Arizona Legislator Pushing for Undocumented to Not Even Exist in Public

When we got the following story from Addicting Info, we did not believe it. But when we read the actual bill that Arizona Republican legislator Carl See (Phoenix) is endorsing, we knew it wasn’t a joke.


The HuffPost’s Roque Planas also wrote about Seel and since Roque is good peeps, we really knew that it wasn’t a joke:

An Arizona Republican wants to make it a crime for undocumented people to do almost anything in his state.

State Rep. Carl Seel (R-Phoenix) has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for undocumented immigrants to receive any public benefits – including attending public school or using a public road. Violating the proposed law would result in misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses. Driving while undocumented would result in forfeiture of the car, according to the bill.

You can read the rest of Roque’s piece here.

This local February 6 report from Phoenix shares more:

It never ends.

Immigration Activists to Mexican National Team: Don’t Play Next Soccer Game in Arizona

On January 30, the Mexican national soccer team (known as “El Tri”) is scheduled to play Denmark in an international friendly at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona. According to Milenio, there is a push by immigration rights supporters to have the team not play in Glendale and choose another U.S. venue outside of Arizona.

The reason? It would send a powerful message to the state known for its harsh anti-immigration laws and culture.


This is what Salvador Reza, director of Tonatierra, told Milenio in Spanish (translation is ours):

We ask the Mexican Soccer Federation to reconsider and not bring the national team to a place where there have been raids, separation of families, deportations, and harsh policies that have led to widespread discrimination against Mexicans.

Sendy Vargas, of the Barrio Defense Committee, added, “This is everyone’s team. And they are going to leave money, through taxes, with a government that has repressed us for three years, the government of [governor] Jan Brewer.”

Another activist, Mario Chihuahua, said that “at least 10%” of the revenue that the Mexican team makes at the match will go to Arizona taxes.

According to Vargas, she has sent several emails to the Mexican Soccer Federation, reminding them of the situation in Arizona, which she said has seen more than 92,000 deportations last year. As of right now, Vargas has not received a reply.

Reza also told Milenio that Glendale is notorious for its racial profiling of Mexican drivers. He added, “There, if you are Latino, there is a greater possibility that you will get stopped. Mexicans run a risk if they come to Glendale. If you are coming from other parts of Arizona or if you are coming from any other state, like California or Nevada, you run the risk of getting stopped. It is a city where racial profiling against Mexicans is conducted rather harshly.”

The article makes mention that Phoenix Police also have jurisdiction in Glendale and that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio coordinates security around Glendale and the university.

Reza concluded by saying the following:

I understand that a lot of people are coming to see the team. But it is important that the Mexican Soccer Federation understand what is happening to us in Arizona and what they are exposing people to.

VIDEO: “My Mother Was Stopped Because of SB 1070″

Now that Arizona's "Show me your papers" provision of the controversial SB 1070 is now in effect, those who continue to question the provision's intent are using YouTube to record how police are enacting the law. 

Below is one video that a family made when the family's mother was pulled over by the Mesa police.

MALDEF Writes to Governor Brewer: Don’t Even Think of Implementing SB1070

We knew it would happen sooner than later. Following a ruling by the Supreme Court last Monday—which basically struck down Arizona's controversial SB1070 law immigration, but allowed for the section 2(B) "show me your papers" provision to continue—organizations are beginning to challenge section 2(B), fearing that it will lead to racial profiling.

On Wednesday, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) sent a letter to all the defendants (including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer) in Friendly Hill v. Whiting, the original case that led to Arizona v. United States being heard in the Supreme Court. The message from MALDEF? Don't even think of implementing Section 2(B), because you can't. This is what MALDEF posted on its Facebook site this week:

The coalition representing the plaintiffs in the ongoing civil rights legal challenge to SB 1070, Friendly House v. Whiting, sent a letter to counsel for all defendants, including Governor Brewer, explaining that SB1070 's racial profiling provision, Section 2 (B), cannot be implemented unless a federal court dissolves the injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arizona v. United States did not lift the injunction, and the case will be sent to the lower courts for further proceedings. As a result, no law enforcement agency in Arizona should currently be implementing Section 2(B).

Here is the letter that was sent:

Rep. Gutierrez Plays “Pick Out the Immigrant” on the Floor of Congress

How much do we love Luis Gutierrez? A lot. Brilliance.

Pick out the immigrant, people. Time to play! (h/t to @Synbad)

From @MyCuentame: Are the Authors of SB1070 Writing an Alternative to the DREAM Act?

Originally Posted at Cuéntame

We are in the business of keeping both sides honest and want the best possible proposal for DREAMERS. Which is why we will check BOTH sides. Here, the connection between FAIR, CIS, and alternative proposals the to DREAM Act deserve to be checked.

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.

Complete Video of Senate’s Subcommittee Hearing About SB1070 Immigration Law

Here is a video of yesterday's entire Senate subcommittee hearing about Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law.

Former Arizona state senator Russell Pearce yesterday in Washington, DC. CREDIT: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Today, the US Supreme Court will be listening to oral arguments for and against the Arizona law.

Our favorite part of yesterday's hearing? Former Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini's appearance.

“I apologize for Arizona’s actions toward the Latino community," said the former Democratic senator.

Another notable quote comes from State Senator Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix).

“I would submit to you that Senate Bill 1070’s true intention … is to make second-class citizens out of Latinos,” Gallardo said.

And of course, kudos to Russell Pearce (yes, former state senator Russell Pearce), who is the chief sponsor of SB 1070. At least he showed up to share his opinions, which, as you all know, we don't agree with. New York Senator Charles Schumer and Pearce had an interesting exchange, to say the least.

Here is a partial transcript:

SEN. SCHUMER: OK. I want to show you a blowup of the official training manual given to the Arizona police officers on SB 1070. Behind me here on the screen are the factors that training say police may consider in developing a reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant and needs to be checked. I'm going to highlight a few. It says in the company of other unlawfully present aliens. It says the vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily. It says dress. And then it says demeanor, for example, unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact.

The one that arouses my curiosity and bothers me is dress. What does an illegal immigrant dress like? Why is dress in those factors — listed in those factors?

MR. PEARCE: Mr. Chairman, that was put together by AZ POST, and I understand they worked in cooperation with ICE to develop the profile of those folks after making legitimate contacts.

SEN. SCHUMER: But explain to me, as the author, do you think dress is an appropriate –

MR. PEARCE: Mr. Chairman, this is not — this is from AZ POST. This is training material for AZ POST, not a part of the bill.

SEN. SCHUMER: Yes, from the Arizona police.

MR. PEARCE: Right, not a part of the bill.

SEN. SCHUMER: I understand. Well, do you think dress is an inappropriate measure? Is there a reason to stop somebody because of their dress?

MR. PEARCE: I think when you have a problem –

SEN. SCHUMER: And then, I would ask you if it's not inappropriate, what does an illegal immigrant dress like?

MR. PEARCE: Mr. Chairman, almost all — when you train a police officer — I've been in this business for a long time, in law enforcement and public safety — it's a compilation of issues that tend to raise the level of suspicion to the level of probable cause, not any one isolated incident. This is just a list of things that lead you to ask questions. I know questions are dangerous things. People might not actually give you an answer. So –

SEN. SCHUMER: Sometimes questions are a dangerous thing because they lead to profiling.


SEN. SCHUMER: And it seems to me when the word dress is used — I mean, just give me a — do you — in your experience, you've lived in Arizona your whole life, I believe?

MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Do illegal immigrants dress any differently than legal immigrants or American citizens?

MR. PEARCE: Mr. Chairman; I don't want to be confrontational, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. SCHUMER: No, I know.

MR. PEARCE: But I want to tell you this is a list of things to look for and they're trained by ICE. This was ICE training in terms of a compilation. But it's like anything –

SEN. SCHUMER: ICE didn't –

MR. PEARCE: No one issue does — if I'm looking into a bank robbery or a Circle K robbery and I've got a description kicked out by radio of a white male, average height, white t-shirt, dark pants running down the street; I'm responding to that crime and a I see a white male, white t-shirt, dark pants that turn out to be jogging pants. I stop him and I have a pretty good reason to ask him a few questions.

When I get to the Circle K and I find out he's not the guy, he gets released. You have to respond to reasonable suspicion to do your job, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. SCHUMER: My argument –

MR. PEARCE: And this is just a list of things to look for.

SEN. SCHUMER: Right. First, I don't believe ICE sanctioned the use of the word dress. We'll check that out.

MR. PEARCE: I'm just told that that's what they worked with in cooperation with developing of that criteria, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. SCHUMER: OK Right. So let me ask you this question. Instead of going through these criteria and other criteria, why didn't you just say — and again, the criteria are not yours, the Arizona police, as you say. That's what we say up there — mandatory check.

But why didn't you just say that everyone who is stopped by police has to be checked for legal immigration status? Why do you require the police to form opinions about whether a person is an illegal immigrant first before requiring police to ask that person for proof of legal status? Doesn't the way you wrote the law either require or certainly invade towards racial profiling?

MR. PEARCE: Just the opposite, Mr. Chairman. Again, under federal law — you know, under the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona constitution you know, we have the Equal Protection Clause. I knew those kinds of issues would be raised by those open border folks that are against any enforcement.

We've been sued on everything we've done, from voting fraud to stop voting fraud, welfare fraud, to going after illegal (person who compete ?) illegally, immorally, and have a competitive advantage over the honest employer. Doesn't it seem like no matter what we do, Mr. Chairman, we're attacked for simply enforcing the law and trying to protect American citizens and jobs for Americans. So you knew those questions would be asked, you knew you'd — they'd come after you. We simply wrote the bill to preempt those kinds of silly arguments and try to protect — try to protect everybody's rights. As a civil libertarian, I'm a believer that everybody — you have to have a reason to do stuff. I don't want a police state. I want a reason to do something. That's why those — that's why that bill was written in the manner it was written.

SEN. SCHUMER: So let me ask you again. If you want — why wouldn't it have done just what you say, rule of law, not discriminate — why wouldn't it have been better to say that everyone stopped by the police should be checked for their status? Why come up with obviously a really problematic definition of suspicion? And you've seen in the regulations that it is problematic.

MR. PEARCE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree that it is problematic. In Arizona, first of all, we made the proper exceptions. If you have an Arizona's driver's license or a driver's license from a state that requires proof of citizenship or legal residence, you're automatically exempt from that. That is — that is — (inaudible) — at that point, reasonably, that you're legal. All we wanted to do in this bill is common sense.


Arizona’s SB 1070 at the US Supreme Court: What’s at Stake INFOGRAPHIC

Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments for and against Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law. What's at stake? Here is one infographic, (And for those who say it is from the ACLU, suck it.) This graphic presents some very interesting facts (for those who want to know about facts) regarding legal challenges to similar laws from other states.



Today in Congress, @RepGutierrez Blasts Mitt Romney’s Views on SB 1070

Thanks to our friends at The News Taco for posting the following this morning.

Give it up to El Galiito Rebelde.