Opinion and information about Memphis politics, media, culture   May, 2010    contacts, back issues, picture and linking policy bottom of this page    prints and photo files here
thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb thumb
State of Arizona Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070 "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act"
posted Friday May 21, 2010    Comments

AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) S.B. 1070a,
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
S.B. 1070
- 2 -
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
S.B. 1070
- 3 -
1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE
9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE
10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.
11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF
18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT
20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT
21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO
22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION
23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
24 IMMIGRATION.
25 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION
26 FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.
36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.
S.B. 1070
- 4 -
1 Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
2 13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions
3 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the
4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
5 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
6 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this
7 section:
8 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under
9 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen
10 years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous
11 instrument.
12 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened
13 use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of
14 sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis
15 except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence
16 imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant
17 to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
18 D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of
19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
24 E. F. For the purposes of this section:
25 1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or
26 any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to
27 the second degree.
28 2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or
29 facilitation of transportation and includes:
30 (a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel
31 arrangement services or money transmission services.
32 (b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a
33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification,
34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as
35 defined in section 13-2322.
36 3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement
37 of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an
38 entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons
39 transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent
40 resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted
41 to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.
S.B. 1070
- 5 -
1 Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
2 adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:
3 13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for
4 work; unlawful application, solicitation or
5 employment; classification; definitions
6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED
7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP
8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR
9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS
11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT
12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF
13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).
26 13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring
27 or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle
28 impoundment; classification
29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
30 OFFENSE TO:
31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD
36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR
37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE
38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES
39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF
41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
S.B. 1070
- 6 -
1 C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
6 Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;
9 classification; license suspension and revocation;
10 affirmative defense
11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,
12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a
15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the
16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.
17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
19 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
20 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
21 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly
22 employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall
23 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
24 If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint
25 form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the
26 employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall
27 not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not
28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county
29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
30 color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney
31 shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged
32 unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or
33 any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a
34 complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county
35 attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized
36 alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section
37 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to
38 independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to
39 work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work
40 authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant
41 to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a
42 false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3
43 misdemeanor.
S.B. 1070
- 7 -
1 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
2 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
3 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
4 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
5 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
6 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
7 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
9 was originally filed with the attorney general.
10 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
11 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
12 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
13 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
14 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
15 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
16 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
17 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.
18 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
20 practicable date.
21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
23 subsection, the court:
24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all
25 unauthorized aliens.
26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year
27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien
28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file
29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county
30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business
31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
32 (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The
34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all
35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not
36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The
37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to
38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file
39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days
40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this
41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn
42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing
43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by
44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses
45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that
S.B. 1070
- 8 -
1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the
2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license
3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed
4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in
5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision
6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary
7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any
8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to
9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the
10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
11 subsection G of this section.
12 (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses
13 described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer
14 for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to
15 suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it
16 during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the
17 following factors, if relevant:
18 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
19 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
20 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
21 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
22 applicable requirements.
23 (v) The duration of the violation.
24 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
25 in the violation.
26 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
27 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
28 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
29 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
30 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
31 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
32 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
33 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
34 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
35 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
36 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
37 revoke the licenses.
38 3. The violation shall be considered:
39 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
40 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
41 under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
42 business location.
43 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
44 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
S.B. 1070
- 9 -
1 this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
2 business location.
3 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
4 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
5 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
6 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
7 attorney general's website. 8 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
9 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
10 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
11 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
12 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
13 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
14 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
15 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
16 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
17 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an
18 unauthorized alien.
19 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
20 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
21 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
22 knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have
23 complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
24 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
25 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
26 with the requirements.
27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
S.B. 1070
- 10 -
1 Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
2 read:
3 23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens;
4 prohibition; false and frivolous complaints;
5 violation; classification; license suspension and
6 revocation; affirmative defense
7 A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.
8 If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
9 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
10 state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or
11 with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform
12 the labor, the employer violates this subsection.
13 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
14 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
15 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
16 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
17 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly
18 intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county
19 attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of
20 this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a
21 prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may
22 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
23 This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous
24 complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The
25 attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are
26 based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is
27 submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in
28 the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the
29 employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may
30 assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the
31 attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of
32 the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to
33 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official
34 shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an
35 alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration
36 status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal
37 government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who
38 knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is
39 guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
40 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
41 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
42 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
43 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
44 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
45 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
S.B. 1070
- 11 -
1 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
2 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
3 was originally filed with the attorney general.
4 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
5 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
6 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
7 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
8 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
9 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
10 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
11 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.
12 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
13 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
14 practicable date
15 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
16 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
17 subsection, the court shall:
18 (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized
19 aliens.
20 (b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary
21 period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
22 During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in
23 the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new
24 employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the
25 unauthorized alien performed work.
26 (c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described
27 in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a
28 minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the
29 suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to
30 it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider
31 the following factors, if relevant:
32 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
33 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
34 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
35 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
36 applicable requirements.
37 (v) The duration of the violation.
38 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
39 in the violation.
40 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
41 (d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
42 county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated
43 the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer
44 will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this
45 state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all
S.B. 1070
- 12 - 1 licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the
2 employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney
3 within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are
4 suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit
5 shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with
6 the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that
7 are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are
8 held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized
9 alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to
10 the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a
11 license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the
12 licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all
13 licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of
14 business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law,
15 the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's
16 order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney
17 general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
18 subsection G of this section.
19 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
20 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
21 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
22 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
23 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
24 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
25 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
26 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
27 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
28 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
29 revoke the licenses.
30 3. The violation shall be considered:
31 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
32 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
33 under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's
34 business location.
35 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
36 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
37 this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business
38 location.
39 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
40 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
41 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
42 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
43 attorney general's website.
44 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
45 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
S.B. 1070
- 13 -
1 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
2 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
3 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
4 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
5 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
6 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
7 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
8 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an
9 unauthorized alien.
10 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
11 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
12 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
13 intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to
14 have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
15 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
16 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
17 with the requirements.
18 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
19 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
20 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
21 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
22 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
23 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
24 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
25 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
26 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
27 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
28 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
29 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
30 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
31 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
32 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
33 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
34 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
35 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
36 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
37 Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
38 23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify
39 program; economic development incentives; list of
40 registered employers
41 A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,
42 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify
43 program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE
44 EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.
S.B. 1070
- 14 -
1 B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an
2 economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall
3 register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the
4 economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the
5 government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating
6 in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the
7 employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall
8 notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's
9 determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the
10 determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall
11 repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the
12 government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the
13 purposes of this subsection:
14 1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or
15 performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after
16 September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax
17 provision under title 42 or 43.
18 2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision
19 of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.
20 C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the
21 United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this
22 state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list
23 of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the
24 attorney general's website.
25 Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
26 28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle
27 A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization
28 or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is
29 driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:
30 1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any
31 reason.
32 2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or
33 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
34 a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This 35 paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.
36 3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement
37 pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle
38 without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph
39 does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation
40 of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.
41 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS
42 TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO
43 TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A
44 VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN
45 HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
S.B. 1070
- 15 -
1 B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a
2 vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle
3 and if all of the following apply:
4 1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked
5 for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or
6 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
7 a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.
8 2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility
9 requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
10 3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident
11 that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another
12 person.
13 C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace
14 officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal
15 and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer
16 has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of
17 section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.
18 D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the
19 immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this
20 section if all of the following apply:
21 1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently
22 registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the
23 financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
24 2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the
25 arrest.
26 3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse
27 of the driver:
28 (a) Has a valid driver license.
29 (b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor
30 releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of
31 liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.
32 (c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the
33 spouse is under twenty-one years of age.
34 4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive
35 the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of
36 safety.
37 5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this
38 subsection.
39 E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is
40 removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C
41 of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An
42 insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or
43 fees for immobilization or impoundment.
44 F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or
45 impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the
S.B. 1070 - 16 -
1 owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest
2 in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or
3 poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514.
4 Sec. 10. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
5 amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:
6 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement
7 mission fund
8 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS
9 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND
10 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE
11 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL
12 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL
13 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
14 Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction
15 A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or
16 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions
17 or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid
18 provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
19 severable.
20 B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to
21 have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
22 C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
23 laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
24 respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
25 Sec. 12. Short title
26 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
27 Neighborhoods Act".

Opinion by BenQQ

Saving American Jobs Through Controlled Immigration

Neither party is mine not the
Jackass or the elephant
--Public Enemy, By the Time

Sing the song that's in your hearts
Sing of the great Southwest,
Thank God, for Arizona
In splendid sunshine dressed.
For thy beauty and thy grandeur,
For thy regal robes so sheen
We hail thee Arizona
Our Goddess and our queen.
Chorus of the Arizona state song, Arizona, by Margaret Rowe Clifford

Q. What do the BP Gulf Coast Oil Disaster and
our immigration policies have in common?

A. Both were caused by lack of government oversight, have permanent consequences, and have a point of no return that we may have already crossed.

(Posted May 25, 2010) By Ben "BenQQ" Harrison

Intro--Sensitives vs Controllers

There are two classically opposed camps in the immigration issue: the "sensitives" and the "controllers." The first camp is persuaded by soft caring humanism, not unreasonable and not altogether invalid, the second camp goes by the numbers and a literal reading of the law. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, but my answer as a controller tilts heavily toward what must be avoided: economic disaster.

In the coming immigration reform battle, which will be every bit as contentious as his recent health care reform bill, President Obama and his subcohorts have already begun to march out questionable numbers, coded language and emotional appeals to American traditions of concern for others, especially for a neighbor with whom we share a 2,000 mile border and have a long relationship. I also understand we have long had a relationship of using and abusing her laborers whose homeland gave them little job, translated survival, choice but to go north.


When Obama pushes through his immigration "reform" bill, our job pool absorbs another wave of millions of low skilled illegal immigrants as it did in 1986, causing wages to be reduced and competition for jobs to increase. This belief makes me an immigration "controller." I would hope every Ameridan citizen would want to control immigration, if for no other reason, THE economic one because more workers mean lower pay and fewer jobs for Americans. If you've got some time, let me explain...

The Difference Between the Sensitives and the Controllers

The sensitives claim their right comes as a result of working and living on United States soil, giving the heretofore illegal immigrant a kind of "adverse possession," as in real estate law when someone dwells or uses the property openly without contest from the rightful owner. The Mexicans are most representative of this claim because the United States and Mexico share common borders and Mexicans have entered the country without much resistance in large numbers for at least almost 40 years now. Might be less, might be more, but you get the point. The controllers say all countries have a right to determine who is permitted to take up residence within that country in order to control its demographics, population density and economics, or identity. The right to determine national identity by the controllers offends the sensitives. And hence, we have an immigration argument.

We working Americans Should Get Our Radar Up, Again...

...and not let the "experts" in Washingtion determine our economic future. With both houses authoring an immigration bill, solutions have been discussed widely over the past two years. I would be surprised if there are any real solutions in either because the only solution that will save jobs is making life in the US so uncomfortable, the illegal immigrants return to their homeland. But this need not be as harsh as it sounds. This is not forced deportation, that wouldn't work anyway because most Americans would oppose it and it would cost billions even if such a spectacle were feasible.

Needed: a reason to leave

The only solution to illegal immigration is to encourage and support illegal immigrants leaving for their homeland. This can be done with a combination:
  • clamp down on employers,
  • paying people to return to their home country while
  • making life less comfortable to stay. We should implement such a strategy here instead of simply declaring an amnesty.

    Further, the harsness of of these measures could be balanced for certain groups, such as programs for unauthorized college students, who would contribute some time after graduation in public service, those in certain occupations such as health care, people who have been residents here for over, say, 5 years and those who have worked for same employer for a number of years as well. Other elements might include helping the campesinos get some of their land back, then doing a deal to buy their produce in some exchange way. (A discussion of the campesino problem is further down.)

    Further, the harshness of such measures is actually questionable when you consider most Mexicans who are hear short term (less than 5 years), don't intend to stay here permanently. (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006) So this raises what should be considered an embarrasing question among Democrats:

    Why do the Democrats want to effectively amnesty illegal immigrants who don't want to be here permanently anyway? Here's an answer: votes. Millions and millions of votes.

    The Pew study could figure in a more humane way to get people to return home. According to the survey, only 26% of the undocumented living in the United States for 11 to 15 years and 33% of those with over 15 years planned to stay here permanently. Others with less residency time planned to stay shorter periods. So the question is: Why do we even consider effective amnesty for folks who are not even planning to stay permanently? There is no other reason than the Democrats jockying for votes. Never mind this will, I project, create a voting block with millions of "seasonal citizens" commuting back and forth over the southern border. The country doesn't need that. But the Dems don't care. Remember that.

    Pay to go and here's your nest egg to get restarted

    France pays its immigrants, mostly from N. Africa and Asia, equivalent of $8,000, quite a nest egg depending on home destination, to return home. Since then, the Czechs, Japanese, Danes (but they pay "anti-social" foreigners), Irish, Swedes and Spanish have started a similar program. Of course in the United States, this wouldn't work fully unless the border was functioning with real guards at the fence. Otherwise we would have spawned yet another industry to pay the human smugglers for trip after trip with a different ID.

    The mix of reasonable and humane solutions are available with adjustments to the American border and large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants. I believe such answers would stop the steady march of, particularly Mexican, immigrants washing away American jobs.

    The Arizona Law

    But since neither party as far as I can tell is interested in saving American jobs nor true immigration reform, we are forced to return to reality. The Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, posted in full at left, has raised the issue front and center while Obama's team excoriated it without a reading. Hysterical opposition to the law by Mexican groups and illegals crying wolf, in this case "Nazis", illustrated the extent how many had settled in Arizona. It is hard to swallow all those people we saw on television were tax paying citizens.

    Obama is maneuvering to create what can only amount to an amnesty to allow a massive population of illegal Mexican immigrants to be injected into the American labor pool already fighting for jobs like fish flopping in the Gulf of Mexico oil.

    Eyes Wide Shut--Hemorrhage in the Gulf and on the Border

    And speaking of that oil "leak," am I the only one that sees it as a symbolic failure of government to provide protection against uncontrolled elements? The parallels are astounding: an academic and passive administration fails to stop the environmental homicide of an entire coast as well as plug an enormous human hemorrhage on the border while both are happening before our eyes.

    No other issue exposes the political venality of politicians (and business) at the expense of the country than our current immigration policy. And those politicans and their parties that have let it happen, from Obama to McCain, who seems to have just "gotten it," will be held responsible by voters not made immobile with cynicism from the self serving lethargy and duplicity of their own government.

    Beyond Politics

    And like the BP oil rupture, the issue goes beyond heretofore traditional identity politics. For example, its going to be harder to get Black voters behind the Congressional Black Caucus who've fallen in lockstep behind whatever Obama, or the Dems, proposes as his "comprehensive" solution. Blacks already have unemployment as high as 16%, compared to whites at about 10%. Are the Democrats so confident that a backlash won't occur when Blacks figure out they are being bamboozled to sacrifice wages and jobs so the fat cats of their current party can get "paid off" in votes? Riiiiiight.

    Some Blacks still may be vulnerable to racial appeals by hacks of another century, as here (scroll down to the Herenton story) about former Memphis mayor and current Democratic primary candidate for the US Senate. Further, such a wholesale sea change in the labor pool will increase racial strife that already marginally exists between Blacks and Hispanics. Such strife is now showing up in gang violence in Memphis and cities across the nation. (All you have to do is live in Los Angeles and you'll see with what impunity the gang's exert terrible violence over entire communities.)

    State's Rights--Emerging Again With Illegal Immigration

    Anyway, the Arizona law seems to go no further than support existing federal immigration law, according to legal observors. But what it really does is box the federal government into a corner to either 1) protect or 2) not protect its borders and American citizens living within them.

    The tactic of a state making new law to show how current law is ignored at the expense of legal citizens, may be pathfinding to other state lawmakers. For example, Kansas is already considering a similar law and generating typical racial allegations from the state's Democrats. Kansascity.com reports May 1 Kenny Johnston, executive director of the Kansas Democratic Party, said: “If elected, Secretary of State Kobach [who said he would submit an Arizona style law to the legislature] would support racial profiling and prejudice against legal documented immigrants and Hispanic-American citizens in Kansas.”

    Regardless the race-baiting, these state inititatives say to the feds: cooperate with the support of our enforcement of your law or prove your unwillingness to preserve the borders, and very heartland of our country. Otherwise, you, our very government sworn to enforce the law, will be proved to be the agent of its undoing.

    Not even Obama's code for "amnesty," that is, "comprehensive immigration reform" in which millions of undocumented workers are dumped into the labor pool has nowhere near the support of a majority of Americans. But that didn't stop "comprehensive health care reform" with a majority Democrat congress. The Democrats' willingness to infuse millions of new low paid workers and their dependents into the American economy without understanding the consequences is simply incomprehensible.

    A Little History

    Now, let's try to understand what led up to this latest immigration battle. The Border Patrol coined the term "illegal alien" in 1924 to describe undocumented immigrants who were trying to escape the bloody Mexican Civil War and to find jobs.

    Throughout the 19th century the United States treated Mexico every bit as shabbily as she treated her Indians, not to mention most of South America, such as when we simply grabbed Panama from Columbia on pretext of supporting a revolution. We really only wanted to finish the canal after malaria doomed the French effort. But in the 1900's the U.S. began to clean up its act, except for a few old recidivist habits, like the times we invaded Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Domincan Republic, Honduras and even Mexico (occupying Veracruz in 1914). Though we charged in mostly for commercial reasons, we had a passable relationship with Mexico. Termed the "Banana Wars," U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler was perhaps the most active in those and even other theatres. He wrote his memoirs in a book entitled, War Is a Racket, in which this sardonic passage appears:

    "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

    If you believe in "historic memory" between peoples, as I do, its easy to see where the Mexicans are coming from, that is, ideologically. So Mexico experienced and saw the wars and incursions by her northern neighbor waving and occasionally using, the "Big Stick" throuhout the Southern Hemisphere. And in that context the immigrants' story is taken:

    Mexicans Welcome!

    The see-saw revolving door of Mexican immigratrion is like a Cheech and Chong movie where they were picked up in South Central LA and couldn't prove their citizenship and bussed over the border. Really funny satire if it weren't for countless Mexican heartbreak.

    The "first" (though later formalized in WWll) bracero program where Mexicans had legitimate work contracts with growers was in the early 20's. By then, their northern neighbor had turned itself into a job machine. But the machine came to painful grinding stop in 1929 with the Great Depression.

    In fact, every time our economy boomed, we were great "friends," despite not infrequent outbreaks in some government, media and religious circles of theorizing, on some pretext of science, the inferiority of people of color. These brandings were usually just used as excuse for round-up and deportation schemes.

    Mass deportations were usually defeated by busineses that either couldn't survive without the workers, as in agribusiness, and/or those concerns that just wanted cheap labor. That is, defeated, all except once.

    Mexicans (and Americans if you look Mexican) Not Welcome!

    Then came the great depression and we really got serious about protecting American jobs with the Mexican Repatriation Act. Coming between the Trail of Tears where Indians east of the Mississippi were force marched to Oklahoma and the domestic internment camps in WWll, the U.S. deported or "voluntarily" returned Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent to Mexico throughout the thirties.

    Estimates range from 500,000 to 1,000,000 persons, whether infirm, mentally ill, crippled or in hospitals, were expelled to Mexico. Some accounts relate people dying on trains, family members disappearing never to be heard from again, trains dumping people in desert station stops.

    California officially apologized in 2005 but the federal government yet has not, nor has there ever been, any effort at reparation. By the way, the Japanese received reparations for this modern internment but not the Mexican-Italian-German Americans, some of whom suffered either forced repatriation or domestic internment.

    Mexicans Welcome!

    When WWll broke, men and women went to military service and were hired on at factories. In addition to the growers, the United States needed farm and construction workers. For example, California alone needed 30,000 men in 1942. The orange and lemon growers wanted 50,000 Mexicans delivered at the rate of 10,000 a month and the Southern Pacific Railroad petitioned for 5,000. Under growing pressure from big farmers, the United States and Mexico came up with the Bracero Program that even had a kind of automatic savings deposit of 10% in every check, which, of course, none of the Mexican workers ever saw.

    When Border Patrol Agents Pulled Mexicans INTO the US

    This was the "second" Bracero program that ran from 1942 to 1964, interrupted in 1954 over a wage disagreement between the US and Mexico. Unable to agree, the Mexican government declared it would no longer send workers to the border, at which point the US placed ads in Mexican newspapers advertising that if workers stepped across the border into the U.S. they would be entered into the labor program. Hundreds of Mexicans gathered the immigration post at Calexico. There unfolded the most unlikely scene in all of Mexican American relations: Mexican police were pulling Mexicans back into Mexico and Border Patrol agents were pulling them into the US.

    Mexicans Not Welcome!

    But while all this was going on, the American public became increasingly intolerant of illegals, who often worked side by side with documented workers in the Bracero program. So as one of his first offical acts in office, President Eisenhower, after driving the Germans out of Europe with the greatest military force in human history, decided he would do the same to more than 1,000,000 Mexicans working illegally in the U.S. This would be the second forced repatriation program officially called "Operation Wetback." Thankfully, this one didn't last but for a few months when it was shown human rights really being violated just like the first.

    For years this was the revolving door the U.S. practiced with Mexican workers. But it reflects two forces working at once: the real need to have foreign workers for specific categories of labor and the desire of US citizens to preserve jobs as much as possible for legal residents.

    Mexicans Welcome Again!

    Soon after the end of the Bracero era, along came the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, reversing the bias of admitting Europeans over immigrants of color. By 1968, a time when politicans, perhaps even more than now, were sensitive to being called "racist," the annual legal immigration limit from the Western Hemisphere was 120,000. However, family reunification visas were unlimited. So, legal immigrants were soon joined by relatives nomatter how distantly related. The message: go north, get free schooling, healthcare and a raft of social benefits depending on your destination state. But it is not fair to reduce the Mexican immigration phenom as simply as that.

    Along Comes NAFTA

    Mexican migration has been so massive that some areas are now bereft of males between 14-60. The key factor, according to Catholic writer Dawn McCarty, is the legacy of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Reports she, NAFTA helped President Salinas undo the Mexican Constitution of 1917 that put property into communal ownership. People had worked the land as they had for generations, but in 1992 Salinas "managed to change" the constitution, allowing some members of the collective to sell to their land to agribusiness. Very bad move, she says in Catholic Worker, an activist religious publication. This privatization broke up lands in 29,000 communities among three million producers. At the time it encompassed 75% of all agricultural production. (her source: Davis, Stecklov & Winters 2002).

    She writes: "As ejidos were broken up and title given to the individual campesinos, these poorly educated farm laborers tried to make a living on their small plots of land, just as their ancestors had done for centuries. But now that they owned the land individually, they found that the rules of the game had been changed. The government subsidies that had allowed ejidos to survive were now disallowed by NAFTA. The tariffs that protected them from the much more “efficient” agribusiness of the U.S. were gone. But somehow U.S. agribusiness still got their government subsidies, and that fact, together with the economies of scale available to giant corporations, meant that it was cheaper for a campesino to buy American corn shipped across the border than to grow it himself on his own plot of land. There was no way the individual farmer in Mexico, left by himself to the mercies of the “free market,” could compete with the Colossus of the North. Unable to make a living on the land, no matter how hard they worked, the campesinos had to sell their patrimony, and, with no bargaining power, they sold it for a pittance. The predictable result was that much of the land that supported the rural Mexican economy now belongs to the same major corporations, and their affiliates, that own the land in the U.S."

    The result of all the international deals involving corporations, shippers and agribusiness conglomerates? Making $8 a day at very long hours in stoop labor, with little if any worker protection depending on location, working endless acres of crops like cauliflower and asparagus. If you get hurt or sick, you're out and that's too bad. So the decision of most men who can work is to go north, leaving their families behind and send "remittances" back. Eventually, family bonds, along with the society of the ejidos break down. Remittances stop, women are left to care for their kids in often starvation circumstance. They lose track of husbands and family members. Women are left to make do or head north if they are able, as well.

    Writes McCarty bitterly, "This is the end of the road, the losers in the zero-sum game of globalization. In this isolated community, with no cell phone reception, no sewer or running water, we find the people upon whose backs the rich get richer."

    So the least equipped to live in a technical, modern society migrate for what for them comparatively is a "worker's paradise." Honestly, would you think twice?

    Once here, they fuel the most common anti-immigrant theme over which the sensitives cringe when you bring up: they take away jobs from Americans and those legally eligible to work. Both sides argue the numbers, but you can see the numbers in restaurants and lawn services.

    Now, Competing Numbers

    Anti-illegal immigrant organizations such as FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), say illegal immigrant workers drive down wages in low skilled American jobs by as much as half. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced annually, they contend. Countervailing opinion says such workers take only jobs that Americans won't. But a growing number of economists now challenge that apology.

    One economist, George Borjas, who has written extensively about immigration and wages, said in a 2006 Bloomberg.com article, "the idea that somehow you have a need for people to do jobs that Americans won't do is just insane.''

    But a Web site called the Welcoming Tennessee Initiative, (WTI) run by a group called the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, fights what they view as "anti-immigrant" rhetoric and hold meetings across the state to put a human face behind the immigration issue.

    To that end, they hold meetings around the state, involve themselves in issues and introduce immigrants to the community. For example, they take credit in part to defeating Nashville's "English only" ordinance when, they say on their site, "mainstream" organizations "out-toughed" each other over the issue until the group confronted the anti-immigrant sentiment behind the initiative headon. Ultimately they partly take credit for defeating the initiative that was originally supported by the Nashville Chamber of Commerce and hotel and restaurant associations, representing traditional high employment categories of illegal immigrants.

    The nonprofit even created a PR campaign that featured immigrant families in slick billboards ads. Nowhere in the heart tugging pitches is the term "undocumented worker" found, which gives "illegal" immigrants the same broad category as "legal" immigrants. WTI does slip in the term "undocumented workers" deeper in their Web site after getting us to emotionally agree we should be supportive and understanding of "immigrants" and then reminds us we were "all" once were immigrants. The WTI site reports a national need for 485,000 "new, low skilled immigrant workers each year." This argument pales in the light, with numbers from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, of 318,000 unemployed in April in Tennessee alone. And who is to decide a job category belongs to an "immigrant worker?"

    "American Teens! Share America's entry level jobs with illegal immigrants! Do your part!"

    We've heard it in most mainstream media stories: Americans won't take the jobs immigrants do. Its just easier for reporters to say because it goes light on the illegals, which certainly is not a bad thing for the media advertisers who may use low cost immigrant labor. But, like everything, its only partly true. However, thanks to greedy employers, illegal workers have been eroding the job base of even desirable jobs many Americans would otherwise take, such as in maintenance, construction, contract labor. And these are not "unskilled" laborers. But there is evidence even "low skilled" legal workers would take that category of job.

    The Center for Immigration Studies, which backs immigration controls, says 2003-2004 Census data show Americans would take such jobs. Noting that indigenous workers account for 62 percent of all maids and housekeepers and 60 percent of dry-wall installers, research director Steven Camarota said, "There's a high degree of native interest in being a maid or housekeeper. If the wages were better, you certainly could attract more."

    Writing for the same organization, Camarota and Karen Jensenius, authored a study about the impact of illegal immigration on teen employment in May, 2010: "In 1994, nearly two-thirds of U.S.-born teenagers were in the summer labor force; by 2007 it was less than half. At the same time, the overall number of immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job doubled. The evidence indicates that immigration accounts for a significant share of the decline in teen labor force participation. The decline in teen work is worrisome because research shows that those who do not hold jobs as teenagers often fail to develop the work habits necessary to function in the labor market, creating significant negative consequences for them later in life." The full study can be read here.

    Apologists say illegal immigrants do in fact pay their way in taxes. A 2006 Congressional Budget Office studying proposed immigration bills says they do, but it says further, "Over the long haul, the bill would be a virtual fiscal wash, costing after 20 years a few billion dollars a year more in enforcement and government assistance than the Treasury would get back in tax revenues from the foreign-born workers."

    The CBO study indicates, even if we had no qualms about sacrificing low skilled and startup jobs to illegal workers, it would still cost tax payers over time. (Or maybe Democrats simply feel they don't have to factor that loss in considering any successfully passed immigration bill will bring them votes.) Excuse me, but I like to see local neighborhood kids getting their first checks working at a hamburger joint, throwing papers, cutting lawns, but perhaps the Democrats would rather issue a report entitled: "Teens! Share America's Entry Level Jobs! Do Your Part!" Perhaps the Dems could issue a DVD with Sen Ted Kennedy singing in Spanish here or here during an Obama campaign apparently in Laredo, TX. I laughed with the late Senator, enjoyed his sense of humor, liked the people in the shot, but had to stick with the economics of the big picture...

    Not only does the influx of cheap labor drive down earnings from whole classes of independent contractors such as painters, carpenters and home service workers but dollars are sent away never to be circulated in the US economy. In fact, Mexican documented and undocumented workers sent $21 billion back to family last year, according to the Inter-American Development Bank.

    Legal and illegal numbers

    According to the US Census, from 1990 to 1998 The INS processed 5,435,815 legals and, from Mexico alone, 4,914,500 from 1981-1991. And, then there's the estimated 12 million illegals.



    It is not unreasonable to think we may now be living on the edge of a great American lifestyle erosion where English is used less (thus inhibiting commerce and balkanizing communities) while values of generations are displaced by foreign cultures (such as the chaotic results of open immigration policies in Western Europe.)

    Hear "Comprehensive?" Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

    For years, the federal government under both parties stuck their heads in, this case the dessert, sand and being political prostitutes all, coveted the future huge Hispanic voting block. The party that gets the credit for keeping the borders porous and legalizing large blocks of illegal immigrants under "comprehensive immigration reform" will in effect be given a Hispanic voter license to stay in power (a good argument for term limits.) Forget about its impact on legal citizen or worker salaries, jobs, taxes, schools, hospitals, language and culture itself.

    We Don't Need Moral Guidance from Harry Reid

    Its clear now the immigration act of 1965 was a big mistake, created by politicians who saw themselves monumentalized in history for doing great historic liberal good. The problem is every time liberals get their paws wet with sanctimony, everybody else pays for the unintended, or simply unthought of and then ignored, consequences.

    Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last year allowing immigrants to flood into the states was the "moral" thing to do and an immigration reform bill would be passed in this 111th Congress. But Reid won't feel the social and economic consequences of the personal moralism he imposes on everybody else (nor will the mass media pundits who agree with him.) For sure, an illegal immigrant is not going to take his Senate seat, but hopefully someone else will unless Nevada voters keep sending him back for eternity.

    And high minded moralism was behind the thinking of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, re the 1965 act, a smug, self-congratulatory "immigration reform" bill that ignored consequences to American workers. Kennedy couldn't have been more wrong on all counts when he proclaimed: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

    But let's look at our immigration policy in a broader world context. Take, for example, the Middle East...

    Bad Luggage

    We all acknowledge immigrants bring with them supplemental elements of their culture that mixes agreeably with our own-- art, music, dance, literature, cuisine. But other times poorly screened immigrants bring other kinds of baggage that should not be allowed in the mix, like repressive politics, misogyny, polygamy and culturally accepted sexual inclinations toward children.

    Honor Killings in America

    Unless accepting of Western values, Islamic immigrants can bring quaint old traditions from their homeland, like honor killing and the intolerance of free speech and religion.

    In Atlanta, a Jordanian father murdered his 25 year old daughter for dating whom she chose.

    In Upstate New York a Pakistani immigrant stabbed his sister 19 times because she violated Muslim edicts against extramarital affairs and divorce.

    In Texas an Egyptian immigrant shot both his 16 and 17 year old daughters in the back of his taxi because they had boyfriends. According to the Dallas Morning News, he was given to "gun-waving rants about how Western culture was corrupting the chastity of his daughters." (And, yet, not a whisper of protest from the feminist organizations.)

    And let's not forget the radical Islamic shooters at military bases, riots that killed scores in Europe because someone published cartoon drawings of Allah. This was last year, not the seventh century. Bureaucratic, fill-in-the-form legal immigration calcifies into policies with a casual lack of concern about the psyche and values of people who are not only melding into American society, but frequently into balkanized communities feeding those very same social and religious maladies as their homeland. Issue enough visas and eventually you'll have these politically and socially estranged communities in open conflict with the host society. France learned too late.

    Take me back to old Axtlan

    That's just the religious fringe we're letting in. What about bizarre nationalist groups who wage a long term "demographic tactic" (my quotes) on territory they thnk is now theirs?

    The Mexican government, politicians and activists north and south of the border has long encouraged illegal immigration for reasons as varied as relieving pressure cooker discontent in Mexico to nativist take-back-our-land nationalism. Its just the immigration ethos that runs like the Rio Grande between the two countries, one temptingly rich, one that used to be desperately poor. (Speaking of the Rio Grande River, an American TV actor once hired a Mexican circus, complete with elephants, clowns, trapeze artist and marching musicians to parade across into the U.S. No Border Patrol showed up.)

    Mexican politicians even urge their brethren up north to "vote Democratic" while they campaign to the millions of illegals in US border states.

    Nativist Web sites like the Hugo Chavez idolizing, www.aztlan.net declare alliance with radical Islamicists and militants (illustrating there is at least a connection between Mexican radicals with declared enemies or others who are actively engaged against the US-- another reason the border should have been well secured long ago). They nurture the politico-spiritual fantasy of reclaiming the American Southwest.

    Axtlan.net articles, written in a hot war propaganda style, are, of course, highly anti-semitic, anti-US, passionate and full of accounts of Mexican activists. For example, consider the story of Emma Tenayuca, admittedly my favorite, "La Passionaria de Texas," who joined, like earnest disillusioned youth the world over, the Communist Party after, in her case, witnessing the The Mexican Repatriation and devastation of The Great Depression.

    She led the struggle of women pecan workers in Houston who worked in grueling conditions for 5 cents a day until the company dropped it to 3. This is the history Mexicans know and so do their politicians. They harken unto it like liberals in America still beat the racisl discrimination drum (but try to bring up age discrimination and their eyes glaze over.)

    Commic Books to Professors

    Whether its comic books handed out by the Mexican government that give advice on how to cross the border illegally or firebrand ideologues like University of California Riverside ethnic studies professor Dr. Armando Navarro, who I think of as the wannabe "maximum ruler" of the mythical Axtlan of the American Southwest, the United States, and border states especially, are under a protracted demographic assault that could determine elections in this century. (And this is exactly the type of thing Sen. Kennedy promised would not happen.)

    But now the Arizona law has fired the first real volley to protect its and our borders, language and culture if the federal government is not going to. It raises the ante on "comprehensive immigration reform," the second hot-button issue of the Obama administration.

    Tennessee Should Craft an Arizona Style Law?

    It has, kind of--729 signed into law in 2007 and its major effort at contolling illegal immigration is punishing employers. But enforcement is lax and many businesses either don't know or disregard the law. Regardless, a porous border means criminal visitors throughout the US--and the President knows it. A 2010 budget request from the US Border Patrol reads: "...the Southwest Border of the United States is the principal arrival zone for most illicit drugs smuggled into the United States, as well as the predominant staging area for the subsequent distribution of drugs throughout the country. Most of the cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine available in the United States is smuggled across the Southwest Border."

    John D. Negroponte, ambassador to Mexico from 1989 to 1993, told a Senate subcommittee May 27 this year, it will take 10 years to fix the Mexican violence that has killed about 23,000 people and in turn securing the border will take about that long, as well. "This is a project that will take a decade," Negroponte said. (El Paso Times Times) Does Tennessee Need an Arizona Style Immigration Law? Does the Arizona law have significance in Tennessee? It does. Simply because Tennessee is not a border state, does it mean such an immigration bill, with its expanded enforcement provisions, should not be put on the table? It does not. Already Memphis is on a major artery of illegal migrants, seeking work or ferreting drugs northward up the I-40 corridor.

    Just take a drive toward Jackson and you'll see unmarked Black SUVs parked in the meridian in a tax draining drug war game of cat and mouse. Regardless the drug war, if the Arizona law is upheld, as observors think it will be, and then enforced, illegal immigrants will migrate to other states. The newest state to consider the Arizona style law is Florida.

    Immigration Moratorium

    If anything, Obama, who up till now has shown a remarkable penchant for doing the wrongest thing at the worst time, should put an immediate five year moratorium on most immigration except for preapproved workers and students. A key part of this review would be how immigration affects jobs for legal workers and how to filter out people unwilling to have American values.

    And, oh, about that drug war...

    Tangential to the illegal flow of humans across the border is the flow of marijuana. With human smugglers, this is the second most illegally practiced enterprise at the border. Mexico President Felipe de Jesús Calderón blames the drug consumers North of the border but regardless that Mexico is not strong and willful enough to stop the brutality that now spills over into southwest neighborhoods. Gangs of illegal immigrants are dispatching their one way cash crop throughout America and controlling the market with brutality and bloodshed.

    Eliminate that dirty little war, and the drug war everywhere, by allowing states to decriminalize, (meaning regulate like alcohol and cigarettes), the use and cultivation of marijuana. The 100 year old drug war has proved to be unwinnable after countless lives and billions of dollars. Such a move would pull the profit from gangs on both sides of the border, save the US taxpayer billions while generating taxable revenues.

    Seeking

    ...an humane immigration solution without amnesty

    No "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" will work unless we eliminate the opportunities for the undocumented to find work in the US. In fact, that is the "reform." If politicians forsook their lust for votes--the true "transparency" of Obama's administration--they alone could bromg a halt to this flood of humanity streaming over our border. And in doing so, Americans, and those legally qualified to work in the US, would be protected from illegal labor induced wage drops and job losses.

    Update--Illegal numbers drop, Obama fakes opposition while Dems position for votes in the face of bankrupting the country and costing millions of jobs

    The latest figures from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) shows illegal immigration is going down, which only proves that illegal immigrants are watching the mood of the country and perhaps thinking the party's over. More importantly, it demonstrates if there are reduced jobs, a condition currently dictated by the economy (and not enforcement), the flow across the border will be affected. In the meantime, Obama, feeling real political pressure finally sends a show contingent the National Guard to Arizona.

    CIS figures indicate a population of 11.5 million illegals as of this month, an estimated drop of 500,000, since last year. But take no comfort. But there is no reliable count of the total population. If there is no political willingness to sanction employers and benefits illegals to leave, states will break, cities will fail, and we will separate as a society. And that's only dealing with illegal immigrants. We should have a emergency five year moratorium on all immigration with some exceptions and do a complete review of policies and administration of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

    Just as it has been said the Constitution is not a national suicide pact, neither can it be said of our immigration policies.
    Respond
    Our Homeland Security Secretary

    DHS Photo, May 25, 2010 - Secretary Napolitano presides as Admiral Robert J. Papp Jr., relieves Admiral Thad W. Allen as Coast Guard Commandant during the Change of Command Ceremony at Ft. McNair. Papp is the 24th Commandant of the Coast Guard.