm.com That’s cavefm.com.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What would be so difficult for Brewer to just say she misspoke? There have been no beheadings in Arizona. There are problems right across the border that are serious and should not be taken lightly. Why doesn’t Brewer deal with the truth? The truth is very real and very scary. But..it doesn’t get votes. Brewer wants very much to be reelected.

It seems strange that someone who makes up things for political gain could continue to get the numbers she is getting. What are the people of Arizona thinking? I would like to see a break down of some of the various polls by towns/cities. I think it would be very telling.

Brewer meanwhile counts on poking a stick in the eye of the federal government to keep her in the governor’s mansion. It might work for her this time. The question then becomes, can she and others sustain?

According with MSNBC News:

The Justice Department has been investigating allegations that the sheriff’s office has engaged in discrimination against Hispanics. As a recipient of federal funds, the sheriff’s office is required to cooperate with such investigations.

But today, the Justice Department said it’s been trying to get the sheriff’s cooperation for more than a year without success. That makes his department “an extreme outlier,” given that no other local law enforcement organization has refused to cooperate with a civil rights investigation in the last 30 years, the government says.

“The actions of the sheriff’s office are unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities,” says Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division

.

Sheriff Joe is already a national folk hero to many people. If this keeps up he will be a national saint. It will be interesting to see who blinks first. I doubt if it will be Sheriff Joe. There has to be a better way than this. In Sheriff Joe’s case, it seems like he wins regardless of what he does.

Any statements and opinions by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the administrators of moonhowlings.net.

The fact that this drunk driver was turned over to ICE in 2008, after the
“Immigration Resolution” was put into effect, brings up some real
questions about the wisdom of expensive policies at the local level
that redirect the time and resources of local law enforcement toward a
focus on immigration status rather than public safety. For 2 months
in the spring of 2008, the policy in Prince William County was very
similar to that proposed in Arizona’s SB 1070. But we corrected our
course on April 29, 2008 so that we check the status of ALL
individuals who are arrested for an underlying crime, rather than
people out on the streets who have not committed underlying crimes but
fit a “probable cause” standard. Just about everyone in our county
agrees that the repeal of the “probable cause” mandate made for a more
effective, more fiscally responsible, and more legally defensible
policy. Still it did not prevent this tragedy.

Until we have Comprehensive Immigration Reform, local jurisdictions
that send large volumes of people to ICE are essentially adding more
sand to the top of a funnel (to borrow an analogy made by Supervisor
John Jenkins, Sept. 18, 2007). The output at the bottom of the funnel
is slowed by the same limitations that existed before. Federal
authorities have limited time and limited resources, just like local
authorities do. And, they need to be cautious so as not to mistakenly
detain or deport a U.S. citizen or legal resident. The more voluminous
the workload for federal authorities, the harder it is for them to
determine who to prioritize, i.e. those who are truly a threat to
public safety.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform will require all persons unlawfully
present to register with the federal government. This will reduce the
workload for ICE because, then, their focus will be those who choose
not to register — presumably a much smaller number, and, if we are primarily
concerned with finding people who may present a danger to society,
this will be a good place to start. But as long as Immigration and
Customs Enforcement is expected to process a hundred soccer moms and
janitors for every drunk driver or drug dealer, the system will remain
broken and cases like this will be more likely instead of less likely.
Local enforcement of federal immigration law can be effective if it
is done right — and many would say we’re doing it as well as it can be
done in Prince William County — but this case makes it clear that
local law enforcement cannot be the only solution.