Key vote on immigration set in Senate

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate headed Monday for a crucial test vote on White House-backed immigration legislation offering the prize of U.S. citizenship to millions and pouring new technology and manpower into the border.

Ahead of the vote set for early evening, around a dozen Republican lawmakers had indicated support, setting up a solid bipartisan margin of victory within reach of the 70 votes supporters are hoping for when the bill comes to a final vote at the end of this week. No defections have been suggested so far among the 54 votes controlled by Democrats.

The measure includes changes to the original border security provisions in the bill that would double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol at a cost of around $30 billion and complete 700 miles of fencing. At the same time it sets out a pathway to citizenship for some 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, who would be permitted to get permanent resident green cards only once all the border changes had been put in place, about a decade after enactment of the legislation.

At the White House Monday, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to take quick action on the immigration overhaul.

"I would urge that the Senate bring this to the floor," he said. "And I hope that we can get the strongest possible vote out of the Senate so that we can then move to the House and get this done before the summer break."

The president spoke in the Roosevelt Room before meeting with business leaders supporting the immigration bill. He said the legislation doesn't represent everything he sought, "but it does adhere to the core principles that we need for comprehensive immigration reform."

"Now is the time to do it," he added.

Meanwhile, on the Senate floor, supporters and opponents traded arguments ahead of the vote.

"It's my hope that this evening Republicans will join me in putting in place the toughest border security measures we've ever had in this nation," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who developed the new border security requirements with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent, insisted that the promised border security never would materialize.

"The amnesty occurs first, and just like so often in the past, the promises never occur," Sessions said.

But Corker and other supporters pointed to comments from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican immigration hardliner, who touted the proposed border changes as a "victory for Arizona" in an interview on Fox News Channel Monday.

The developments came at the start of a crucial week for the immigration bill, a signature issue for the Obama administration, Capitol Hill Democrats, and even some Republicans.

Monday's vote is the key procedural hurdle that would clear the way for a vote later in the week on revisions to the bill including the border security changes and a range of other new provisions aimed at locking down support from wavering senators. These include limits to what newly legalized immigrants can claim in Social Security benefits, added at the behest of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and provisions designed to aid Alaska seafood processers and attract support from Alaska's two senators.

Final passage of the underlying bill should come by Friday. In addition to securing the border and allowing eventual citizenship to those here illegally, the bill would create new visa programs to bring tens of thousands of high- and low-skilled workers to the country, and require all employers to check their workers' legal status. In many states such employer checks are now only voluntary.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced it was launching a new seven-figure ad buy Monday in support of the bill. "Call Congress. End de facto amnesty. Create jobs and economic growth by supporting conservative immigration reforms," the ad said.

On the other side, a political committee run by tea party Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas issued an action alert calling on supporters to lobby senators against the bill. "It will encourage more illegal immigration and must be stopped," read his appeal.

Victory in the Senate would be no guarantee of success in the Republican-controlled House, where many conservatives oppose citizenship for people in this country illegally. The House Judiciary Committee has been passing narrowly focused, single-issue immigration bills — in contrast to the Senate's comprehensive approach — and Speaker House Boehner, R-Ohio, has not indicated how he'll proceed.

Negotiations between the two chambers are not expected until the fall at earliest, and opponents of the legislation are predicting it will be stopped in the House.

"It will pass the Senate, but it's dead on arrival in the House," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on CNN on Sunday. "The House is much closer to me, and I think they think border security has to come first before you get immigration reform."

___=

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Via Yahoo News!

APNewsBreak: 5 charged in CA immigration scam

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Authorities said Wednesday they have broken up an immigration fraud ring that led to the arrests of four federal law enforcement officers accused of accepting bribes to help foreigners enter the country.

An 18-count indictment laid out a detailed account of alleged corruption where tens of thousands of dollars, a flat-screen TV and airline tickets to Thailand were some of the bribes used to have the officers forge documents and other illegal activity that involved three federal agencies.

Among those charged with conspiracy to commit bribery are James Dominguez, 46, a special agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Figueroa, 66, a supervisory officer with Citizenship and Immigration Services and Michael Anders, 53, a Customs and Border Protection officer.

Federal prosecutors said lawyer Kwang Man Lee, who was previously charged in a related case, paid bribes to the officers to secure admission stamps and lawful permanent residence status for people who paid fees ranging from a few hundred dollars to more than $50,000.

The bribes ranged from as little as $50 to as much as $10,000, prosecutors said.

"The allegations in this case concern federal law enforcement officers selling their services and betraying their oaths to our nation so they could profit from a clandestine immigration fraud ring that allowed scores of aliens to improperly enter and reside in the United States," said United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr.

A fifth person seeking legal status in the U.S. also was indicted.

Authorities said they have identified several dozen people who improperly received immigrations benefits, but that number is growing as the investigation continues.

Via Yahoo News!

Obama eyes higher profile role on immigration

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's prospects for a sweeping legislative victory this year now rest almost solely on the immigration overhaul working its way through Congress. But immigration's tricky politics have created a dilemma for a president fighting for an issue he considers central to his legacy.

If Obama is too closely aligned with the legislation, it could scare away Republicans wary of appearing to hand the president a win. But if he stays on the sidelines and the overhaul runs into trouble on Capitol Hill, Obama likely will be criticized for not using his presidential powers to fight for votes, as he was following the recent failure of gun control measures he championed.

In the coming weeks the White House will test whether Obama can take on a more public role in the immigration debate after largely ceding the issue to Congress for much of the year. The president will ramp up his immigration-related travel this spring and summer, including a trip this week to Mexico and Costa Rica. The White House also is planning to use Spanish-language media to bolster public support for a comprehensive bill.

Still, Obama signaled during a White House news conference Tuesday that his primary talking point will be that he's backing a bill drafted by the Senate's so-called Gang of Eight, a group of four Democrats and four Republicans.

"I've been impressed by the work that was done by the Gang of Eight," Obama said. "The bill that they produced is not the bill that I would have written — there are elements of it that I would change — but I do think that it meets the basic criteria that I laid out from the start."

Immigration reform gained little traction in Congress during Obama's first term, in part because of opposition from GOP lawmakers. But the November election changed the political calculus for some Republicans, who watched Hispanic voters overwhelmingly side with Obama and Democrats as they increased their share of the national electorate.

At the request of the Gang of Eight, Obama kept a low-profile as the Senate working group set about the delicate task of crafting a draft bill earlier this year. The potential damage caused by White House involvement was underscored when a copy of Obama's own draft bill was leaked in February, raising suspicions among Republicans about his motivations and threatening to upend the effort.

But now that the Gang of Eight bill is public and is winning some Republican support, White House advisers say there's less risk in Obama taking on a larger public role in the debate too.

The focus on immigration in the capital comes as rallies are expected in dozens of cities around the country Wednesday in what has become an annual cry for easing the nation's immigration laws.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a favorite of conservatives and potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016, is one if the bill's architects, as is Arizona's Republican Sen. John McCain. And even in the Republican-led House, where an immigration overhaul faces a steeper challenger, the Gang of Eight measure has won praise from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The bill would strengthen border security, allow tens of thousands of new high- and low-skilled workers into the country, require all employers to check their workers' legal status and provide an eventual path to citizenship for some 11 million immigrants now here illegally.

The measure is similar to the immigration principles Obama outlined in January during a visit to Las Vegas, his only immigration-focused trip of the year, though there are key differences. For example, the Senate bill makes the pathway to citizenship contingent on securing the border, which Obama opposes, and does not recognize gay couples, which Obama supports.

Many immigration advocates say they support Obama getting more involved in the debate as the draft bill weaves its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and likely to the Senate floor.

"He needs to be an advocate and push for the bill in the Senate to make sure this gets done," Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union said of the president. "We need continued sustained pressure from all facets."

McCain also welcomed the prospect of a more proactive Obama, saying the president is committed to being heavily engaged. But the Arizona Republican, who has spoken with Obama about the immigration negotiations several times in recent weeks, added that the president "doesn't want to harm the passage of the bill either. And I believe him."

But some Republicans remain suspicious of the president's efforts and say he's trying to sink the bill in order to use the legislative failure for political gain.

"I think the president wants to campaign on immigration reform in 2014 and 2016," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in an interview with CBS News. "I think the reason the White House is insisting on a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally is because the White House knows that insisting on that is very likely to scuttle the bill."

Obama advisers insist he would rather be able to claim victory on the immigration overhaul that has eluded him than use a failure as leverage in the midterm elections — a proposition that has no guarantee of working in his favor.

___

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

___

Follow Julie Pace on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jpaceDC

Via Yahoo News!

Tear gas fired in Australian immigration riots (AFP)

SYDNEY (AFP) – Australian police fired tear gas, sound and flash weapons and "bean bag" bullets to quell overnight riots at the troubled Christmas Island immigration detention centre.

Immigration authorities said about 50 detainees were involved in the disturbance, which saw fires lit and police threatened with makeshift weapons at the centre, some 2,600 kilometres (1,600 miles) from Australia's mainland.

"(Police) members made a number of attempts to defuse and de-escalate the situation, but these were not successful," a police spokeswoman told AFP Wednesday.

"Members had cause to deploy a range of use of force options, including less-lethal munitions (such as) bean bag rounds, (tear) gas, and sound and flash distraction devices."

"Bean bag" bullets are small cushions filled with lead shot that are fired from a shotgun, designed to temporarily disable targets.

It is the second time in as many months serious riots have rocked the remote centre, which is the cornerstone of Australia's mandatory detention policy for refugees and home to 600 boat arrivals.

Some of the group escaped their compounds but an immigration spokesman said there was "no breach of the perimeter fence" and police had brought the incident under control without any injuries.

One detainee was arrested and another was still staging a rooftop protest, with police remaining on site, the spokesman added.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said computers in the centre's medical clinic were destroyed and said anyone found guilty of crimes in detention could be shipped home under strict new character laws on visas.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard echoed his warnings.

"If you commit a criminal offence it will count against you," Gillard said.

"You don't get any changes to the process and treatment of your claims by misbehaving."

Australia's immigration facilities are under strain from a record influx of boatpeople last year -- almost 6,900 -- and tensions have run high in crowded centres on both Christmas Island and at Villawood, in Sydney.

Up to 100 detainees rioted on the Indian Ocean island last month, and another 250 were involved in violent protests there in March over the slow processing of asylum claims, with some locked up for 18 months or more.

Nine buildings were torched in wild riots the following month at Villawood that involved up to 100 detainees.

Bowen said 30 people had been charged over those disturbances.

Australia's mandatory detention policy has been criticised by human rights groups and the UN's refugee agency, with depression and suicide major concerns.

Refugees are a thorny issue in Australia, despite their relatively small numbers and the fact that many who arrive in leaky boats from Asia have fled strife in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq.

Canberra has announced a controversial refugee swap with Malaysia in a bid to slow the flow of boats, and Bowen said it had been an effective deterrent though the "operational finer details" were still being hammered out.

"We've already seen a substantial reduction in the number of boat arrivals to Australia in recent times," said Bowen.

"I don't say that the announcement of the Malaysia arrangement is entirely responsible for that (but) clearly our very clear message through the region has had some impact."

Boats fell from 134 last year to 28 in the six months to June 30, carrying 1,675 arrivals.

Yahoo! News

Sides to square off over Georgia immigration law

Atlanta (CNN) -- Supporters and critics of Georgia's controversial new immigration law faced off in court Monday, but a federal judge said he had not reached a decision in the case.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. said he hopes to issue a written ruling before July 1, when the law is scheduled to go into effect.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the class-action suit asked Thrash to issue a temporary injunction that would stop the law, known as HB 87, while the court considers the case.

"HB 87 is deeply flawed and fundamentally unconstitutional," said Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorneys representing the state filed a motion to dismiss the case.

"Sometimes the law is harsh, there's no question about that, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional," said Devon Orland, senior assistant attorney general for the state.

Thrash asked numerous questions during the two-hour hearing.

"Don't you concede that this provides local law enforcement with a tremendous amount of discretion?" he asked Orland.

He repeatedly asked about the purpose of the bill and said it could be used to target Hispanics.

"We like the people at the restaurant. Let's not bother the cook or the guy that does the mayor's yardwork. They're a nice family. But we're going to make it so difficult for everybody else they're going to leave," he said.

"Let's not forget, just because we're economically dependent on something unlawful, doesn't change it to being lawful," Orland countered, arguing that the law does not allow racial profiling.

As attorneys made their arguments, a small group of protesters rallied outside the federal courthouse in downtown Atlanta, chanting, "What do we want? Injunction. When do we want it? Now!"

The law, which is aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration, allows police to ask about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations.

It also allows the imposition of prison sentences for people who knowingly transport illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime and says that workers convicted of using fake identification to get jobs could be sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined $250,000.

"Georgia's immigration scheme will undermine federal immigration enforcement priorities by subjecting countless individuals in Georgia to detention," the lawsuit says.

Organizations and individuals who are plaintiffs in the case fear discrimination and racial profiling, according to the suit.

Attorneys representing the state argue that those fears are unfounded.

"Any such fear is purely hypothetical and speculative in light of the clear terms of HB 87 that prohibit unconstitutional racial profiling and require criminal conduct before any verification of immigration status would enter the realm of possibility," says the attorneys' brief supporting their motion to dismiss the case.

The ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Asian Law Caucus are representing plaintiffs in the Georgia lawsuit.

Several organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the lawsuit. The governments of 12 Latin American countries also filed friend-of-the-court briefs.

"Mexico respectfully submits that, if HB 87 is allowed to take effect, it will have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations, and on Mexican citizens and other people of Latin American descent present in Georgia," the Mexican government said in its brief.

The Georgia lawsuit is the latest battle in a nationwide skirmish between state and federal officials over who controls immigration enforcement.

Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, drawing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues the law is unconstitutional.

Lawmakers in at least 20 states weighed similar proposals during the past year, according to the National Immigration Forum.

Earlier this month Alabama's governor signed what he billed as tough illegal immigration legislation, requiring police to check the status of anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally when stopped for another reason.

Last month, a federal judge in Utah blocked a strict immigration enforcement law in that state just 24 hours after it went into effect. And the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit against a new Indiana immigration law, also scheduled to go into effect July 1.

In April, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed Arizona's law last year. Brewer announced last month that the state would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier this month a spokeswoman for Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal said Georgia's legislation is markedly different from the Arizona law.

"These organizations falsely claim HB 87 is a copycat of Arizona's legislation. It is not," Press Secretary Stephanie Mayfield said.

CNN

100 detainees riot at Australia immigration centre (AFP)

SYDNEY (AFP) – Police used pepper spray and "bean bag" rounds Friday to quell up to 100 rioting asylum seekers at Australia's troubled Christmas Island detention centre.

Some of the rioters were armed with metal poles and pieces of concrete and pelted police and security guards during the unrest that began late Thursday, the Australian Federal Police said.

One guard was injured, but not seriously.

The centre was brought under control but two men remain on a rooftop.

"Order has been restored and the situation I'm advised now at Christmas Island is calm," Immigration Minister Chris Bowen told Sky News.

"But of course we remain very focused on managing the issue in relation to the disturbances."

It was not clear what sparked the unrest although March riots at the facility began as a protest against the lengthy processing of detainees' refugee status claims.

Detention is mandatory for boatpeople arriving in Australia and most are taken to remote Christmas Island, leaving facilities there stretched and the atmosphere tense.

Some asylum seekers have been on the island for 18 months, with a record 6,900 arrivals in 2010 choking the system.

Police said tear gas was not used but pepper spray and "bean bag" rounds -- fabric bags filled with bird shot and fired from a shotgun -- were.

"Some of the protesters armed themselves with improvised weapons such as metal poles and broken concrete," police said in a statement.

"During negotiations, some of the protesters began throwing projectiles at police and security guards."

The purpose-built Christmas Island facility, which sits on a small Indian Ocean outcrop some 2,650 kilometres (1,650 miles) northwest of Perth, was last rocked by riots in March.

Then, about 250 inmates set fire to accommodation tents and hurled makeshift explosives at police, prompting them to respond with tear gas.

Scores of inmates also escaped the complex, with some hiding in dense jungle for days.

A month later and similar scenes were witnessed at the Villawood detention centre in Sydney, where nine buildings were torched and a handful of asylum seekers staged a rooftop protest that lasted a week.

The latest unrest came as the United Nations stepped up criticism of Australia's refugee detention policy, warning there was "no empirical evidence" that locking up asylum seekers deterred irregular migration.

"Global migration statistics have been rising regardless of increasingly harsh governmental policies on detention," said the UN refugee agency's representative in Australia Richard Towle.

The problems continue to mount for the government with a rare case of leprosy detected at Villawood Friday while state broadcaster ABC said a Sri Lankan had begun a hunger strike a detention centre in Darwin.

Canberra is finalising a controversial plan to send 800 boatpeople to Malaysia for processing in exchange for accepting some 4,000 of the Southeast Asian nation's already registered refugees.

The proposal has sparked controversy with concerns that the group could be mistreated with Malaysia not a signatory to the UN refugee convention.

Reports on Thursday said that rather than being sent to existing detention camps, they could spend six weeks in a new Australian-funded holding centre.

They would then be issued identity tags and released into the community, allowing them to avoid being treated as illegal immigrants under Malaysian law, which will protect them from the possibility of caning.

Yahoo! News

Alabama governor signs tough new immigration law

Gov. Bentley signed new law ThursdayRequires police to check the status of anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally when stopped for another reasonImmigration and civil rights groups, as well as the Mexican government, have condemned the law

(CNN) -- Alabama's governor has signed what he billed as tough illegal immigration legislation, requiring police to check the status of anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally when stopped for another reason.

The bill, due to come into effect on September 1, was signed into law by Republican Gov. Robert Bentley on Thursday.

Its passage makes Alabama the latest in a series of states, including Georgia and Arizona, to weigh controversial new laws aimed at tackling illegal immigration.

Civil rights groups and the Mexican government have been quick to condemn the move.

According to a factsheet presented by Alabama House Republicans, the bill will require law enforcement officers "to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person who they suspect is an unauthorized alien of this country".

The legislation also makes it a criminal offense to provide transport or housing to an illegal immigrant. The state will have to check the citizenship of students and any business that knowingly employs an illegal immigrant will also be penalized.

A spokesman for Bentley told CNN that the governor had signed "a tough illegal immigration law".

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, criticized the move, saying Alabama had fallen "into a costly trap" by passing what it described as an "unconstitutional law."

The legislation, sponsored by Republican Rep. Micky Hammon, could cost state taxpayers millions of dollars to enforce and defend through the courts, the SPLC said in a statement.

It also warned the state stood to lose "millions more in lost tax revenue from Alabama businesses that will bear the brunt of boycotts of Alabama goods and services and lost sales to documented and undocumented immigrants who flee the state rather than deal with racial profiling and the state's anti-immigrant climate."

The Mexican government warned that the law could affect the human and civil rights of Mexicans living in or visiting the state.

Several immigrant and civil rights organizations filed a class-action lawsuit last week against a new Georgia law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

That law allows police to ask about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations.

Meanwhile, Arizona's governor said last month she would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after portions of the state's new immigration law were blocked by federal courts.

The Arizona bill catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, drawing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues that the law is unconstitutional.

Lawmakers in at least 20 states weighed similar proposals during the past year, according to the National Immigration Forum.

CNN

Georgia governor signs controversial anti-illegal immigration law

Protesters set up outside the governor's office and there were threats of boycotts against the state.NEW: Mexico says legislators "ignored the many contributions" of immigrantsThe bill lets law enforcement officers ask about immigration status in investigationsLatino groups decry the measure, threatening lawsuits and boycotts

Atlanta (CNN) -- Despite protests outside his office and boycott threats, Georgia's governor signed into law Friday one of the toughest anti-illegal immigration measures enacted by an individual state.

The measure, which Gov. Nathan Deal inked about a month after it cleared the Republican-dominated Georgia Legislature, allows law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations.

HB 87 also imposes prison sentences of up to one year and fines of up to $1,000 for people who knowingly transport illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime. It also asserts that workers convicted of using fake identification to get jobs could be sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined $250,000.

"This legislation is a responsible step forward in the absence of federal action," Deal said after the bill signing. "Illegal immigration places an incredible burden on Georgia taxpayers."

As they have throughout the debate, leaders in the local Latino community railed against the measure. Among them were several dozen people who demonstrated Friday outside the governor's office at the state Capitol, chanting, "Shame on you."

The legislation drew threats of lawsuits targeting the bill, as well as boycotts aimed at forcing the government's hand. The group Southerners on New Ground is calling for a national boycott of conventions and vacation travel to Georgia, while a blog entry on the website of the group Somos Georgia warned, "Veto HB 87 or Boycott! It's your choice, Governor Deal!!"

"This is the beginning of a road that we'll travel that will take a long time," Teodoro Maus, president of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, said Friday in Atlanta.

Similar efforts have been pursued -- with some success -- targeting other states that have passed legislation aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration. Nonetheless, anti-illegal immigrant bills can still be found from coast to coast.

The National Conference of State Legislatures found that, in 2010 alone, more than 1,400 bills were introduced aiming to give individual states more of a role in immigration enforcement. Of those measures, 208 laws were enacted, 10 were vetoed, and 138 resolutions were adopted.

The best-known such effort was in Arizona. Among other things, that legislation would have required local law enforcement officers in Arizona to apprehend and help deport illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Justice Department sued, arguing that only the federal government has that authority. Last month, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and against Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed SB 1070 into law last year. Brewer has asked the Supreme Court to lift the court order that is blocking enforcement of parts of the law.

Wade Henderson, the head of the advocacy group Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, blasted what he called Georgia's "odious piece of legislation." He said it was a "copycat" of the Arizona law and effectively legalizes "racial profiling."

"Georgia's lawmakers have not learned from Arizona's mistakes," Henderson said Friday in a statement. "These laws presume everyone is guilty, contradicting the fundamental American presumption that those accused are innocent until proven otherwise."

The Mexican government added Friday that it "regrets" Deal's decision to sign the law.

"The legislators and state executive ignored the many contributions of the immigrant community to the economy and society of Georgia," the Mexican government said in a statement.

But some who support the Georgia legislation -- including Deal and Phil Kent, a spokesman for the conservative group Americans for Immigration Control -- said it is not about discrimination but rather about protecting taxpayers.

"The illegal immigrants in our state have been swamping our hospitals and schools," Kent said. "It's a very expensive proposition. We just want to make sure that people are welcome here and that they come here legally. And then we can cut back on the illegal immigration."

President Barack Obama's administration has opposed such state-specific measures, including fighting them in court, saying that having as many as 50 different immigration policies (one for each state) would be counterproductive from a law enforcement standpoint and damaging from an international relations standpoint.

Asked about HB 87 last month by CNN affiliate WSB, Obama defended the federal government's actions.

"The truth on the matter is we've done more on enforcement than any previous administration," the president said. "We have more border patrols; we have had serious crackdowns on employers who are hiring undocumented workers."

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Arizona's governor to reveal plans for immigration law

Judges have blocked implementation of Arizona's SB 1070Gov. Jan Brewer says the ruling harms "the safety and well-being of Arizonans"She is expected to announce Monday whether her state will fight the injunction

(CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne will announce Monday what legal steps, if any, they're prepared to take following an injunction of the state's controversial immigration law, which is opposed by the Obama administration.

Among other things, the legislation would have required local law enforcement in Arizona to apprehend and help deport illegal immigrants. The Justice Department sued, arguing that only the federal government has that authority.

Last month, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the U.S. Justice Department and against Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB 1070 into law last year.

Brewer's legal team could ask the full 9th Circuit to revisit the issue, take the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, or choose to do nothing at all, said Matthew Benson, Brewer's spokesman.

Brewer and Horne have scheduled an 11 a.m. (2 p.m. EDT) news conference on the matter.

The Justice Department lawsuit led to the original court decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton last July, temporarily blocking the law's most contested parts just a day before they were scheduled to go into effect. That included the requirement that local police officers should check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The appeals court ruling last month upheld Bolton's ruling.

Brewer said at the time that the decision harms the "safety and well-being of Arizonans."

"For decades, the federal government has neglected its constitutional duty to American citizens by failing to secure the border," she said. "States like Arizona have borne the brunt of that failure."

The legislation has a variety of supporters and detractors.

Republican lawmakers, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other state governments were among those filing briefs with the appeals court supporting Arizona's argument. The Mexican government, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the city of Tucson, Arizona, were among those filing briefs supporting the Justice Department's side.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department challenged only six of the Arizona law's provisions, meaning others went into effect in July.

That includes a ban on "sanctuary cities," or municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants. Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. In addition, the ruling allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The decision in April sided with the U.S. Justice Department, largely on the argument that federal immigration policy would be greatly undermined -- as might America's standing in the world -- if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws. Doing so, the ruling contends, essentially means a given state is adopting its own foreign policy, one that may be in opposition to national policy.

"That 50 individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained. In matters affecting the intercourse of the federal nation with other nations, the federal nation must speak with one voice," the ruling says.

In February, Brewer announced that Arizona had filed a countersuit against the federal government, seeking the authority to implement its own border security efforts.

At that time, Homeland Security Department spokesman Matt Chandler called Arizona's court claim a "meritless" one that "does nothing to secure the border."

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

U.S. appeals court OKs decision blocking Arizona immigration law

Undocumented immigrants walk in Arizona's Sonoran Desert after illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on January 19. STORY HIGHLIGHTSNEW: An immigrant activist says, "This decisions says ... Gov. Brewer is wrong"Brewer says the ruling harms "the safety and well-being of Arizonans"U.S. appeals court judges on Monday affirm an earlier ruling on Arizona's SB 1070That ruling had blocked key provisions of the law, just before they became lawRELATED TOPICSImmigrationArizonaU.S. Court of AppealsU.S. Department of Justice (CNN) -- A federal appeals court on Monday affirmed a previous injunction of Arizona's controversial immigration law, another setback for legislation that has drawn sharp opposition from President Barack Obama's administration.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the U.S. Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB 1070 into law last year.

Among other things, this legislation would have required local law enforcement in Arizona to apprehend and help deport illegal immigrants. The Obama administration sued, arguing that only the federal government has that authority.

That lawsuit led to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision last July, which temporarily blocked the law's most contested parts just a day before they were scheduled to go into effect. That included the requirement that local police officers should check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Monday's decision came more than five months after both sides presented their cases in San Francisco to the federal appeals court judges. The ruling was written by federal Judge Richard Anthony Paez and supported in full by Judge John Noonan. Judge Carlos Bea partially concurred and partially dissented from the ruling opinion.

"We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion," the ruling states. "Therefore, we affirm the district court's preliminary injunction order enjoining these certain provisions of SB 1070."

Arizona's governor and attorney general will now consider "their legal options," according to a statement, including possibly an immediate petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brewer claimed Monday in this statement that the latest decision "does harm to the safety and well-being of Arizonans who suffer the negative effects of illegal immigration."

"For decades, the federal government has neglected its constitutional duty to American citizens by failing to secure the border," she said. "States like Arizona have borne the brunt of that failure."

Those on the other side of the issue, including key figures in Arizona's immigrant community, applauded the ruling.

'What this decision says is that Governor Brewer is wrong," Lydia Guzman of Somos America, an activist group focused on promoting social justice and equal rights for immigrant communities in Arizona, told reporters Monday. "This decision shows a victory on the side of justice and it shows that civil rights prevails."

The ruling is the biproduct of a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department that challenged six of the Arizona law's provisions, meaning other parts of the law went into effect in July. That includes a ban on "sanctuary cities": municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants. Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. In addition, the ruling allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Republican lawmakers, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other state governments were among those filing briefs with the appeals court supporting Arizona's argument. The Mexican government, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the city of Tucson, Arizona, were among those filing briefs supporting the Justice Department's side.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department challenged only six of the Arizona law's provisions, meaning others went into effect in July. That includes a ban on "sanctuary cities": municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants. Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. In addition, the ruling allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The decision Monday sides with the U.S. Justice Department, largely on the argument that federal immigration policy would be greatly undermined -- as might America's standing in the world -- if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws. Doing so, the ruling contends, equates to a given state adopting its own foreign policy, one that may be in opposition to national policy.

"That 50 individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained. In matters affecting the intercourse of the federal nation with other nations, the federal nation must speak with one voice," the ruling says.

Brewer, along with Attorney General Tom Horne, on Monday said the appeals court relied too much on testimony from "foreign governments," calling it wrong to give such nations "the de facto right to veto the duly-enacted laws of a sovereign state of the United States."

In his partial dissent -- which represents his opinion, but does not equate to law -- Bea contended that local and state officers do have a role in addressing federal immigration laws.

"Congress intended that state officers be free to inquire of the federal officers into the immigration status of any person, without any direction or supervision of such federal officers -- and the federal officers 'shall respond' to any such inquiry," he writes.

In February, Brewer announced that Arizona had filed a countersuit against the federal government, seeking the authority to implement its own border security efforts.

At that time, Homeland Security Department spokesman Matt Chandler called Arizona's court claim a "meritless" one that "does nothing to secure the border."

View the Original article