Friday, July 9, 2010

MEXIFORNIA - Which Party Promises Illegals the Greatest HISPANDERING?

LA RAZA "THE RACE" MEXICAN SUPREMACY:

"Listen, you can put up your billboards in Spanish and you can buy stuff on Spanish television, but the people aren't fooled. The people know the truth," he said. "Between now and November, we're going to deliver that message up and down the state."


AG JERRY BROWN'S OFFICE PUBLISHES THAT THE TOP TEN CRIMINALS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS. MEX GANGS CRAWL OVER THE STATE AND MURDER IN COLD BLOOD.

THE SMALL TOWN OF SALINAS CA HAS HAD THREE DOZEN MEX GANG RELATED MURDERS IN A YEAR AND A HALF.

THESE FACTS, NOR THE STAGGERING WELFARE PAID TO ILLEGALS IS SOMETHING YOU WON'T HEAR ANY POLITICIAN TALK ABOUT.

THEY'RE TOO BUSY HISPANDERING FOR THE ILLEGALS' VOTES AND THAT MEANS AN EVER EXPANDING MEXICAN WELFARE SYSTEM, ILLEGALS ABOVE THE LAW, MEXICAN SUPREMACY, AND WE DON'T HIRE LEGALS!


latimes.com
Jerry Brown steps up Latino outreach as poll shows Whitman picking up support
Whitman has seen a 14-point gain among Latinos in the latest Field Poll, propelled by TV ads, billboards and a Spanish-language website. But some find her ties to Pete Wilson troubling.
By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times

July 9, 2010

Advertisement

On the heels of a poll that showed Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman improving her standing among Latinos, Democratic rival Jerry Brown on Thursday launched an appeal to this vital bloc of voters, who are crucial to his election but have yet to show strong allegiance to him.

Brown, flanked by more than a dozen Latino leaders at Cal State L.A., said Latinos would not be duped by Whitman's recent overtures and would remember the Republican's harsh words about illegal immigration during the GOP primary.

"Listen, you can put up your billboards in Spanish and you can buy stuff on Spanish television, but the people aren't fooled. The people know the truth," he said. "Between now and November, we're going to deliver that message up and down the state."

Brown has come under withering criticism by fellow Democrats for his campaign's lack of visible energy and lack of outreach to Latinos. This week, the campaign hired its first fluent Spanish speaker, and a spokesman said its website would be translated into Spanish soon.

Whitman has already hired a Spanish-language speaker to work with Spanish-language media and had her website translated months ago. But she has faced challenges with Latinos because of the GOP primary's focus on illegal immigration and because her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson, is viewed as a pariah by many Latinos.

Since the June 8 primary, Whitman has aired ads on Spanish-language television during the World Cup and on radio. Her campaign has erected billboards in Latino communities and spoken on Spanish-language media outlets. Her efforts appear to be paying off.

Though Brown held an 11-point lead among Latino voters in a Field Poll released earlier this week, Whitman had the support of 39%, a 14-point gain since March and at the level that strategists say she needs to be to win in November.

"Any Republican running statewide has to get at least one-third of the Latino vote," said Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant and publisher of the nonpartisan California Target Book. "Jerry Brown very, very badly needs to aggressively go after that Latino vote."

Democrats unveiled their strategy Thursday, recounting both Brown's history in pushing measures beneficial to Latinos and Whitman's own words during the primary.

Pressured by primary opponent Steve Poizner, Whitman spoke out aggressively against illegal immigration. However, she also took some heat for saying she opposed Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot measure that would have denied taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants, and the new Arizona law that compels police, when stopping someone on a suspected violation, to determine the immigration status of those they think are in the country illegally.

During the primary, Whitman acknowledged the more moderate positions in response to questions, but did not include them in her campaign ads. Now, however, she is touting her opposition to both the measures in ads and billboards.

Democrats argue that Whitman's positions are contradictory. In her Republican primary radio ad called "Tough as Nails", she said that "Illegal immigrants should not expect benefits from the state of California." That, they note, was the point of Proposition 187, the measure she said she opposed.

"While our community is bilingual, we're not naïve," state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) said at the Cal State L.A. event. "Put on any billboards whatever you want, we know what you have said."

Brown noted that Whitman has said that students who are illegal immigrants should not be allowed to attend public universities.

"That's cruel," he said. "There's something really not very human about that."

The Democrats also zeroed in on Wilson, who was the most visible supporter of Proposition 187.

"Jerry Brown broke bread with Cesar Chavez," said U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D- Los Angeles). "His opponent breaks bread with Pete Wilson."

A spokesman for the Whitman campaign noted that Whitman and Brown share some of the same views on immigration, such as ending sanctuary cities and opposing the Arizona law, and mocked his decision to appear with lawmakers at a time when the Legislature can't close a massive budget gap or draft a budget.

"After 40 years in politics, it's fitting that Gov. Brown's Latino outreach includes a lot of Sacramento politicians, but excludes any specific plans for creating jobs or fixing our public schools," said spokesman Hector Barajas. "Rather than solve the state's $19-billion deficit, which is costing Californians $52.3 million a day, it's clear these politicians would rather shirk responsibility and fight for their status-quo candidate."

OBAMA & HIS LA RAZA PARTY INVASION

FROM HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, OTHER THAN SERVICING HIS BANKSTERS, ALL OBAMA HAS DONE IS HISPANDER FOR THE ILLEGALS' VOTES!

THE Dept. of HOMELAND SECURITY is now the Dept of HOMELAND SECURITY = PATHWAY TO SECURITY as LA RAZA NAPOLITANO LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND CONGRESS ABOUT OUR BORDER SECURITY, WHICH IS IN FACT NONEXISTENT!

OBAMA'S CHIEF OF STAFF EMMANUEL CLAIMS ON MEDIA THAT THE ASSAULT ON THE LEGALS OF ARIZONA FOR MEXICAN LA RAZA "THE RACE" SUPREMACY, IS IN FACT NOT HIS DOING, BUT THAT OF HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.... right!

THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ROBERTS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SUBDIVISION OF WALL ST. MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA, THE MEX FASCIST PARTY OF AMERICAN. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS, AND ALL PRIOR ADMINISTRATION'S WORSHIP AND SERVE THEIR PAYMASTERS, WALL ST. BIG BUSINESS, AND THAT MEANS PROFITS CAN NEVER BE HIGH ENOUGH, NOR WAGES LOW ENOUGH.

THE REASON OBAMA NOMINATED SONYA SOTOMAYER WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS A "WISE (RACIST) LATINA BITCH" AND HAD ALWAYS SIDED WITH CORPORATE INTERESTS ABOVE THAT OF THE COMMON PEOPLE (LEGALS).

THE MELTDOWN IN THIS COUNTY WAS NOT BY ACCIDENT. THE INVASION OF 38 MILLION GRINGO LOATHING ILLEGALS WAS ALSO NOT BY ACCIDENT.

IF YOU'RE STILL WONDERING ABOUT OBAMA AND HIS ILLEGALS, EVEN AS THIS NATION'S STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT IS PREDICTED TO BE LONG TERM, HE CONTINUES TO SABOTAGE E-VERIFY, LIES ABOUT BORDER SECURITY, AND LOADS HIS ADMINISTRATION WITH LA RAZA PARTY MEMBERS!

latimes.com
Arizona immigration law unlikely to survive federal lawsuit
Legal experts cite the longstanding principle that the federal government has exclusive control over immigration.
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

July 9, 2010

Reporting from Washington

Advertisement

Arizona's law giving local police immigration enforcement powers is likely to be struck down, most legal experts predict, now that the Obama administration has gone to court asserting that it conflicts with federal law.

They cite the longstanding principle that the federal government has exclusive control over immigration and that "no state can add or take away" from the policy set in Washington.

However, they caution that one large uncertainty is that the current Supreme Court has not ruled directly on such a state-federal clash over immigration.

Traditionally, the federal government's view carries extra weight in disputes over immigration.

"It's one thing for MALDEF [Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund] or the ACLU to say this [Arizona law] interferes with federal policy. It is quite a different thing when the federal government goes to court and says it," said Jack Chin, a University of Arizona law professor. "The clear rule has been that states do not have the power to regulate immigration."

Arizona's leaders have said their law does not conflict with federal immigration policy. However, the Justice Department argued that the state exceeded its authority by making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to apply for a job or to be caught without immigration papers. Such "unlawful presence" is a civil violation, not a federal crime, and thus the state cannot make this immigration violation into a crime, the department contended.

The administration also asserted that the federal policy is to target "dangerous aliens" such as violent criminals, fugitives and gang members, rather than to arrest and deport the millions of illegal immigrants living in this country.

"There is a tension between the federal policy and the state of Arizona," said Washington lawyer Paul Virtue, former general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency that no longer exists. "The state is setting different priorities and different penalties."

The Constitution authorizes Congress to set a "uniform rule of naturalization" and says the laws of the United States are the "supreme law of the land." The Justice Department cites this basic provision in arguing why the Arizona law should be declared "invalid, null and void."

In one famous case, the Supreme Court in 1941 threw out a Pennsylvania law that required immigrants to carry an "alien identification card." The justices ruled that the state had no such authority.

In recent years, some states and cities have sought to enforce restrictions on illegal immigrants on the basis that the federal government had failed to enforce the existing laws.

Most of those efforts have run aground, however. A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California's Proposition 187 from taking effect in 1994 on the grounds that it regulated immigration. The state dropped its appeal before the case was decided by an appellate court. Three years ago, a federal judge blocked Hazleton, Pa., from prohibiting illegal immigrants from renting housing.

Some legal experts think the Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the issue.

"This is an unsettled area of constitutional jurisprudence. The last major pronouncement on the question was against a completely different landscape," said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. The justices "may be willing to cut [states] some slack in the face of Washington's now persistent failure to deal with immigration reform."

On June 28, the high court announced it will hear a separate Arizona immigration case in the fall. The Arizona Legislature voted to take away the business licenses of employers who continue to knowingly hire illegal workers. To the surprise of many, a federal district court judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that law, citing a provision in the 1996 law passed by Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce appealed and won the backing of the Obama administration. The court then voted to hear the case.

The current court also may view more favorably the Arizona law giving police more arrest authority.

"It wouldn't surprise me that five members of the court would think that the mere enforcement of immigration law does not change immigration law," said John Eastman, dean of the Chapman University School of Law.

Arizona's lawyers say their law, due to take effect July 29, would not conflict with federal law because it authorizes police during a lawful stop to question a person when there is a "reasonable suspicion" he or she is here illegally.

If a judge blocks the measure from taking effect, the state can immediately appeal to the 9th Circuit Court. The state may also seek a quick appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if that fails.







latimes.com
Arizona immigration law unlikely to survive federal lawsuit
Legal experts cite the longstanding principle that the federal government has exclusive control over immigration.
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

July 9, 2010

Reporting from Washington

Advertisement

Arizona's law giving local police immigration enforcement powers is likely to be struck down, most legal experts predict, now that the Obama administration has gone to court asserting that it conflicts with federal law.

They cite the longstanding principle that the federal government has exclusive control over immigration and that "no state can add or take away" from the policy set in Washington.

However, they caution that one large uncertainty is that the current Supreme Court has not ruled directly on such a state-federal clash over immigration.

Traditionally, the federal government's view carries extra weight in disputes over immigration.

"It's one thing for MALDEF [Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund] or the ACLU to say this [Arizona law] interferes with federal policy. It is quite a different thing when the federal government goes to court and says it," said Jack Chin, a University of Arizona law professor. "The clear rule has been that states do not have the power to regulate immigration."

Arizona's leaders have said their law does not conflict with federal immigration policy. However, the Justice Department argued that the state exceeded its authority by making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to apply for a job or to be caught without immigration papers. Such "unlawful presence" is a civil violation, not a federal crime, and thus the state cannot make this immigration violation into a crime, the department contended.

The administration also asserted that the federal policy is to target "dangerous aliens" such as violent criminals, fugitives and gang members, rather than to arrest and deport the millions of illegal immigrants living in this country.

"There is a tension between the federal policy and the state of Arizona," said Washington lawyer Paul Virtue, former general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency that no longer exists. "The state is setting different priorities and different penalties."

The Constitution authorizes Congress to set a "uniform rule of naturalization" and says the laws of the United States are the "supreme law of the land." The Justice Department cites this basic provision in arguing why the Arizona law should be declared "invalid, null and void."

In one famous case, the Supreme Court in 1941 threw out a Pennsylvania law that required immigrants to carry an "alien identification card." The justices ruled that the state had no such authority.

In recent years, some states and cities have sought to enforce restrictions on illegal immigrants on the basis that the federal government had failed to enforce the existing laws.

Most of those efforts have run aground, however. A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California's Proposition 187 from taking effect in 1994 on the grounds that it regulated immigration. The state dropped its appeal before the case was decided by an appellate court. Three years ago, a federal judge blocked Hazleton, Pa., from prohibiting illegal immigrants from renting housing.

Some legal experts think the Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the issue.

"This is an unsettled area of constitutional jurisprudence. The last major pronouncement on the question was against a completely different landscape," said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. The justices "may be willing to cut [states] some slack in the face of Washington's now persistent failure to deal with immigration reform."

On June 28, the high court announced it will hear a separate Arizona immigration case in the fall. The Arizona Legislature voted to take away the business licenses of employers who continue to knowingly hire illegal workers. To the surprise of many, a federal district court judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that law, citing a provision in the 1996 law passed by Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce appealed and won the backing of the Obama administration. The court then voted to hear the case.

The current court also may view more favorably the Arizona law giving police more arrest authority.

"It wouldn't surprise me that five members of the court would think that the mere enforcement of immigration law does not change immigration law," said John Eastman, dean of the Chapman University School of Law.

Arizona's lawyers say their law, due to take effect July 29, would not conflict with federal law because it authorizes police during a lawful stop to question a person when there is a "reasonable suspicion" he or she is here illegally.

If a judge blocks the measure from taking effect, the state can immediately appeal to the 9th Circuit Court. The state may also seek a quick appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if that fails.