New Green Day Albums: ¡UNO!, ¡DOS! y ¡TRE!

New Green Day music?

Credit: Marina Chavez (from

New Green Day album? How about three of them? 

We will give Green Day the credit for the use of inverted exclamation points in ¡UNO! and ¡DOS!. And nice play on words with the use of ¡TRE!, referring to drummer Tré Cool. As for the album details? This trailer from the band will give you a flavor of the songs.

You can say what you want about Green Day and how they have basically shed their punk image a LOOOOOONG time ago (hello, a Broadway musical?), fact is, they are one of the world's top bands now and they have been producing amazing music for 25 years.

April 28, 2012: The United March Against the Oppression of Women

Any law restricting the right of a woman to have full control of her own body and make her own choices is a violation of basic human rights. Relegating women to a series of body parts is demeaning, subjugating and creates blatant inequality. 

This Saturday, April 28, 2012 beginning at 11:00am nationwide marches and rallies are being scheduled to bring attention to the war on women's rights. The government is denying half the population equal pay, reproductive rights and access to health care. These laws impede a woman's ability to achieve her goals and dreams. As backbone of our society a woman's health and over all wellness not only affects children but also the ability to provide for and care for her parents and partners. 

Reasons why you should be there:


Families depend in whole or in part on a woman’s earnings, the pay gap doesn’t just shortchange women, it shortchanges everyone.

In 2010, women earned 77 cents to men’s dollar. This means that the wage gap has narrowed by less than half a cent per year. The wage gap is even worse for African American and Hispanic women. Source:


The Violence against Women Act (VAWA) is currently being blocked in Congress. This act supports a variety of critical efforts such as: initiatives aimed at preventing teen dating violence and sexual assaults, improving the reporting of these crimes, reducing the backlog of rape kits and building the capacity of Tribal Courts to combat domestic violence. 

On average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States, based on a survey conducted in 2010. Over the course of a year, that equals more than 12 million women and men. Approximately 1 in 5 Black (22.0%) and White (18.8%) non-Hispanic women, and 1 in 7 Hispanic women (14.6%) in the United States have experienced rape at some point in their lives. Undocumented female immigrants frequently have their undocumented status used as a weapon against them. Source:

No person whether  gay or straight, man or woman, legal or undocumented should be denied protections against domestic abuse or sexual violence.

60 percent of single women and 74 percent of single mothers are living in a state of economic insecurity. Leaving women precariously perched between violence and economic insecurity. Source:


The Affordable Health Care Act. Not all Americans have equal access to health care. Low income Americans, ethnic minorities and other underserved populations often have higher rates of disease, fewer treatment options, and reduced access to care. They are also less likely to have health insurance than the population as a whole.

By improving access to quality health care for all Americans, the Affordable Care Act will help reduce these health disparities. The new law will bring down health care costs, invest in prevention and wellness, and give individuals and families more control over their own care.

Reproductive Rights

·      Doctors, not governments, should be the only ones giving medical recommendations and opinions. 

·      Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe.

·      Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty.

·      Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right.

·      Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. It's no one else's business. Everyone has a constitutional right to privacy.

·      Imposing conditions on a woman's choice is cruel and degrading punishment.  And in the case she is forced to term equal to torture.

Women are not a series of body parts rather whole complete human beings.  Equality for women in the US can only happen when laws degrading and subjugating women are abolished.  Women have the right to vote and should be able to exercise their full rights and privileges as every other human being.  Equality for women needs to happen NOW.

Marches & Rallies are happening Nationwide on 04.28.12!
Find your local event by clicking here.

You can read the official press release here. is a national nonpartisan grassroots women’s organization founded in February 2012 to protect and advance women’s rights in all areas of women’s lives.

Call to action videos from local video producer and writer, Nanette Harrison.

COMPLETE AUDIO: Supreme Court April 25 Oral Arguments for ARIZONA V UNITED STATES

As a complement to the full transcript of ARIZONA V. UNITED SATES  that the US Supreme Court released this Wednesday, SCOTUS also released the full audio of the proceedings today. The case is exploring the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial SB 1070 immigration bill. A ruling on the case will be made in June.

Here is the full 80 minutes of the oral arguments. We are kind of big fans of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Bronx accent.

Gutiérrez Says Meeting with Rubio About Alternative DREAM Act Went “Great”

Is the shift in the immigration debate starting to happen between Democrats and Republicans?

Both Univision News and Puerto Rico's El Nuevo Día are reporting that a meeting between Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic leaders received praise by Democratic Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (IL), a vocal critic of recent Republican immigration policies as well as the policies of President Obama's administration.

The meeting, according to both outlets, was called by Rubio and included Rep. Gutiérrez, Rep. Bob Menéndez (D-NJ), and Rep. Charles González (D-TX). This is what Gutiérrez had to say to Univision News:

“It was a great meeting. Look, I am going to meet with anyone independent of their political party or what perceived or real political benefit my association [provides] as long as it does one thing: stop the deportations,” Gutiérrez told Univision News in an interview Wednesday evening.

The congressman, who’s known as a champion for immigration reform, said the three members who met with Rubio aren’t yet willing to announce their support for the plan since the final language has not yet been drafted, although they did discuss some details.

“He said it and we agreed with him; today was not a day for us to come together because there is no proposal to agree on. It was simply a conversation opening dialogue,” said Gutiérrez.

Rubio has begun to promote an alternative version of The DREAM Act, which would begin to address the citizenship status of undocumented youth who came to this country with their parents, but are not American citizens. Rubio's plan is in sharp contrast to what the GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has been promoting for months, which follows a more extreme view of immigration enforcement. Recently Romney was open to Rubio's plan, although he has yet to truly distance himself from "informal adviser" Kris Kobach, the architect of Arizona's SB 1070 immigrant law. Rubio is still being mentioned as a possible running mate for Romney.

Univision News provided some additional background about the history of The DREAM Act, which has overwhelming support with US Latino voters:

Rubio’s proposal is styled after the current version of the DREAM Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who are seeking a higher education or want to enlist in the military. The proposal, which is widely popular with Latinos and non-Latinos alike, passed the House in 2010 but failed to clear a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate to break a filibuster.

The DREAM Act has been stalled in Congress since then under near-universal Republican opposition, including from Rubio, who describes it as an “amnesty” bill that could lead to “chain migration.” The presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said said he would veto the current version, though he has said recently he is open to Rubio’s plan. Rubio says that under his proposal, certain undocumented minors would receive legal status, but not a special pathway to citizenship.

That has been a main point of contention of several immigration-reform advocates and Democrats, who have described it as a half measure, an indication that it’s far from certain Democrats will endorse it. Indeed, earlier this month, Gutierrez labeled the plan the “Stolen Dreams Act.”

But he pledged to hold his fire until Rubio comes out with more details regarding the plan. “I also have concerns. I don’t want to speak to the details of a bill that he hasn’t fully elaborated. He gave us some good indications about different components of the bill, but those components could change,” he said. “Let’s give him a chance. He asked me to give him a chance, and I’m going to wait.”

As for other reaction to Rubio's plan, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) was quoted in a Washington Post blog that Rubio's plan would have trouble being passed in Congress:

Asked by a reporter whether he thought the House could pass an immigration measure this year that focused on more than just border security, Boehner said: “There’s always hope.”

The speaker said he has spoken to Rubio about his plan. “I found it of interest, but the problem with this issue is that we’re operating in a very hostile political environment. To deal with a very difficult issue like this, I think it would be difficult at best.”

Boehner also added the following:

"Where’s the president’s immigration plan? Where does the president stand on this issue? Instead of campaigning all the time, maybe he ought to come back to Washington and go back to work,” Boehner said.

The Post's blog quoted President Obama's comments to Telemundo earlier this month about the Rubio plan:

“This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways, they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment . . . and then they come and say, ‘But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it’ — that looks like hypocrisy to me,” Obama said.

Why The GOP Has Serious and Damaging Issues With The US Latino Vote in 2012

Here is the problem with the Republican party this year in 2012: they can talk all about how the economy is the #1 issue for US Latino voters and that immigration doesn't matter, the fact remains—its extreme shift in such a short time on the immigration issue is a deal breaker for many Hispanic voters. The rhetoric has been politically damaging, whether the GOP wants to believe it or not. There is a reason why Mitt Romney is stuck below 15% in getting the US Latino vote. As a CNN opinion piece written by a Republican strategist said today:  "Unless Romney gets close to 40% of the Latino vote, he can kiss the White House goodbye." 

Ana Navarro, the author of the CNN piece, does make her main point when she states:

Polls also show that immigration is not the most important issue for Latinos. Like other Americans, we are most concerned about the economy. Still, immigration does set a tone. If Latinos perceive a candidate as anti-immigrant, it can turn them off, period. So, what's Romney to do? He can't erase the things he's said on immigration. Despite his campaign's efforts, they can't make supporters (or an adviser) like Kris Kobach disappear, and he is as radioactive as Kryptonite in the Latino community.

However, all's not lost. From now until Election Day, when Romney gets asked an immigration question, he needs to start and finish by reminding Latinos that Obama promised, without caveats, to get immigration reform passed in his first year in office. For many Latinos, a person's word is sacred. Romney should unequivocally say that Obama broke his word and dramatically increased deportation rates, causing family separation. He should sound angry and indignant about it. Romney needs to go from playing defense to playing offense on immigration. Hispanics are disillusioned with Obama. He too is vulnerable on the issue but only if Romney exploits that weakness.

And that is the problem. Romney can't come busting in and just start saying that President Obama deported more undocumented in his term than President Bush did in eight years, tell everyone that the President failed Latinos when it came to immigration, and then not discuss his own failings on this issue.

Romney HAD the opportunity last year during the primary to provide US Latino voters a real alternative to President Obama's broken promises to a voting bloc that was expecting a comprehensive immigration reform law in the President's first term. Instead, in an effort to combat Rick Perry's position that undocumented students could earn state tuition in Texas and Newt Gingrich's "I won't deport someone's grandmother" stance, Romney took the nativist route. He has aligned himself with the Father of Arizona's SB 1070 (Kris Kobach) and said that he would not support the DREAM Act, which is still overwhelmingly supported by US Latino voters.

Wednesday night, Rachel Maddow provided a good summary of the talking points and the issues behind it.

The immigration debate is clear: in one corner, you have hard-liners who would fence the entire country and deport everyone RIGHT NOW if given the opportunity. In another corner, you have every other rational American who is willing to come up with a comprehensive immigration law that protects the border and is also realistic about the estimated 14 million undocumented who are in this country right now. As the latest statistics show that the net migration between from Mexico to the United States is zero or even less than zero (you knew we had to make that Elvis Costello reference), why did Romney take such an extreme position on immigration? Why risk getting even less popular with US Latino voters than John McCain?

And what can Romney do now? Even if he goes after the President for his broken promises like Navarro suggests, why will Romney's hard-line position and stances be the better option? In the end, when it comes to immigration, you might be choosing from two imperfect positions, but the President will win on this issue, because Romney lost it during the primary season. Will he begin to scream "Somos el 14 por ciento/We are the 14 percent" in swing states with large Latino populations?

Romney and his surrogates can continue to ignore the immigration issue and deflect the issue, they can talk about the economy all they want, but the fact remains: his immigration position is a deal-breaker, and what does he does he do tactically to gain about 30 percentage points in the next six months? If Romney wants to win the White House and if he truly believes that winning 40% of the US Latino vote will get him that victory, he must act boldly. And he must act now.

Because, as this video from Cuéntame shows, Romney made the wrong draft pick when it came to immigration policy, and there is no way he can Etch-a-Sketch his way out it by just saying that what he said consistently during the primary season was taken out of context.

Navarro is right on one thing: a person's word IS sacred. And that doesn't apply just too US Latinos. It applies to human beings in general.

After Powerful Video Gets Over Two Million Views, Mexican Organization Plays It Safe With New Video

Talk about a bad sequel.

Just two weeks ago, the group, Nuestro Mexico del Futuro, released a video that gained over 2 million views in less than 72 hours. Right after it took off, it was removed from the group's main site and YouTube channel, although other YouTube channels are still running it:

Today, after announcing that a new video would be released that would promote the millions of ideas that came from their campaign, the group played it safe. How do you go from getting over 2 million views, to removing your video, to saying your have millions of people behind you and then just produce such a traditional PSA? What happened to real next steps? Maybe this is what happens when you you go viral and get politicians nervous. You go back to being mainstream. Sad. What do you think?

A single child asking for a better Mexico and telling the 2012 presidential candidates to listen to our ideas. Where did impact of the last video disappear to?

#NiñosMXdelFuturo hablarán de: “Política”/Mexican Group Behind Viral Video to Post Next Video Tonight

The following release was sent to us today by was in Spanish only, so we provided a English translation of it at the bottom of the original Spanish release. This is from the organization whose video two weeks ago got over 2 million YouTube views in less than 72 hours.


The video was removed just a few days after it had reached the 2 million mark. It is still available on other YouTube channels:

Ahora #NiñosMXdelFuturo hablarán de: “Política”

En el marco de la entrega de “El Decreto de nuestro México del Futuro”, ahora #NiñosMXdelFuturo hablarán de las temáticas que están plasmadas en las más de 10 millones de visiones que los mexicanos han dado a lo largo de los últimos 20 meses.

El primer video que conformo la serie: Ahora los #NiñosMXdelFuturo hablan de… hizo referencia a la educación y refleja algunos de los deseos de alrededor de 900 mil visiones en donde los mexicanos mencionaron temas puntuales como: “Mejor calidad del sistema educativo”, “Mayores oportunidades de estudiar”, “Maestros mejor capacitados” entre muchos más.

Adicional queremos informarte que hoy, jueves 26 de abril a partir de las 7:00pm podrás tener acceso al segundo video de la serie: Ahora #NiñosMXdelFuturo hablan de: Política a través de nuestro sitio oficial:

Más de un millón de visiones hicieron referencia a la Política en nuestro país, algunos de los temas que destacan son: “México con más justicia”, “Libre de corrupción”, “Con mejores gobernantes”, “Políticos honestos”, entre otros.

Estos temas, así como los que han sido mencionados en las más de 10 millones de visiones serán plasmados en el libro “El Decreto de nuestro México del Futuro” el cual será entregado a los candidatos a la presidencia de la República de 2012. Está en ellos y en todos nosotros también, el encaminarnos a ser el mejor país del mundo que todos queremos vivir.


Contacto para prensa:

Diana Ramírez


[email protected]

(55) 53501500 Ext. 5966

Pilar Contreras


[email protected]

(55) 53501500 Ext. 5961



Now #NiñosMXdelFuturo to Focus on "Politics"

As part of the "The Decree for the Future of Our Mexico" now #NiñosMXdelFuturo will talk about the themes that are embodied in more than 10 million ideas and visions that Mexicans have shared in the past 20 months.

The first video that began the series, Now the #NiñosMXdelFuturo Will Talk About…, covered education and reflected the wishes of about 900 000 ideas and visions where Mexicans suggested topics, such as "a higher quality education system," "Increased opportunities to study," "better trained teachers," and many others.

We also want to inform you that today, Thursday April 26 at 7:00 pm, you can access the second video in the series: Now the #NiñosMXdelFuturo Will Talk About…: Politics through our official website:

More than a million ideas and visions referred to the policies of our country. Some of the issues that stand out are: "a Mexico with more justice," "being free of corruption," "with the best leaders," "honest politicians," among many others.

These issues, as well as those who have been mentioned in more than 10 million ideas and visions will be reflected in the book "The Decree for the Future of Our Mexico," which will be delivered to the all 2012 candidates for President of the Republic. It is in them and us too, that we all begin to strive toward being the best country in the world we all want to live in.

Our Founder @julito77 Will Be on TODAY With CBS News’ @facethenation on Google+ Hangout

This is cool. Really cool.

This Friday at 11 am EDT, our founder Julio Ricardo Varela (@julito77) will be participating in a Google+ Hangout with John Dickerson of CBS' Face the Nation. Julito will be part of an online panel that will discuss the US Latino vote and the 2012 election. After going live tomorrow, portions of the Hangout will be broadcast Sunday morning on Face the Nation.

Here are more details from CBS News, and don't forget to submit your questions to @facethenation or post them to the Face the Nation Google+ page.

Hangout with John Dickerson and Face the Nation this Friday at 11am EDT

Looking ahead to the 2012 Election: is the Hispanic vote key to a presidential victory?

John and a panel of experts will talk politics, immigration, and Campaign 2012 – and you can watch live.

Before and during the Hangout, send us your questions via Twitter, @facethenation, or post them on the Face the Nation Google+ page.

Join us on Google+ tomorrow at 11am, and look for highlights from the Hangout on Sunday’s broadcast (check local listings here).




Bettina Inclan, Director of Hispanic Outreach, Republican National Committee

Gabriela Domenzain, Obama Campaign Director of Hispanic Media

Jennifer Sevilla-Korn, Executive Director, Hispanic Leadership Network

Esai Morales, Co-Founder, National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts

Frank Sharry, Executive Director, America’s Voice

Julio Ricardo Varela, Founder,

At Supreme Court Arguments in ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES, Justice Sotomayor Grills Both Sides

Yesterday at the United States Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, was very active in her questioning of both the lawyers for ARIZONA v UNITED STATES, a case which addresses the constitutionality of Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law.

Unlike other outlets that are producing snippets of Sotomayor's questions and the respective lawyers' responses, we have excerpted segments from the official SCOTUS transcript to provide more context as to Sotomayor's questions and arguments being presented by both parties. Our take? Sotomayor raises some serious concerns about Arizona's law but also makes sure to point out the holes in the federal government's arguments.

Here are the exchanges between Sotomayor and Peter Clement, who argued for Arizona.



JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  — could I interrupt, and turning to 2(B), could you tell me what the State's view is — the Government proposes that it should be read on its face one way, and I think the State is arguing that there's a narrower way to read it.  But am I to understand that under the State's position in this action, the only time that the inquiry about the status of an individual rises is after they've had probable cause to arrest that individual for some other crime?

MR. CLEMENT:  That's exactly right, Justice Sotomayor.  So this only operates when somebody's been essentially stopped for some other infraction, and then at that point, if there's reasonable suspicion to try to identify immigration status, then that can happen. Of course, one of the things that –



JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  – just stop you there just one moment? That's what I thought.  So presumably, I think your argument is, that under any circumstance, a police officer would have the discretion to make that call.  Seems to me that the issue is not about whether you make the call or not, although the Government is arguing that it might be, but on how long you detain the individual, meaning — as I understand it, when individuals are arrested and held for other crimes, often there's an immigration check that most States do without this law.

And to the extent that the government wants to remove that individual, they put in a warrant of detainer.

This process is different.  How is it different?

MR. CLEMENT:  Well, it's different in one important respect, Justice Sotomayor, and that's why I don't think that the issue that divides the parties is only the issue of how long you can detain somebody.

Because I think the Federal Government takes the rather unusual position that even though these stops and these inquiries, if done on an ad hoc basis, become preempted if they're done on a systematic basis –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  No, I understand that's their argument.  I can question them about that.

MR. CLEMENT:  Okay.  But – so that's –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  But I want to get to how – assuming your position, that doing it on a – there's nothing wrong with doing it as it's been done in the past.  Whenever anyone is detained, a call could be made.  What I see as critical is the issue of how long, and under — and when is the officer going to exercise discretion to release the person?

MR. CLEMENT:  And with respect, I don't think section 2(B) really speaks to that, which is to say, I don't think section 2(B) says that the systematic inquiry has to take any longer than the ad hoc inquiry.

And, indeed, section 2 – in one of its 8 provisions – specifically says that it has to be implemented in a way that's consistent with Federal, both immigration law and civil rights law.

So, there –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  What happens if – this is the following call – the call to the – to the Federal Government.  Yes, he's an illegal alien.  No, we don't want to detain him.

What does the law say, the Arizona law say, with respect to releasing that individual?

MR. CLEMENT:  Well, I don't know that it speaks to it in specific terms, but here's what I believe would happen, which is to say, at that point, then, the officer would ask themselves whether there's any reason to continue to detain the person for State law purposes.

I mean, it could be that the original offense that the person was pulled over needs to be dealt with or something like that.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  I'm putting all of this outside of –

MR. CLEMENT:  But – but if what we're talking about is simply what happens then for purposes of the Federal immigration consequences, the answer is nothing.  The individual at that point is released.

And that, I think, can be very well illustrated by section 6 ­– I don't want to change the subject unnecessarily, but there is arrest authority for somebody who has committed a public offense, which means that it's a crime in another State and in Arizona, but the person can't be arrested for that offense presumably because they have already served their sentence for the offense; and then there is new arrest authority given to the officer to hold that person if they are deportable for that offense.

Now, I think in that circumstance, it's very clear what would happen, is an inquiry would be made to the Federal officials that would say, do you want us to transfer this person to your custody or hold this person until you can take custody?  And if the answer is no, then that's the end of it.  That individual is released, because there is no independent basis in that situation for the State officer to continue to detain the individual at all.

Sotomayor later asks for clarification.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  I want to make sure that I get a clear representation from you.  If on a call to the Federal agency, the agency says, we don't want to detain this alien, that alien will be released or – unless it's under 6, is what you're telling me.  Or under 6, 3, or some — one other of Arizona's immigration clauses.

MR. CLEMENT:  Exactly.  Obviously, if this is somebody who was going, you know, 60 miles an hour in a 20-mile-an-hour school zone or something, they may decide wholly apart from the immigration issues, that this is somebody they want to bring back to the station.

Later in the proceedings.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  Counsel, could – does 18 section 6 permit an officer to arrest an individual who has overstayed a visitor's visa by a day?  They are removable, correct?

MR. CLEMENT:  They are removable.  I don't think they would have committed a public offense – absent a very unusual situation, I don't think they would have committed a public offense under Arizona law.

So I don't think there actually would be arrest  authority in that circumstance, as Justice Alito's question has –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  What is the definition of public offense?

MR. CLEMENT:  A public offense definition – it's actually – it's a petition appendix – well, I'm sorry.

The definition is basically that it's something that is a crime in another jurisdiction and also a crime in Arizona.  And so, what makes this kind of anomalous is, normally, if something is a crime in Arizona, there's arrest authority for that directly.

So what this really captures is people who have committed a crime are no longer arrestable for the crime because they have served their sentence or some other peculiarity, but they are nonetheless removable because of the crime.

Sotomayor follows up later asking for more clarification.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, for those of us for whom legislative history has some importance, there seems to be quite a bit of legislative history that the – that the idea of punishing employees was raised, discussed and explicitly rejected.


JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The preemption language would be geared to what was decided to be punished. It seems odd to think that the Federal government is deciding on employment sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees.

MR. CLEMENT: But, Justice Sotomayor, there's a big difference between Congress deciding not as a matter of Federal law to address employees with an additional criminal prohibition, and saying that that decision itself has preemptive effect. That's a rather remarkable additional step.

And here's why I think, if you consider the legislative history, for those who do, it really supports us, because here's what Congress confronted. I mean, they started thinking about this problem in 1971.

They passed IRCA in 1986. At that point, here's the state of the world. It's already unlawful, as a matter of Federal law, for the employee to get – to have this unlawful work; and, if they seek this unlawful work, they are subject to removal for doing it. In addition, Congress was told that most of the aliens who get this unlawful work are already here – they illegally entered, so they are already subject to an independent criminal offense.

So at that point, Congress is facing a world where the employee is already subject to multiple prohibitions. The employer is completely scot-free as a matter of Federal law. And so at that point, in 1986, they address the employer's side of the equation, they have an express preemption provision that says nothing about any intent of preempting the employee's side of the ledger, and in that I don't think –

Here is are excerpted exchanges between Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Sotomayor, with a few comments from Justice Scalia.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, except I think, Justice Kennedy, the problem is that it's not cooperation if in every instance the officers in the state must respond to the priorities set by the state government and are not free to respond to the priorities of the Federal officials who are trying to enforce the law in the most effective manner possible.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. General, I'm terribly confused by your answer. Okay? And I don't know that you're focusing in on what I believe my colleagues are trying to get to.

Making the – 2(B) has two components, as I see it. Every person that's suspected of being an alien who's arrested for another crime – that's what Mr. Clement says the statute means – the officer has to pick up the phone and call – and call the agency to find out if it's an illegal alien or not.

He tells me that unless there's another reason to arrest the person – and that's 3 and 6, or any of the other provisions – but putting those aside, we're going to stay just in 2(B), if the government says, we don't want to detain the person, they have to be released for being simply an illegal alien, what's wrong with that?


JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Taking out the other provisions, taking out any independent state-created basis of liability for being an illegal alien?

GENERAL VERRILLI: I think there are three. The first is the – the Hines problem of harassment.

Now, we are not making an allegation of racial profiling; nevertheless, there are already tens of thousands of stops that result in inquiries in Arizona, even in the absence of S.B. 1070. It stands to reason that the legislature thought that that wasn't sufficient and there needed to be more.

And given that you have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom only 400,000 at most are there unlawfully –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Sounds like racial profiling to me.

GENERAL VERRILLI: And they're – and given that what we're talking about is the status of being unlawfully present –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you have the statistics as to how many arrests there are and how many – and what the – percentage of calls before the statute?

GENERAL VERRILLI: There is some evidence in the record, Your Honor. It's the – the Palmatier declaration, which is in the Joint Appendix, was the – he was the fellow who used the run the Law Enforcement Support Center, which answers the inquiries. That – that declaration indicates that in fiscal year 2009, there were 80,000 inquiries and –

JUSTICE SCALIA: What does this have to do with Federal immigration law? I mean, it may have to do with racial harassment, but I thought you weren't relying on that.


JUSTICE SCALIA: Are you objecting to harassing the – the people who have no business being here? Is that – surely you're not concerned about harassing them. They have been stopped anyway, and all you're doing is calling up to see if they are illegal immigrants or not.

So you must be talking about other people who have nothing to do with – with our immigration laws. Okay? Citizens and – and other people, right?

GENERAL VERRILLI: And other – and other people lawfully present in the country, certainly, but this is –

JUSTICE SCALIA: But that has nothing to do with the immigration law – GENERAL VERRILLI: Hines is –

JUSTICE SCALIA: – which is what you're asserting preempts all of this activity.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Hines identified this problem as harassment as – as a central feature of preemption under the immigration laws because of the concern that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is fundamental to our foreign relations.


Later in the proceedings.

SOTOMAYOR: Can I get to a different question? I think even I or someone else cut you off when you said there were three reasons why – 2(B). Putting aside your argument that this – that a systematic cooperation is wrong – you can see it's not selling very well – why don't you try to come up with something else?

Because I, frankly – as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don't have to take the person into custody. So what's left of your argument?

GENERAL VERRILLI: So let me just summarize what I think the three are, and then maybe I can move on to sections 3 and 5.

With respect to – with respect to 2, we think the harassment argument – we think this is a more significant harassment problem than was present in Hines –


GENERAL VERRILLI: With respect to – in addition, we do think that there is a structural accountability problem in that they are enforcing Federal law but not answerable to the Federal officials.

And third, we do think there are practical impediments, in that the – the result of this is to deliver to the Federal system a volume of inquiries that makes it harder and not easier to identify who the priority persons are for removal.

So those are the three reasons.


Later in the proceedings.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General, when ­– when – I know your brief, you had – you said that there are some illegal aliens who have a right to remain here. And I'm just realizing that I don't really know what happens when the Arizona police call the Federal agency. They give the Federal agency a name, correct?

GENERAL VERRILLI: I assume so, yes.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You don't really have knowledge of what –

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, they – I mean, it can come in lots of different ways, but generally they will get a name and some other identifying information.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. And what does the computer have? What information does your system have?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. So the way this works is there is a system for – for incoming inquiries. And then there is a person at a computer terminal. And that person searches a number of different databases. There are eight or ten different databases, and that person will check the name against this one, check the name against that one, check the name against the other one, to see if there are any hits.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, how does that database tell you that someone is illegal as opposed to a citizen?

Today, if you use the names Sonia Sotomayor, they would probably figure out I was a citizen. But let's assume it's John Doe, who lives in Grand Rapids. So they are legal. Is there a citizen database?

GENERAL VERRILLI: The citizen problem is actually a significant problem. There isn't a citizen database. If you –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry, there is or there isn't?

GENERAL VERRILLI: There is not. If you have a passport, there is a database if you look "passports." So you could be discovered that way. But otherwise there is no reliable way in the database to verify that you are a citizen unless you are in the passport database. So you have lots of circumstances in which people who are citizens are going to come up no match. There's no – there is nothing suggesting in the databases that they have an immigration problem of any kind, but there's nothing to –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So if you run out of your house without your driver's license or identification and you walk into a park that's closed and you're arrested, you – they make the call to this agency. You could sit there forever while they –


JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Figure out if you're –

GENERAL VERRILLI: While I'm at it, there is a factual point I think I'd like to correct. Mr. Clement suggested that it takes 10 minutes to process these calls. That's true, but you're in a queue for 60 minutes before it takes the 10 minutes to process the call. So the average time is 70 minutes, not 10 minutes.

FULL TRANSCRIPT of US Supreme Court April 25 Arguments: ARIZONA v UNITED STATES

The opinions are flowing in about today's Supreme Court arguments in ARIZONA v UNITED STATES, which focuses on the constitutionality of Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law. In addition, the official SCOTUS blog offers an analysis of the proceedings.

The full official transcript can be found and downloaded here from the official site of the Supreme Court. Audio will be released on Friday.

In addition, the SCOTUS blog provided an official afternoon roundup of the proceedings and the coverage surrounding the case (Kali Borkoski, Arizona v. United States SCOTUSblog Apr. 25, 2012, 4:29 PM):

This morning the Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States, which ran for an additional twenty minutes beyond the scheduled hour.   According to Tom’s first report, most of the argument was focused on Section 2(b) of S.B. 1070, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested when they have “reasonable suspicion” that that person is in the U.S. illegally.  In the news coverage of the argument, there was a general agreement that the Court seemed likely to uphold Section 2(B), although it was less clear how the Court might rule on the other provisions at issue.  Reporting and analysis on the argument are available from Lyle Denniston at this blog, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,  the Washington Post, the Associated Press (via the Seattle Times),ReutersMcClatchy,  CNNMSNBCFox News,  Huffington PostPolitico,  DC Dicta, and the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).  PolicyMic is hosting a debate on the constitutionality of S.B. 1070 featuring several guest contributors.

The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog and PolicyMic both hosted live blogs of the day’s events (with a “tape delay” for coverage of the argument itself).

Coverage of the scene outside the Court morning is available from USA Today (including a photo gallery) and the Los Angeles Times.

The ACLU has posted an infographic on what’s at stake in the case for states with “copycat” laws similar to Arizona’s (h/t @Dailywrit). Education Week’s School Law blog considers the potential implications of the decision for education in Arizona and Alabama.