Can we restore the Rule of Law? Unlawful detained by Suspicion.

.

A video produce by CheckpointUSA On November 26th, I was stopped & seized for about the 50th time since the beginning of 2008. The seizure took place at an internal suspicionless Homeland Security checkpoint along Southern Arizona's SR86 near mile post 146. SR86 is an East-West public highway located over 40 miles North of the border and never intersects the border at any point.

During the stop, Agent Gilmore admitted he knew who I was & all three agents told me I wasn't being detained. Nonetheless, these facts didn't stop the agents from refusing to allow me to go about my lawful business, choosing instead to escalate the encounter by requesting that I move to secondary inspection for more intensive scrutiny absent my consent or any articuable suspicion.

While continuing to deny that I was being detained and refusing to allow me to leave, the agents threatened me with arrest for impeding their operations.

After close to eight minutes of being unlawfully detained, a Border Patrol supervisor eventually arrives on-scene and wastes no time in telling me that I'm free to go with no further scrutiny.

Given the circumstances surrounding this extended non-detention, the only reasonable explanation that can be attributed to the agent's behavior is a desire to train the traveling public to be obedient to the whims of any federal agent with a shiny badge & a gun.

For those of you who actually think the government cares about the border, how many illegal aliens do you think crossed unchallenged 40 miles to the South because three Border Patrol agents were harassing Americans 40 miles to the North at a suspicionless checkpoint?

Napolitano Intends to continue enforcing Immigration Laws rather than reform and update the current System.

Gov. Janet Napolitano said Thursday the United States needs more than more Border Patrol officers to slow both illegal immigration and smuggling.

"You're never going to have enough boots on the ground if all you rely on is boots on the ground,'' Napolitano said in an interview with KAET-TV, the Phoenix PBS affiliate.

"You've got to augment them with technology,'' said Napolitano, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for secretary of homeland security. "And then, at some point, we need to, I think, revisit the issue of the National Guard and perhaps its role at the border.''
That decision, however, will not be within Napolitano's power. But the governor said she intends to talk to the defense secretary who does get to make that decision.

Building additional fences, however, is another matter.

"There is a role for it,'' she said. But she called it "a hugely expensive effort that by itself will not deal with the immigration issue.''

Napolitano also said she believes in greater use of high-tech security to monitor the border, including radar and ground sensors.

Napolitano's confirmation hearings, set for next week, come as Michael Chertoff, the current homeland security chief, said this week he is crafting plans for a "surge'' of civilian - and possibly military - law enforcement along the Mexican border if the violence from that country spills into the United States.

"You have to understand that there have been 5,300 murders in Mexico this year related to drugs,'' she said.

"We want to have that backup surge capacity to come in should it slop over into the United States,'' Napolitano said. One element of that, she said, is working closely with police agencies on both sides of the border.

The governor said Obama is scheduled to meet soon with Felipe Calderon, his Mexican counterpart, with border violence expected to be a key topic.

On a related front, Napolitano said she will take her arguments about the future of the Real ID to Washington.

The governor had been supportive of the 2005 federal law requiring states to develop driver's licenses that are secure, both from the perspective of ensuring that they are issued to the right person and that they be tamper proof. But Napolitano earlier this year signed legislation refusing to have Arizona participate because the federal government was leaving the financial burden to the states.

Napolitano said she will advocate for money in the new federal budget for states to implement some form of more secure identification.

"If we're going to have a system of laws that requires people to be able to demonstrate that they're lawfully present in the country, you need to have some way for people to easily demonstrate that,'' she said.

That also includes Arizona's own year-old law that makes it a crime for companies to knowingly hire undocumented workers. Firms found guilty can have their licenses to do business suspended; a second offense within three years puts them out of business.

While Napolitano signed that measure into state law, the governor, speaking to reporters after her TV interview, sidestepped questions of whether there should be a national version of that law.

The governor repeated her stance that she is a supporter of immigration reform. But she expressed skepticism that Obama and Congress will deal with that soon.

"Obviously right now the top priority is the economy and getting that going again,'' Napolitano said. "But there will be room for some of these other issues at the right time.''
In the interim, the governor said she intends to keep enforcing existing immigration laws.
"I think that to enforce the law firmly and fairly people believe that an immigration law really can work,'' she said

Detention Officers sentenced for Civil Rights Violations.

Former Grant County, Kentucky Detention Center Officers Sentenced for Civil Rights Violations in Teenager Rape Case.

Wesley Lanham, 31, and Shawn Freeman, 36, both former deputy jailers at Grant County Detention Center in Kentucky, were sentenced today on federal civil rights, conspiracy, and obstruction charges. Lanham was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 3years of supervised release, and Freeman was sentenced to 14 years in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Both defendants were found guilty of conspiring to violate the civil rights of a teenaged traffic offender by arranging for him to be raped by inmates. The jury convicted the defendants on all charges and specifically found that the defendants were responsible for the aggravated sexual assault carried out by the inmates.

"Although nothing can fully heal the wounds inflicted on this teenager, hopefully the defendants’ sentences today will bring closure to this young man and his family," said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "His courage in coming forward helps to ensure that egregious acts such as this one will be appropriately punished, and facilitates the Justice Department’s efforts to ensure the integrity of law enforcement."

The case stemmed from an incident that occurred on Feb. 14, 2003, when the defendants, along with their supervisor, former Sergeant Shawn Sydnor, taunted an 18-year-old high school student who had been brought to the detention center on a speeding charge. The deputies teased the teenager about his physical appearance and told him that he would make a good "girlfriend" for the other inmates. The defendants then solicited a group of convicted felons housed in a general population cell to scare and "mess with" the teenager. After eliciting an agreement from the inmates, the officers left the teenager in the cell where he was sexually assaulted by the other inmates.

When the teenager’s father reported the incident and demanded an investigation, the defendants falsified their official reports relating to the treatment of the teenager.

A third defendant, former Sergeant at the jail, Clint Shawn Sydnor, previously pleaded guilty to civil rights and conspiracy charges and was sentenced earlier today to 90 months in prison.

This case was prosecuted by Special Litigation Counsel Kristy L. Parker and Trial Attorney Forrest Christian of the Criminal Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Joe Arpaio: The toughest Sheriff but affraid to a public debate.

Joe Arpaio running again for the same seat in Maricopa County, Arizona but One of the traditional ways voters use to learn about candidates is the candidate debate. In this election, Joe Arpaio has made it clear that he has no intention of sitting on a public stage with his opponent. Why would Joe Arpaio deny voters this most traditional means of comparing candidates? Why is "America's Toughest Sheriff" afraid to defend his record in a public forum?

Quite simply, he knows that if he were to stand next to a real law enforcement professional he will have to answer tough questions that he doesn't want to answer. He will have to be accountable for abusive policies that simply don't work.

What’s he going to say?

Vote for me: I've been sued over 5,000 times since I took office?

Vote for me: according to the County Risk Assessment office I have over $42M in lawsuit losses with over $100M in pending claims?

Vote for me: my deputies and detention officers are some of the lowest paid in the state?

Vote for me: I'm the only one of the top 20 largest county sheriff’s offices in the United States without a warrants detail?

Vote for me: I tell my employees to do without paper clips and staples and training while I approve senior staff to travel to Honduras on taxpayer money?

Vote for me: except for a Board of Supervisors who continually gives me supplemental budget allocations to cover up my excessive spending, I can’t live within my budget?

Vote for me: I've had 60 people die under my care in the last three years, many of which will only add to taxpayer's lawsuit liabilities?

Vote for me: I'll gladly arrest U.S. citizens and hold them for hours if I think they don't fit a particular racial profile?

Vote for me: despite studies that show my jail policies don't reduce repeat crime and wastes taxpayer dollars, I won't change anything because it gets good press?

We can go on and on. But with a record like that, would you want to debate? He’d lose. He has been invited to debates throughout the county and he’s has cowardly run from them. He doesn’t want voters to see who he really is and examine his real record.

Institutional Racism and White by Law

"Racist" and "racism" are provocative words in American society. To some, these words have reached the level of curse words in their offensiveness. Yet, "racist" and "racism" are descriptive words of a reality that cannot be denied. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans (people-of-color) live daily with the effects of both institutional and individual racism.

Race issues are so fundamental in American society that they seem almost an integral component. Some Americans believe that race is the primary determinant of human abilities and capacities. Some Americans behave as if racial differences produce inherent superiority in European Americans (whites). In fact, such individuals respond to people-of-color and whites differently merely because of race (or ethnicity). As a consequence, people of color are injured by judgments or actions that are directly or indirectly racist.

Much of the attention of the last 40 years has focused on individual racist behavior. However, just as individuals can act in racist ways, so can institutions.

Institutions can behave in ways that are overtly racist (i.e., specifically excluding people-of-color from services) or inherently racist (i.e., adopting policies that while not specifically directed at excluding people-of-color, nevertheless result in their exclusion).

Therefore, institutions can respond to people-of-color and whites differently. Institutional behavior can injure people-of-color; and, when it does, it is nonetheless racist in outcome if not in intent

In its first words on the subject of citizenship, Congress in 1790 restricted naturalization to "white persons." Though the requirements for naturalization changed frequently thereafter, this racial prerequisite to citizenship endured for over a century and a half, remaining in force until 1952. From the earliest years of this country until just a generation ago, being a "white person" was a condition for acquiring citizenship.

Whether one was "white," however, was often no easy question. As immigration reached record highs at the turn of this century, countless people found themselves arguing their racial identity in order to naturalize. From 1907, when the federal government began collecting data on naturalization, until 1920, over one million people gained citizenship under the racially restrictive naturalization laws. Many more sought to naturalize and were rejected.

Naturalization rarely involved formal court proceedings and therefore usually generated few if any written records beyond the simple decision. However, a number of cases construing the "white person" prerequisite reached the highest state and federal judicial circles, and two were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1920s. These cases produced illuminating published decisions that document the efforts of would-be citizens from around the world to establish their Whiteness at law. Applicants from Hawaii, China, Japan, Burma, and the Philippines, as well as all mixed-race applicants, failed in their arguments. Conversely, courts ruled that applicants from Mexico and Armenia were "white," but vacillated over the Whiteness of petitioners from Syria, India, and Arabia. Seen as a taxonomy of Whiteness, these cases are instructive because they reveal the imprecisions and contradictions inherent in the establishment of racial lines between White and non-Whites.

Although now largely forgotten, the prerequisite cases were at the center of racial debates in the United States for the fifty years following the Civil War, when immigration and nativism were both running high. Naturalization laws figured prominently in the furor over the appropriate status of the newcomers and were heatedly discussed not only by the most respected public figures of the day, but also in the swirl of popular politics.
Debates about racial prerequisites to citizenship arose at the end of the Civil War when Senator Charles Sumner sought to expunge Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision which had held that Blacks were not citizens, by striking any reference to race from the naturalization statute. His efforts failed because of racial animosity in much of Congress toward Asians and Native Americans.

The persistence of anti-Asian agitation through the early 1900s kept the prerequisite laws at the forefront of national and even international attention. Efforts in San Francisco to segregate Japanese schoolchildren, for example, led to a crisis in relations with Japan that prompted President Theodore Roosevelt to propose legislation granting Japanese immigrants to right to naturalize.
Controversy over the prerequisite laws also found voice in popular politics.

Anti-immigrant groups such as the Asiatic Exclusion League formulated arguments for restrictive interpretations of the "white person" prerequisite, for example claiming in 1910 that Asian Indians were not "white," but an "effeminate, caste-ridden, and degraded" race who did not deserve citizenship. For their part, immigrants also participated in the debates on naturalization, organizing civic groups around the issue of citizenship, writing in the immigrant press, and lobbying local, state, and federal governments.

The principal locus of the debate, however, was in the courts. From the first prerequisite case in 1878 until racial restrictions were removed in 1952, fifty-two racial prerequisite cases were reported, including two heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Framing fundamental questions about who could join the citizenry in terms of who was White, these cases attracted some of the most renowned jurists of the times. . . . .

Though the courts offered many different rationales to justify the various racial divisions they advanced, two predominated: common knowledge and scientific evidence. . . . "Common knowledge" rationales appealed to popular, widely held conceptions of races and racial divisions. . . . Under a common knowledge approach, courts justified the assignment of petitioners to one race or another by reference to common beliefs about race.

The common knowledge rationale contrasts with reasoning based on supposedly objective, technical, and specialized knowledge. Such "scientific evidence" rationales justified racial divisions by reference to the naturalistic studies of humankind. . . . These rationales, one appealing to common knowledge and the other to scientific evidence, were the two core approaches used by courts to explain their determinations of whether individuals belonged to the "white" race. . . .

The first reported racial prerequisite decision was handed down in 1878. From then until the end of racial restrictions on naturalization in 1952, courts decided fifty-one more prerequisite cases. These decisions were rendered in jurisdictions across the nation, from state courts in California to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., and concerned applicants from a variety of countries, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, the Philippines, India, and Syria. all but one of these cases presented claims of White racial identity.

Identity Theft: Impersonating FBI Agent.

MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO IMPERSONATING FBI AGENT



Baltimore, Maryland - Edwin G. Johnson, age 25, of Washington , D.C., pleaded guilty today to impersonating a federal officer, announced United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein.

According to the plea agreement, on April 26, 2008, Johnson picked up a prostitute, K.R., drove to a near by vacant parking lot and after a discussion involving K.R. performing a sexual act for money, Johnson identified himself as a federal agent and that K.R. was under arrest. Johnson advised K.R. that he and other agents were investigating stabbings in the area and that they were conducting sweeps. Johnson told K.R. that he would not arrest her and that he wanted to help her. K.R. performed a sexual act on Johnson. Afterwards, Johnson drove K.R. to her residence where he had sexual relations with her. Johnson reiterated that he was a federal agent working undercover and that his office was in the “ Hoover Building ” in Washington D.C. Johnson departed K.R.’s residence without paying her for the sexual services. Over the next several days, Johnson initiated contact with K.R. by telephone calls and text messaging. On May 28, 2008 , Johnson came to K.R.’s residence and again represented himself to be a federal agent. He had sexual relations with K.R. and departed without paying her.

K.R. contacted the FBI which initiated an investigation that confirmed that Johnson was not an agent or employee of the United States . Under FBI supervision, K.R. tape recorded telephone conversations with Johnson in which he stated that he was a FBI agent working in an undercover capacity.

Johnson faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison, followed by one year of supervised release. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake has scheduled sentencing for September 26, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein thanked the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its investigative work. Mr. Rosenstein commended Assistant United States Attorney Stephen M. Schenning, who is prosecuting the case.

U.S. closed the door for H1B Applications




The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service says it has stopped taking visa applications for skilled workers – seven days after the visa window opened for the 2009 fiscal year.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which wants companies to have wider and easier access to foreign workers, quickly complained that employers would have “a problem” filling jobs domestically and that bright foreigners would be less likely to want to study and work in the U.S.

At issue are 65,000 H1B visas available for employers seeking to bring in skilled workers for up to six years. There are an additional 20,000 H1B visas for foreign-born graduates of U.S. universities with master’s and doctoral degrees.

The visas are available for the year beginning Oct. 1, but employers are allowed to file applications six months early—which means April 1. The immigration service collected applications through April 7, when it concluded it had more than enough to fill its quota. It now will hold a random drawing to winnow down the applications.

The chamber pointed out that an employer who needs a specialized worker today couldn’t bring him or her to the U.S. for at least 18 months—until after the start of fiscal 2010.

In recent years, the immigration service has collected more than enough applications for the 65,000 skilled-worker visas within days of opening the visa window, but it has taken several months for employers to take up the 20,000 visas for U.S. university graduates. This year, both categories filled within days.

Employers have been leaning on Congress for years to lift the visa caps, and Congress is generally sympathetic. But the bills usually drown under the weight of amendments attached by groups representing other immigration issues, including legal status for illegal immigrants, in-state tuition for illegal-immigrant children and more seasonal work visas.

Three skills bill were introduced in the House this spring, but with little hope of a comprehensive reform bill any time soon, those bills also are likely to be magnets for other immigrant issues

IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND NEEDS A REFORM. PROBLEMS WITH EMPLOYMENT BASED IMMIGRATION.






EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS:

Per-Country Limits Make No Sense

ISSUE:

Certain skilled foreign nationals who are eligible for permanent residence (green cards) are unable to complete processing of their applications simply because of their country of origin. Current immigration law imposes limits on the number of employment-based immigrants who can come from any single foreign country, without regard to their skills or the ways they can benefit the United States. Because of this limitation, backlogs in certain categories can mean waits of several years before these skilled immigrants can take up the positions for which a U.S. employer has sponsored them. Some of these individuals already are in the country working for their employers, but when their temporary status expires will have to leave the country, and their jobs.

BACKGROUND:

Per-country limits have not always existed. Until 1986, no per-country limits applied to any country in employment-based categories. Under current law, no more than 9,800 visas can be issued to employment-based immigrants (including their spouses and children) from any single country. The quota bears no relation to demand: countries with large populations or a large number of emigrants have the same quota as countries with small populations or low emigration rates.

The backlogs are a recent phenomenon.

The high-tech boom has led to an increase in the number of employment-based applicants, particularly from India and China, resulting in these backlogs. However, while persons from those countries have to wait in long lines, more than 20,000 visas under the overall employment-based cap went unused last fiscal year, since many countries never come close to using up their annual allotment.

Per-country limits restrict competition.

Because of the long waiting times, employers and the U.S. cannot benefit from the skills these immigrants offer, simply because of the accident of their location of birth. This limitation flies in the face of the U.S. policy to bring the best skills and talents of the world to this country. Further, because many of these potential immigrants decide to take jobs in other countries instead of waiting, the United States is placed at a competitive disadvantage.

Per-country limits have resulted in absurd situations.

Some foreign nationals in the backlog have qualified to immigrate because they have skills and abilities that "will substantially benefit the United States" and are "in the national interest." Even though the INS has certified their potential value to the United States, these individuals still must wait years before they can get their green cards. In addition, foreign nationals waiting their turn include persons that will hold jobs for which the Government has certified there are no U.S. workers available, requiring employers to go without needed employees for long periods of time.

CURRENT STATUS: The Senate-passed version of the H-1B bill originally included a provision that would have allowed employment-based immigrants to obtain their green cards without regard to the per-country limits as long as there were unused visas available in their category. However, the final compromise measure that was signed into law did not include this provision

Can we understand the function of the Nature of Law?

Latinos' worries hurting business. My sales are down 65 to 70 percent from previous year. What I don't understand, didn't the governor realize all these people contribute all this money to the economy?"

The economic slowdown is hurting businesses Valleywide, but those that cater to Latinos are seeing an even steeper drop in sales as immigrants curtail their spending out of fear of layoffs and continuing law- enforcement crackdowns.

Businesses with large Latino clienteles say many of their customers are anxious about losing their jobs in the slowing economy and are worried about a new state law, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

Phoenix used-car dealer Manuel Siguenza is selling two or three cars a week, down from 30 a week a year ago.

Beauty-shop owner Carmen Andrade has laid off nine of her 15 hair dressers because customers have stopped coming in.

And business is so slow at Botas El Jibaro, a Western-clothing store in central Phoenix, the owner is thinking of closing the doors.

"My sales are down 65 to 70 percent," said Rafael Hernandez, who has owned the business for 14 years. "It's terrible. You can stand here all day and you won't see any customers."

The huge drop in sales at Botas El Jibaro and other immigrant-oriented businesses are more severe than business declines in general.

Overall, auto sales have fallen only about 7 percent this year. Clothing sales, meanwhile, are up 1.7 percent overall.

The belt-tightening by Latino immigrants is also contributing to the state's budget shortfall, said state Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. His district covering south and southwest Phoenix is heavily populated by immigrants.

"It's a chain reaction," Miranda said. If immigrants aren't spending, then sales taxes are down, "and that affects revenues," he said.

Economic effects

The foreign-born population of Arizona was 843,296 in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Of the foreign-born, 69 percent were non- citizens, which include immigrants in the country illegally. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, or about 9 percent of the population.

Analysts estimate the state's budget shortfall this year could hit $525 million to $675 million because revenues from sales taxes, individual income taxes and corporate income taxes have failed to keep up with forecasts. Some lawmakers say the shortfall could hit $800 million.

State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, however, believes the sanctions law will help if, come January, large numbers of illegal immigrants decide to leave.

"It's actually going to help us ease the shortfall by reducing the number of illegals in the state, which will reduce the cost of educating their children, providing medical care, and paying for crime-associated costs such as arrests and incarceration," Kavanagh said.

There is no hard data on the effect a decline in spending by immigrants is having on the state budget, but economists believe the decrease is driven more by economic factors than immigration crackdowns.

Immigrants "are responding to the same economic factors that everyone else is responding to," among them slower job growth, a major decline in housing construction and rising gas prices, Valley economist Elliott Pollack said.

Don Wehbey, a senior economist at the state Department of Economic Security, agreed.

"Most of it I can assure you is due to the slowdown in the economy," Wehbey said.

He said immigrants have been hit especially hard by a sharp decline in the state's housing-construction industry, which had been booming for years. The industry, which depends heavily on immigrant labor, both legal and illegal, has cut nearly 13,000 jobs in the past year, according to state figures. More than 2,200 of those job losses came in the first quarter of this fiscal year, which began July 1.

Even so, both Pollack and Wehbey believe the impending sanctions law and other immigration crackdowns are factors, creating economic insecurity among immigrants that is causing them to hold on to their money. That is compounding the state's economic slowdown.

"I know there is an effect," Wehbey said. "I just don't know how much."

What businesses see

Meanwhile, businesses that cater to immigrants continue to struggle.

"Look how empty the store is," said Hernandez, the owner of Botas El Jibaro. He pointed at stacks of cowboy hats, jeans and leather cowboy boots that no one is buying. "I have a lot of merchandise, as you can see, but no customers."

Hernandez said many of his customers already have left Arizona. "A lot of people have moved to Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. A lot of them even went to Mexico."

If the downward trend continues, Hernandez said he will be forced to close.

Next door, at the El y Ella Beauty Salon, business was just as slow.

"This place used to be packed all the time," said Andrade, the owner. "I don't know if it's just this area, but I've talked to a lot of people and they say it's the same everywhere."

Andrade said immigrants are saving their money, either because their hours have been cut back due to the slow- down or because they are afraid they could lose their jobs once the sanctions law goes into effect.

In contrast, Crystal Moorehead, who cuts hair at Marbles Hair Salon on Indian School Road near 36th Street, said she hasn't really noticed a decrease in business. She is still doing about 30 cuts a week. None of her clients are immigrants.

"It's pretty much been steady-as-she-goes," Moorehead said. "If there has been a decrease, it's been small."

Over on East Van Buren Street in central Phoenix, the owner of Manuel Jr. Used Auto Sales said the drop in sales over the past six months is the worst he has seen since he started his business 15 years ago.

What's more, Manuel Siguenza said, many customers who have already bought cars are falling behind on their payments. The number of cars he has had to repossess has skyrocketed. Ninety percent of his customers are Spanish-speaking immigrants.

"Ups and downs are normal in the car business," Siguenza said. "But this doesn't have any up. It's only down."

Siguenza said if he doesn't sell cars, he doesn't pay sales taxes, which means less money for the government. During the first 10 months of last year, he paid $303,519 in sales taxes. He has paid $162,565 through the first 10 months of this year, or $140,954 less than last year.

"When (Governor) Napolitano signed the law, everyone got scared. They panicked, the illegal people. But this is affecting everyone," Siguenza said. "What I don't understand, didn't the governor realize all these people contribute all this money to the economy?"