Thursday, June 24, 2010

MEXICAN SUPREMACY - No Legal Need Apply Here!





UC business prof Tyson gives grim jobs outlook
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, June 24, 2010

(06-24) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- UC Berkeley business school professor Laura Tyson, a top economic official in the Clinton administration who is on the short list to become President Obama's budget czar, outlined a grim jobs outlook Wednesday that showed high unemployment continuing through next year.

Deep cutbacks by state governments such as California have all but obliterated the effect of the nearly $800 billion federal stimulus enacted last year, she said at a luncheon sponsored by the center-left New America Foundation.

Tyson said the current "jobs gap" between the number of jobs the economy is producing and full employment is about 11 million. Even if job growth surged to 350,000 a month, it would take four years to get the unemployment rate to where it was before the recession began in December 2007, she said.

If job growth is at a more modest 200,000 a month, it would take 11 years.

"When you look at the forecasts, you've got to go to 2015 before unemployment falls back to the 5 percent to 6 percent range" where it was before the recession began, Tyson said. The slowdown in Europe, a key destination for U.S. exports, makes things worse, she added.

Administration officials have indicated that Tyson is under close consideration to replace Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orsag, who announced his departure Monday.

Tyson acknowledged Wednesday that public alarm about growing U.S. debt is well-founded but nonetheless advocates a long-term commitment to infrastructure spending - including education and scientific research in addition to transportation - as a way to produce jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.

She said there is agreement in both parties and among business and labor that the nation's worn-out infrastructure must be rebuilt, especially in light of China's modernization.

But the word "stimulus" has become political poison on Capitol Hill, even among Democrats, and fear of deficits now trumps unemployment. That leaves the administration holding few policy levers that could goose job growth.

Tyson, who will turn 63 on Monday, serves on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker. She was an architect of former President Bill Clinton's economic policy during the 1990s when the economy boomed and the federal budget went into surplus, holds sterling deficit credentials but has been a longtime advocate of stimulus spending.



Dear Friend,

It's crucial that you act now and help FAIR fight back against Mexico's legal assault on Arizonans and their new immigration law, SB1070.

Your critical donation of $25, $50, $100 or whatever you can give right away is absolutely vital to our efforts to fend off this foreign intrusion that will place American lives and jobs in danger.

Here's why this is so urgent:

As you may have heard, the Mexican government two days ago filed a "friend of the court" brief in U.S. District Court demanding the federal judge declare SB 1070 unconstitutional. By doing so, the Mexican government has sided with the ACLU, MALDEF, and other radical interests who've filed a lawsuit designed to strike down SB 1070 and leave the people of Arizona helpless to protect themselves and their loved ones.

As you know, FAIR's legal affiliate, the Immigration Law Reform Institute, helped write SB1070. And my staff at FAIR has burned the midnight oil to defend SB1070.

And let me tell you, my jaw dropped as I read the Mexican legal brief:

The Mexican government brazenly argues that the court should strike down SB1070 because it will "derail efforts towards comprehensive immigration reform."
You and I both know "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing but a buzz phrase for amnesty for illegal aliens used by open borders interests like the ACLU, MALDEF, La Raza and their allies on Capitol Hill and in the media.

The Mexican government demands that the court declare SB1070 unconstitutional. . . and has the gall to quote James Madison to back their claim!
Somehow, the Mexican government thinks quoting James Madison from the Federalist Papers gives the Mexican government the right to dictate U.S. immigration policy. (They quote Madison from No. 42 -- "If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations." )

The Mexican government argues the court should strike down SB 1070 because it harms relations between the U.S. and Mexico.
"As a foreign nation," Mexico argues, "[we have] a compelling interest in maintaining its bilateral relations based on respect for the constitutional law of the United States, and in the invalidation of SB 1070," (emphasis added). Arizona's "unilateral" action, the Mexican Government says, "burdens Mexico enormously."

The Mexican government argues that as a sovereign, "Mexico needs to protect its people" and that "SB 1070 endangers this goal."
Apparently, Mexico doesn't care whether the State of Arizona needs to protect its people or whether illegal immigration and violent drug cartels spilling over the border "endanger" this goal.

But there's more.

Outrageously, the Mexican legal brief goes on to claim that SB1070 will undermine the war on drugs, when it will actually make the drug trade more difficult. . . that it will lead to racial profiling, when the law specifically forbids racial profiling. . . and it even claims that SB1070 will hurt trade, using the veiled threat of lost business income to pressure the court to derail SB1070.

You and I simply cannot let this stand.

You see, Arizona is the flashpoint for making common-sense immigration reform a reality. SB1070 will work if it's given a fighting chance.

That's why the Mexican government, the ACLU, MALDEF, the SEIU, and other radical, anti-border security groups are determined to wipe SB1070 from the books.

And these groups don't know or don't care that SB1070 is urgently needed to save American lives and American jobs:

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has declared that Mexican drug cartels now control parts of Arizona, including the "smuggling corridor" that stretches from Mexico's border to metro Phoenix.
Mexican drug cartels have threatened to use snipers to murder police in Nogales, AZ if they interfere with the drug trade.
Local rancher Robert Krenz was brutally murdered a short time ago. Law enforcement officers tracked the killer's footprints back to the Mexican border.
Phoenix is now the number one city for kidnapping in the U.S -- and number two in the world.
Drug cartel violence is growing much worse in northern Mexico and spilling over the border.
My staff and I are hard at work right now to do two crucial things:

Defend the people of Arizona and SB1070.
Extend Arizona-type, common sense immigration reform to cities and states across the country.
But we simply can't do it without you.

It takes money for my media team to get on TV and radio across the country to cut through the clutter and refute the lies and half-truths of the special interests who want to sink SB1070. It takes money for my government relations team to keep on top of legislation and warn you about what's coming down the pike. It takes money for my field staff to educate and mobilize grassroots volunteers from coast to coast to fight for Arizona-type reform, along with E-verify and other commonsense immigration measures.

If you've never given to FAIR before, now's the time.

If you've given before, please consider giving again at this crucial moment to help our critical campaigns to defend SB1070 in Arizona and bring Arizona-type laws to even more states.

Please donate a vital $25, $50, $100 or more now.

The clock is ticking.

Thank you so much!


Dan Stein, President

P.S. I can't emphasize how important it is for you and me to come to the aid of the besieged people of Arizona now. The Obama Administration will soon file a lawsuit against Arizona in order to kill SB1070. The ACLU, MALDEF and other radical groups have filed suit. And now the government of Mexico has sided with the ACLU and MALDEF in their bid to shut down immigration enforcement by fighting it in court. Please don't delay - help FAIR fight back with your critical donation today.

. . . . . . . . . .

RAND PAUL - 14TH AMENDMENT - Should We Stop Paying To Expand Mexico's Occupation?


Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul says he would support amending the United States Constitution to end the country's policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
"Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government," Paul said in an interview earlier this week with Right Wing News. "I think we need to fight that out in the courts. If we lose, then I think we should amend the Constitution because I don't think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens. It was meant to apply to the children of slaves."
Paul argued his position by asserting the immigration issue should be dealt with on the state level despite the 14th amendment of the Constitution stating that all persons born in the country "are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Last month, the Senate hopeful made similar comments related to his support for denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
"We shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship," Paul said in an interview with a Russian television station. "We're the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop."
Paul suggests what steps he thinks lawmakers should take to address illegal immigration on his campaign website:
I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation's security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border.

"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to
non-citizens -- was the last gasp of white America in California."
---Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party
Anchor Baby Power
La Voz de Aztlan has produced a video in honor of the millions of babies that have been born as US citizens to Mexican undocumented parents. These babies are destined to transform America. The nativist CNN reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are over 200,000 "Anchor Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000. La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is approximately 500,000 "Anchor Babies" born every year.
The video below depicts the many faces of the "Anchor Baby Generation". The video includes a fascinating segment showing a group of elementary school children in Santa Ana, California confronting the Minutemen vigilantes. The video ends with a now famous statement by Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez of the University of Texas at Austin.

Some Interesting Quotes from Hispanic "Leaders" :

"Go back to Boston!
Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims!
Get out!
We are the future.
You are old and tired.
Go on.
We have beaten you.
Leave like beaten rats.
You old white people.
It is your duty to die . .
Through love of having children, we are going to take over."
---Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets

"They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions
and other institutions.
They're right.
We will take them over . .
We are here to stay."
---Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council.

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction
of Mexico without firing a single shot."
---Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico

"We have an aging white America.
They are not making babies.
They are dying.
The explosion is in our population and
I love it.
They are shitting in their pants with fear.
I love it."
---Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas

LA RAZA AGENDA: 3 Examples
Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over. . We are here to stay."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."

Hispandering Barack Obama & His HAREM of BANKSTERS - Who Does Obama Serve?

Dylan Ratigan

The dire straits of the middle class of America has made it near impossible for our politicians to keep up the pretense that our current government truly works for the "people." Between the multiple overt and secretive bailouts, the massive bonuses and the circular use of our tax money to lobby for these continued handouts, you can no longer hide from the evidence.

When Senator Durbin said "The banks... frankly own this place," you realize it was not in jest.

Couple this with recent protections handed by the Supreme Court to corporations to directly influence elections and it can make things seem hopeless for those not on Wall Street or their chosen politicians. Favored CEOs and now even foreign countries get all the printed money they need, leaving us paying both our bills and theirs.

And now nearly a quarter of all Americans are currently underwater in their mortgage because of that steadfast honor.

If you are one of them, chances are you didn't do anything wrong. Almost all of you were not subprime borrowers or speculators, but merely people buying a house that they thought they could afford at the time. You were just unlucky in that you bought a house during a time when an outdated Wall Street and their complicit politicians decided to use housing to regain the income they lost due to the Schwabs and Etrades of the internet age.

You didn't cause this mess. They did.

Now you are struggling to make the same payments on this mortgage on your now overpriced home even in light of a crashing economy and massive deflation, all while the government does everything in its power to help Wall St. keep the bonuses coming.
Well, it is becoming time to take matters into your own hands... I suggest that you call your lender and tell them if they don't lower you mortgage by at least 20%, you are walking away. And if they don't agree, you need to consider walking away.

It probably doesn't feel right to you.

That is because you probably are a good person. But your mortgage is a business deal, and it is not immoral to walk away from a business deal unless you went in to the deal with the intention of defaulting.

But somehow, even though the corporations are pumped to exercise their new rights, former bankers like Henry Paulson, current ones like Jamie Dimon and -- get this -- now even Fannie Mae execs want to keep you from exercising your rights.

But before you let them (or anyone commenting below) force you into paying that $500k mortgage on a $300k house, ask them if they'll push Jerry Speyer into "honoring his obligation" by breaking into his $2 billion personal piggy-bank to keep paying for Stuyvesant Town?
Or how about asking Hank and Jamie to lecture fellow bailed-out CEO John Mack about how "you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them"? Maybe make him use some of his $50+ million for those buildings he bought in San Francisco?
And before shaming and punishing American homeowners, did they nag Steve Feinberg about helping "teach the American people...not to run away" by writing a check out of his billion-dollar pocket to cover all the stiffed landlords and vendors at Mervyn's? After all, at least you aren't single-handedly putting 1,100 employees out of work when you walk on your mortgage.

As part of the deal for your house, your mortgage holder gets interest payments from you and they also use the note to your house for their capital reserves. In return, they take the risk of a foreclosure. In many states, you paid extra to have a non-recourse loan where the lender just gets the house back if you stop paying -- your interest rate would've been much lower if you were held personally liable like a student loan. But if you still feel bad, then donate the money saved to charity instead of to their bonuses. And when someone tries telling you why it is so wrong, here are some answers:

- Yes, it might seem selfish, but you are actually going to help fix our country the right way, through the use of pure capitalism. There are 3 parties involved in your mortgage -- the mortgage holders, the servicing bank and you. You probably want to stay in your house. Most of the people who actually own your mortgage also want you to stay in your house, preferring a mortgage reduction that you keep paying instead of the total loss of a foreclosure. But the major banks (BofA, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Citi, etc.) that underwrite and service the loans don't care about either of you. They (with the aid of their government) just care about hiding their true financial condition for long as possible so they can continue to bonus themselves outrageously. The credible threat of you walking away from your mortgage en masse is the only market-based solution that will force these banks to work with the mortgage holders on your behalf.
- No, you will not "hurt" your neighbors -- certainly not near the scale of the banksters. Chances are someone just as nice will you will move in and (unlike you) pay a fair, non-inflated price for the house. Encourage your neighbors to fight back against the banks and ask for their own mortgage reductions as well.
- Yes, it might make getting a loan harder for everyone. Considering the spate 0% down NINJA loans over the past decade, that probably isn't a bad thing.
- Yes, it might hurt your credit. But with time, people bounce back from having foreclosures on their record. Search online and then talk to a lawyer about the repercussions, which vary by state.
- No, the banks won't necessarily pass the losses on to customers. They already make a lot of money. If costs are passed on to every consumer without banks competing on price, that's a sign of illegal collusion or a monopoly. Let's fix that instead of just letting banks ruin our lives. They might, however, not all make $145 billion in bonuses next year doing something fundamentally so easy that it is an unpaid job in Monopoly.

Meanwhile, our captured government has made it clear that they want to further reward these banksters because there are clearly better ways to "save" the economy without rewarding those most responsible for the damage.

Instead of claw backs for the past theft and strong financial reform for the future, they choose to cover-up the gross misuse of our tax money, making our country worse by helping the criminals on the backs of the most honest.

But thankfully, in this country we still have the tools to fight back and regain our country. Our vote, our voice, our laws and what we choose to do with every penny we have that doesn't go to taxes are the benefits of our hard-fought freedom, and in this battle we must use them all to fight back. It's time for the citizens to once again own this place.

Follow Dylan Ratigan
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

“Obama's rhetoric covered the whole financial industry, but the key changes will affect only a few high-profile players, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., while sparing investment banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, July 9, 2009
And Harvard economics professor JEFFREY MIRON will weigh in on the state of the U.S. economy—and why the only plausible argument for bailing out banks crumbles on close examination.
"There is a populist and conservative revolt against Wall Street and financial elites, Congress and government," Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg warned in an analysis this week. "Democrats and President Obama are seen as more interested in bailing out Wall Street than helping Main Street."

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, November 12, 2007

Mortgage giants Wells Fargo and Countrywide Financial are accused of slapping dubious fees on homeowners struggling to save their homes. With fewer new mortgages being written, these
companies appear to be leaning on these lucrative fees to stay profitable—with devastating consequences for homeowners. We’ll have that report.
After several weeks of strong showings in the media, President Barack Obama appears to have committed political suicide in an interview with Bloomberg focusing on bank bonuses. Just as bad, Obama's statements praising bailout barons and downplaying their bloated bonuses amount to outright economic insanity. Obama says he doesn't have a problem with bonuses at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. He's going to have a big problem at the polls in November. – Zach

The “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2009” list has been announced by Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, The list is compiled at the end of each year. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms a property he owns in Ireland.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank.


Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system.


Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba.


Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.


President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House.


Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel.


Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor.


Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fund raise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding.
There are further explanations about corruption why each politician was chosen at Judicial Watch.


Obama Administration Annouces New Border Security Measures? OR MORE LA RAZA PROPAGANDA?

Obama administration announces new border security measures

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 24, 2010; A02

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will station an aerial drone in Texas as part of its stepped-up surveillance of criminal trafficking along the Mexican border.

Federal authorities also have signed an agreement to allow local police from non-border communities to temporarily "deploy" to the border region to assist with security, said Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

"Our Southwest border states have endured more than their share of challenges," said Napolitano, a former Arizona governor. "I share the frustration border communities feel."

In a speech at a Washington think tank, Napolitano laid out the case that the "border is as secure now as it has ever been."

She also said that some "are looking to score political points" by depicting the border as far more dangerous than it really is. "The numbers tell the story, and they do not lie," she said.

Even as killings have increased in Mexico, violent crime is down along the U.S. side of the border, she said. At the same time, seizures of illegal weapons, drugs and cash have risen.

Nevertheless, Napolitano acknowledged that more can be done. On Tuesday, President Obama asked Congress for $500 million in emergency border security, including two more aerial drones and 1,000 more Border Patrol officers to join 1,200 National Guard troops heading to the region.

Many of the steps Napolitano outlined have long been advocated by Texas Republicans -- and created a side dispute over Obama's choice for the No. 2 position at the Federal Aviation Administration.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) had pressed for months for a pilotless drone, and when it was slow in coming, Cornyn blocked Senate confirmation of Michael Huerta to be deputy director of the FAA.

On Wednesday, after learning that the agency had given its approval for the unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, to operate in Texas, Cornyn said he would allow a vote on Huerta.

"While the approval process should not have taken this long, I'm pleased to see the FAA moving forward," he said. "The FAA needs to implement a system that will reflect the great importance of border security as well as the growing significance of UAVs in homeland security and national defense."

Unmanned aircraft are used routinely in Iraq and Afghanistan and also patrol much of the Arizona border, using sensors to pinpoint trafficking activity. The vehicle being stationed in Texas has the ability to fly for 20 hours. It will arrive at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi this summer.

Later this month, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who recently signed into law tough new state controls on immigration, will meet with administration officials for the second time.


Lawmakers across country taking immigration policy into own hands
By Michael W. Savage

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, June 24, 2010; A03

With widespread attention focused on Arizona's tough new law against illegal immigration -- and a measure approved this week in the small town of Fremont, Neb. -- similar proposals are under consideration across the country.
Five states -- South Carolina, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Michigan -- are looking at Arizona-style legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. NDN, a Washington think tank and advocacy group, said lawmakers in 17 other states had expressed support for similar measures.
Since it was adopted in April, the Arizona legislation, which gives law enforcement officers the power to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, has triggered bitter debate and been challenged in court by advocacy groups. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said last week that the Justice Department plans to sue Arizona over the law, although a department spokesman has said the matter is under review.
This week, the spotlight shifted to rural Fremont, which narrowly passed an ordinance that would outlaw hiring illegal immigrants or renting property to them.
In the first three months of this year, legislators in 45 states introduced 1,180 bills or resolutions dealing with immigrants, an unprecedented number, according to the NCSL. By the end of March, 107 laws and 87 resolutions had been adopted by 34 states, with 38 bills pending. Not all of the proposals were designed to clamp down on illegal immigrants. Ann Morse, director of the Immigrant Policy Project at the NCSL, said they represented "a spectrum" of pro- and anti-immigration measures.
"When I talk to legislators about what they're doing in the state, they say this is their way of signaling they want federal immigration reform to happen -- that they care deeply about the issue, they're working within the parameters they have and sometimes at the edge, trying to get federal attention," she said.
Last month, the Massachusetts Senate amended its budget bill to require state contractors to confirm that their workers are in the country legally. Earlier, the Massachusetts House narrowly rejected a proposal to restrict public benefits to illegal immigrants.
In Pennsylvania, an Arizona-style bill is in the pipeline. Although police officers must have a separate reason to stop someone, the proposal would direct them to "attempt to verify the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens."
South Carolina is set to discuss an almost identical measure next year. And in Albuquerque, Mayor Richard Berry instituted a similar policy, which was upheld by a council vote.
Anti-illegal immigrant measures in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Tex., are being challenged in the courts.
In Fremont, those on both sides agreed that the town's new ordinance, which will take effect in July, marked a national pattern of local communities taking immigration policy into their own hands.
"I'm afraid this is part of a larger, nationwide trend, most obviously typified by what has happened in Arizona," said Amy Miller, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Nebraska, which is seeking an injunction against the Fremont law. "There is no rational reason for Fremont to be worried about protecting our border. But it is a community, like many in rural Nebraska, where the only population growth has been in new immigrants, many of them people of color."
"What will this lead to? Other municipalities in other states enacting their own laws," said Fremont council member Sean Gitt, who said he decided to support the measure after it was approved by the community.
"Fremont is an example of 'If Washington won't, Nebraskans will,' " said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports tougher immigration enforcement. Others note that the economy may determine whether other jurisdictions follow Arizona's lead.
"The big, overriding issue for nearly every state is the state of their budgets," said Morse. "Taking on additional law enforcement costs and court challenge costs is not at the front of their task list."