|
SANTA FE, NM (By Jon Garrido, The Jon Garrido Network) June 15, 2010 — It was a good week for Lou Barletta. The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a favorable ruling on the issue that brought the Congressman to national fame when he was still the mayor of Hazleton.
The Court issued a ruling in favor of Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance and ordered the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ to reconsider the law, which it struck down in 2007.
The Hazleton Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, passed in 2006, allowed the town to fine landlords $1,000 per illegal immigrant found renting and required employers to verify a citizens legal status before hiring.
Proponents say the measure was adopted to curb the inflow of illegal immigrants into Hazleton.
The ordinance gained national attention because it was the harshest anti-illegal immigration law at the time. Opponents argued the law hurt Hazleton saying the influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, revitalized the town by bringing in new business. They challenged its constitutionality on the grounds of the “Supremacy Clause” stating it contradicted existing federal law.
Before it could be put into effect, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged it. Initially the courts sided with the ACLU.
Barletta celebrated the recent Supreme Court decision. “This is great news for the City of Hazleton and all municipalities in cities and states trying to cope with the burden of illegal immigration…This certainly is not good news for those that support illegal immigration.”
Attorneys from the ACLU responded to Barletta’s assertion saying “any celebration by the Hazleton officials would be premature. We’re certainly not putting up the white flag. There’s much battle left to be done in this case.”
Barletta believes the ordinance is on firm ground to be upheld by the federal appeals court citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of similar legislation in U.S. Chamber of Commerce versus Whiting.
In addition, Barletta introduced legislation to Congress similar to the ordinance passed while he was mayor saying “I don’t think the Obama administration is serious at all about solving our illegal immigration problems.”
Only Immigration Reform will End SB1070
One day before Arizona's new tough immigration law was supposed to go into effect, a federal judge temporarily blocked some of its controversial provisions.
Some aspects of the law will be carried out on schedule but Judge Susan Bolton of the Federal District Court in Phoenix issued a preliminary injunction against sections that required immigrants to carry papers with them at all times and that called for the police to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also delayed the part of the law that made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.
Gov. Jan Brewer's legal team filed an expedited appeal of the judge's order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the Arizona District Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Susan Bolton's ruling and Gov. Jan Brewer's legal team is now preparing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who already decides whether liberals or conservatives win the Supreme Court's most closely contested cases, is about to take on an even more influential behind-the-scenes role with the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.
By virtue of seniority, Kennedy will inherit Stevens' power to choose the author of some court opinions, an authority that has historically been used – including in as big a case as the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision – to subtly shape a ruling or preserve a tenuous majority.
This change might keep the court's most liberal justices from writing some of its biggest decisions.
An unwritten high court rule gives the senior justice in the majority, most often the chief justice, the power to assign opinions.
When the liberals win an ideologically driven case by a 5-4 vote, the court's two senior justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, both conservatives – are sure to be on the losing side. With Stevens gone, Kennedy now is next in line.
The overall balance of power on the court is unlikely to change, with President Barack Obama's choice of Elena Kagan replacing liberal-leaning Stevens.
But a former Bush administration solicitor general, Paul Clement, said putting the power to assign opinions in Kennedy's hands is the "single most important dynamic change" brought on by Stevens' departure.
David Garrow, a Cambridge University historian who has written about the court, said the 74-year-old Kennedy already writes a disproportionate share of the court's big decisions and will have even more chances to do so now because he can assign opinions to himself.
As if to emphasize Kennedy's increasing clout, he and Scalia now sit on either side of Roberts when the justices take the bench. Like most things at the court, the seating is by seniority. The justices who have been there longest sit on either side of the chief justice, who wields the gavel regardless of tenure.
Scalia, a justice since 1986, now is the longest-serving. He occasionally will get to assign an opinion, but typically not in the big cases that split the liberals and conservatives. Kennedy has been on the court since 1988.
In an important free speech case in 1971, the justices voted 5-4 to overturn a criminal conviction for wearing a jacket with a phrase that used a four-letter expletive to oppose the military draft. Justice William O. Douglas "immediately assigned it to John Marshall Harlan who was clearly the weakest link," said Lucas A. "Scot" Powe Jr., a Texas law professor who was a law clerk for Douglas.
It's difficult to assess the effect of Kennedy's new power.
His pivotal role until now – somewhere between the more conservative and the more liberal justices – has allowed him to dictate how far the court could go in many areas.
In 2007, for instance, Kennedy was unwilling to join the four conservatives to eliminate considerations of race in voluntary efforts by public school systems to increase diversity in their classrooms.
Perhaps, Garrow said, Kennedy might move away from the conservatives in close cases, knowing disagreeing with them "would put him in the decision maker's seat."
Or, he said, Roberts might come to the realization "he needs to work all the more to keep Kennedy inside the conservative tent."
Another possibility is Kennedy might keep an opinion for himself that Stevens would have handed off to another liberal justice. Kennedy might write the same decision more narrowly than Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have, Dorf said.
Doug Kendall, president of the liberal-leaning interest group Constitutional Accountability Center, worried Stevens' retirement means there is "no guarantee any of the term's biggest opinions will be written by a member of the court's left flank."
Stevens, who was the senior justice since 1994, was accomplished at producing 5-4 opinions that "moved the law significantly in a progressive direction," Kendall said.
With Kennedy calling the shots, he said, the liberals might have to get used to smaller victories.
Translation: The probability is high, the appeal of Arizona Law SB1070 will be decided 5-4 by the United States Supreme Court overturning a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling and upholding Arizona SB 1070.
If Arizona SB 1070 is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, the only alternative is passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform that will end SB1070.
Why Immigration Is the Sleeper Issue for 2012
If you follow the national debate in Washington decisions and the factors underlying them often have deeper causes.
A good illustration comes via the latest Allstate-National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll, which examined how people of different races view the country's rapidly changing demographics and how these views shape their outlook on the economy. It strongly suggests, while Washington may be ignoring it, illegal immigration has become a central and divisive force in American politics, and will have major implications in the 2012 election.
First, some background. The 2010 US Census showed large increases in the minority population relative to the one before. Whites accounted for only 8 percent of the population growth. Today, minorities comprise more than 36 percent of the entire nation, and nearly half of all Americans under 18. The United States is on track to become "majority-minority'' around 2040.
For a country undergoing such sweeping changes, the poll contains plenty of encouraging news. Attitudes among different racial groups are converging: White and minority Americans largely agree on the benefits of a free-market society, on the importance of education and individual effort in getting ahead, and on the idea we are making real progress toward equal opportunities for all.
Remarkably, only 2 percent of respondents said racial or ethnic background was the most important determinant of economic success. One of the most pernicious divisions in American history, that between whites and blacks, appears to be dissolving because the number of blacks is significantly decreasing.
For many Americans, the old division between blacks and whites has been replaced by a new division between white native-born citizens and Hispanic immigrants whose numbers are geometrically increasing. This is most apparent in the stark difference in economic outlook between whites and Hispanics. Whites are far more pessimistic about their prospects and their children's prospects — and mistakenly believe undocumented are the primary culprit.
Asked what they thought was causing the minority boom, 53 percent of whites said illegal immigration, 29 percent said higher birth rates, and 11 percent said legal immigration. "That has it almost exactly backward,'' said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center.
Since 2000, Passel says, there have been 19.3 million minority births, 8.4 million legal immigrants, and 5.6 million undocumented immigrants.
This widespread misconception stems from a lack of information that's largely due to both the Democratic and Republican parties' unwillingness to pursue immigration reform, after years of failed attempts.
These numbers appear to be driven by two things, said Brent McGoldrick of Financial Dynamics, which conducted the poll. The aftershocks of the immigration debate, which was never really resolved, but still permeates how people look at the economy and the future of the country; and the bad economy, which has made whites feel particularly pessimistic and sharpened these attitudes.
The political effects of these aftershocks show up in the differing attitudes toward government. Hispanics have a positive view of government and prefer that it play an active role in the economy; never the less, Hispanics are also pro business. Whites are more critical of government activism and tend to favor only the private sector. These views correlate with party preference. They suggest Hispanics tend to vote Democratic (the party of government but pro business), while whites are likely to vote Republican (the party of only free markets). The upcoming presidential election seems tailor-made to highlight these differences.
As the
country
still
struggles to
emerge from
recession,
the poll
indicates,
rather
ominously,
that ideas
about how
best to do
so break
down by
race. The
shame of it
all is
while
economic
growth is
the surefire
way to
mitigate
these
tensions —
a rising
tide lifts
all boats —
agreeing on
how best to
bring it
about will
be hard, and
harder still
because a
major source
of the
dispute is
neither
being
acknowledged
nor
addressed in
Washington
because
racism in
Washington
toward
Hispanics
dictates.
Immigration
bill is new
chapter of
inequality
"RIP Civil
Rights
Legacy," was
one of the
signs
demonstrators
carried as
they rallied
against HB
87, passed
by the
Georgia
legislature
last month.
Short and
dramatic, it
was perfect
placard
material.
But it also
contained
much to
unpack about
the bill and
how we
benefit from
that legacy.
HB 87
provides new
tools for
law
enforcement
to handle
the
harboring
and
transporting
of illegal
immigrants.
It also
gives police
the ability
to identify
illegal
immigrants
during the
course of an
investigation,
and grants
powers of
civil action
to the
Attorney
General to
ensure
compliance.
While the
bill's
intended
purpose is
to crack
down on
illegal
immigration,
the
psychological
research
suggests it
is likely to
increase the
use of
stereotypes,
prejudices
and
profiling
toward those
suspected of
being
illegal
immigrants.
Findings
from this
body of work
maintain
while most
people no
longer
consciously
endorse
stereotypes,
many still
harbor
implicit
(subconscious)
racism
toward
Hispanics.
These biases
are beliefs
and feelings
which
harness
stereotypes
and
prejudice
even without
intent or
control. As
such, people
often
utilize them
in their
perceptions
and
reactions to
members of
other groups
automatically
and with
little
conscious
effort. When
people feel
threatened
or under
time
pressure —
as police
officers
often are —
these
automatic
processes
are even
more
influential.
This
research
speaks to
the fact
implicit
racism can
have a
careless and
unparalleled
impact on
social
policies.
The great
danger in HB
87 and other
types of
reforms like
this is they
give social
and legal
cause to
such racism.
This in turn
may actually
worsen
prejudicial
practices.
The impact
on the
social and
psychological
life of both
documented
and
undocumented
immigrants
can be
profound.
One need not
look far to
see the
manifestations
of
discrimination
and
prejudice as
they take
the form of
mental and
physical
health
disparities
for members
of
Hispanic
immigrants.
Studies
showed
Mexican
women
experienced
frequent
hostility
and distress
during the
implementation
of the 1986
Immigration
Reform and
Control Act.
This
distress was
often due to
the women's
feelings
society,
with the
implementation
of reform,
wanted them
out of the
country and
perceived
them as
criminals.
More recent
research
showed
feelings of
exclusion
based on
race or
immigrant
status can
lead to
doubts about
social
acceptance.
Similar
surveys of
African
American
university
students
found that
those who
expected to
be rejected
and excluded
because of
the color of
their skin
reported
lower sense
of happiness
showed a
steady
decline in
their grades
and
expressed
less trust
in the
university.
Because many
immigrant
groups are
stigmatized
in similar
ways, it is
realistic to
believe that
they too
will show
the negative
impact of
these
experiences.
"RIP Civil
Rights
Legacy" is
an accurate
declaration.
HB 87 will
only
undermine
the core
impact of
the civil
rights
movement:
fairness and
equality to
all people.
Certainly we
need to
address
immigration
reform, but
the strong
and at times
insensitive
discussion
is
reminiscent
of the
rhetoric of
difference
in our
recent past.
Immigration Is the Top Issue Driving the Latino Vote
Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia released polling this week that shows Latino voters prioritize immigration, and do so because they view the issue through a personal lens. These are some of the important findings that should catch the attention of both political parties as the 2012 cycle begins:
-
Immigration the top priority among Latinos: When asked the single most important issue facing the Latino community and important for Congress and the President to address, 51% of respondents answered immigration. The economy and jobs comes in second place at a combined 35%.
-
Latinos’ personal connection to the immigration debate: 53% of poll respondents reported personally knowing an undocumented person, whether a relative, friend, or co-worker. Additionally, 25% of respondents reported personally knowing someone who “faced detention or deportation for immigration reasons.”
-
Latinos overwhelmingly favor administrative reform: Poll respondents strongly support executive action in favor of targeted members of the community: 74% support “stopping the deportation of any undocumented immigrant who has not committed a crime, and is married to a U.S. citizen or legal resident;” 66% support “stopping the deportation of any undocumented immigrant high school and college age youth who has not committed any crime;” and 60% support “stopping the deportation of any parent who has not committed a crime and has children under the age of 18 living in the U.S.”
-
Both parties have work to do: The poll also found that by a 65% - 19% margin, Latino voters trust President Obama and Democrats more “to make the right decisions when it comes to immigration policy” compared with Republicans. Yet the news wasn’t all good for Democrats, as 43% of respondents said Democrats in the U.S. Congress were “ignoring or avoiding” immigration reform vs. only 33% who said they were “working on passing” immigration reform.
Immigration is personal and a top priority for Hispanic voters who see this as an issue involving family, future and full acceptance. Both parties must be concerned about their image among Hispanic voters. Republicans should recognize anti-immigrant policies are damaging their ability to compete for and connect with Hispanics. And Democrats, although in a better position than Republicans, should be concerned about the disillusionment among Hispanic voters regarding the party’s commitment to change immigration policy. Democrats have to deliver on their promises of immigration reform if they want Hispanics to deliver in return.
The finding Hispanic voters prioritize immigration contrasts sharply with the claims of leading anti-immigrant organizations and their lawmaker allies. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the “think tank” for the nativist movement, and Rep. Lamar Smith, the hardline Chairman of the Judiciary Committee who is committed to expelling and deporting as many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as possible — seem to fancy themselves as experts on Hispanic voting behavior and their views on immigration.
A recent CIS analysis asserted “immigration is not one of the top issues for Hispanics,” while Rep. Smith took to the pages of Politico to assert Republicans’ mass-deportation policies would have little political consequence. Wrote Smith:
“Time and again, American voters — including Hispanics — have defeated amnesty attempts, including the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Contrary to the claims made by some, the record shows Republicans will continue to attract Hispanic voters...”
The results in this poll strongly suggest otherwise. As La Opinión editorialized, Hispanic voters are very concerned about the lack of immigration policy reform that reflects and addresses our time. Immigration will be an important issue in the upcoming presidential election and whoever focuses on immigration and takes a strong stance that isn’t “aggressive and punitive” against undocumented immigrants will get the support of Hispanic voters.
Solidarity USA
The 2010 census counted 50.5 million Hispanics and 38.9 million blacks — compared with 35.3 million Hispanics and 34.7 million blacks in 2000. But those figures have not translated into Hispanic clout in Congress, where — not including delegates or members of Portuguese ancestry — they have 24 House members (17 Democrats and seven Republicans), compared with 42 black representatives (40 Democrats and two Republicans).
It is only with a significant increase in House members in the Congress that Immigration Reform will ever be achieved.
Of most importance is there is not one Hispanic U.S. Senator of Mexican, Central America or South American descent. There are two Cuban Americans but Cuban Americans as well as Puerto Rican Americans do not view Immigration Reform as a priority.
From New Mexico, where it is least expected, from behind and within, comes the Hispanic revolution to end racism and inequities. The vehicle is Solidarity USA being organized by Hispanic News and Latino News to make change in America by electing Hispanic Americans who are strong advocates for Immigration Reform to public office.
The days of having white elected officials represent us has not worked.
Success will not come with only one election but with each passing election more and more Hispanic members in the House and Senate will enable vote trading to finally achieve Immigration Reform. Most importantly, organizing a new organization modeled after Numbers USA which Republicans used to kill Immigration Reform will now be a priority for Solidarity USA to defeat racist elected officials who now are determined to eliminate Hispanics from the United States.
In addition, Solidarity USA will have a mandate to eliminate racism. Today, minorities comprise more than 36 percent of the entire nation, and nearly half of all Americans under 18. The United States is on track to become "majority-minority'' around 2040. Eventually, the Hispanic population will be the driving force in the United States eliminating white racism toward Hispanics because eventually all racists in the United States will have died from old age.
Change is inevitable. Change is constant. "Benjamin Disraeli."
Content from: "Supreme Court Sides With Hazleton Immigration Law" by Jared Edgerton, Politics PA; "Immigration Is the Top Issue Driving the Latino Vote" by Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions and Mónica Lozano, ImpreMedia; "Why Immigration Is the Sleeper Issue for 2012" by "Immigration Bill is New Chapter of Inequality" by Krystal Perkins Ph.D, professor at The University of West Georgia and "Only Immigration Reform will End SB1070" by Jon Garrido, The Jon Garrido Network.
