DOWNLOADS: (218)

PLAYS: (1338)

Embed

It was pretty comical yesterday watching Andrew Thomas, the former DA in Arizona's Maricopa County and Joe Arpaio's right-hand man in their corrupt attempts to intimidate county officials, hold his press conference denouncing the fact that he had just been disbarred for his behavior.

You see, it's all the fault of his enemies, and he's a martyr:

"I did my job. A lot of powerful people didn't like that," he said.

An Arizona ethics board disbarred Thomas Tuesday for failed corruption investigations that he and America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff launched against officials with whom they were having political and legal disputes.

"We now have a constitutional crisis in which prosecutors and members of the executive branch are being targeted by the judiciary for blowing the whistle on misconduct in the judiciary," he said.

He compared the figures behind his disbarring to corrupt Mexican officials.

"Arizona, after what happened yesterday, has become Mexico," Thomas said.

The best part, as Stephen Lemons observes:

"Other men, far greater than I, have gone to jail in defense of principles they believed in and so they would not kowtow to a corrupt ruler," Thomas said at one point. "People like Gandhi, people like Dr. King, people like Solzhenitsyn, people like Thomas More, people who stood for something....and I'm going to stand firm."

"Gandhi?" wondered one onlooker in amazement.

Yep, I could hardly believe my ears, too, as Thomas blamed his current situation on others -- a corrupt judiciary, powerful politicians, insiders who knew "how to work the system," Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil, his fellow lawyers, you name it. Anyone but himself.

Meanwhile, Joe Arpaio was whistling past Thomas' political graveyard in his noncommital remarks. Mainly because his head is next on the block:

And despite Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s efforts to distance himself from cases at the center of a legal ethics panel inquiry that cost a pair of former county prosecutors their careers — the fallout has moved closer.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (169)

PLAYS: (1413)

Embed

Russell Pearce is getting increasingly desperate to claim that Arizona's police-state immigration law, SB1070, has been a big success for the state.

So much so that now he's just making shit up:

State Senator Russell Pearce claimed this week he has proof that the controversial illegal immigration legislation is doing its job in Arizona.

Pearce, who authored SB 1070, points to a rise in U-Haul rentals as evidence that Arizona's tough immigration law is forcing illegal immigrants to leave the state. But does Pearce's claim hold true?

... Now that SB 1070 is approaching its one year anniversary, Senator Pearce has claimed that illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona "in caravans" and that U-Haul is busier than ever with one-way trips leaving the state. 9 On Your Side called U-Haul to check on Pearce's claim.

However, the truck rental company confirmed to KGUN9 News, since SB 1070 became law, it's helped 0.5% more people move into than out of Arizona in 2010. These same numbers spiked to double digits, 13.2% to be exact, during the first three months of 2011. Therefore, according to U-Haul, its numbers prove Pearce's claim may not be entirely accurate after all.

Or you could just call it a lie. Because that's what it is.

Especially because we already know that SB1070 has been an unmitigated economic disaster for Arizona:

“I don’t believe that anyone, including myself, foresaw the national and international reaction” to April’s bill, said Glenn Hamer, chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who said estimates of lost tourism business ranged from $15 million to $150 million. “Now we have that experience under our belts. We know these measures can cause economic damage; it’s just a matter of degree.”

The tourism and image-related business losses were only the tip of the iceberg, though, when it comes to the damage inflicted on the state by SB1070 and its related anti-immigration measures. As we've explained previously, simply deporting and/or driving out all the state's undocumented immigrants would have disastrous economic consequences on a broad basis for the state -- some of which are already being felt.

A new study from the Center for American Progress, "A Rising Tide or a Shrinking Pie: The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Arizona" lays it all out in great detail:

The economic analysis in this report shows the S.B. 1070 approach would have devastating economic consequences if its goals were accomplished. When undocumented workers are taken out of the economy, the jobs they support through their labor, consumption, and tax payments disappear as well. Particularly during a time of profound economic uncertainty, the type of economic dislocation envisioned by S.B. 1070-type policies runs directly counter to the interests of our nation as we continue to struggle to distance ourselves from the ravages of the Great Recession.

Conversely, our analysis shows that legalizing undocumented immigrants in Arizona would yield a significant positive economic impact. Based on the historical results of the last legalization program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, our analysis shows a similar program would increase wages not only for immigrants but also for their native-born co-workers. This would generate more tax revenue and more consumer and business spending, supporting additional jobs throughout the economy.

Public debate over the wisdom of laws such as S.B. 1070 is heated but generally lacking in substance. The proponents of S.B. 1070 and related legislation now under debate in other cities and states claim to be acting in the best economic interests of native-born Americans, but as this report demonstrates, their claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

DOWNLOADS: (421)

PLAYS: (1165)

Embed

Well, considering how obviously unconsitutional SB1070 is, despite its Constitution-lovin' pedigree, you really can't say this was a big surprise:

A federal appeals court upheld Monday a lower court's block of much of Arizona's controversial SB 1070 law aimed at illegal immigration.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court "did not abuse its discretion" in blocking parts of the law from taking effect last year.

The decision, a victory for the Obama administration and immigration activists, means the SB 170 case will likely find its way to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction July 28 preventing sections of the anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect.

Parts of the law that were blocked:

The section that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally, and the section requiring that anyone arrested have their immigration status verified.
The section that creates a state crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."
The section that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work (but not the section on day laborers).
The section that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

Despite the significant holes the court blew in Arizona's claims, its nativist sponsors were quite confident about their prospects going foward:

One judge asked Arizona's lawyer, John Bouma, how the state could enforce federal law.
"If I don't pay my federal income tax, can the state make me?" the judge asked.

The appellate panel seemed not to have problems with police officers asking about immigration status, but struggled with the notion implicit in the law that detainees could be held indefinitely while their immigration status was confirmed.

The judges also questioned how a law enforcement officer could determine what constitutes a removable offense.

The ruling isn't unexpected. Bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, attended the hearing and predicted this outcome.

"We know this will survive," Pearce said of the law. "This is the most overturned court in the nation. We'll win it in the Supreme Court."

The appeals court ruling is expected to be appealed. The state can ask the 9th Circuit to revisit the issue en banc, which is by a larger panel of judges. It also could eventually be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ignoring the example of Arizona -- which really has suffered economically because it passed SB1070 -- the geniuses running the Alabama Legislature are rushing to join them in ignominy.

Meanwhile, back in Arizona, some of the state's cooler heads are starting to bring some more intelligent thought processes to the issue -- in the form of some thought-provoking plays being put onstage for the public at the state capitol in Phoenix:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (653)

PLAYS: (2202)

Embed

We knew all along that there was a powerful business incentive involved in the Arizona Senate's recent rejection of the latest Russell Pearce anti-immigration slate. Now the New York Times corroborates it:

The Senate move was a victory for the Arizona business lobby, which on many issues is more moderate than state lawmakers. And it was a rebuke for the State Senate president, Russell Pearce, a Republican and the driving force behind tough immigration measures, including the law passed last April requiring police to question the status of anyone they stop if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be an illegal immigrant.

Opponents of the five bills said that the state’s image had been hit hard, and that it did not make sense to pass new measures while the state had already put itself so far out in front of other states and the federal government on the issue — at a cost to tourism and other industries.

They said that previous immigration bills were still being reviewed by the courts, and that it was not smart to pass new legislation that plainly conflicted with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“I don’t believe that anyone, including myself, foresaw the national and international reaction” to April’s bill, said Glenn Hamer, chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who said estimates of lost tourism business ranged from $15 million to $150 million. “Now we have that experience under our belts. We know these measures can cause economic damage; it’s just a matter of degree.”

The tourism and image-related business losses were only the tip of the iceberg, though, when it comes to the damage inflicted on the state by SB1070 and its related anti-immigration measures. As we've explained previously, simply deporting and/or driving out all the state's undocumented immigrants would have disastrous economic consequences on a broad basis for the state -- some of which are already being felt.

A new study from the Center for American Progress, "A Rising Tide or a Shrinking Pie: The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Arizona" lays it all out in great detail:

The economic analysis in this report shows the S.B. 1070 approach would have devastating economic consequences if its goals were accomplished. When undocumented workers are taken out of the economy, the jobs they support through their labor, consumption, and tax payments disappear as well. Particularly during a time of profound economic uncertainty, the type of economic dislocation envisioned by S.B. 1070-type policies runs directly counter to the interests of our nation as we continue to struggle to distance ourselves from the ravages of the Great Recession.

Conversely, our analysis shows that legalizing undocumented immigrants in Arizona would yield a significant positive economic impact. Based on the historical results of the last legalization program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, our analysis shows a similar program would increase wages not only for immigrants but also for their native-born co-workers. This would generate more tax revenue and more consumer and business spending, supporting additional jobs throughout the economy.

Public debate over the wisdom of laws such as S.B. 1070 is heated but generally lacking in substance. The proponents of S.B. 1070 and related legislation now under debate in other cities and states claim to be acting in the best economic interests of native-born Americans, but as this report demonstrates, their claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

The chart below makes it simple:

Continue reading »

Now, this makes a lot more sense as their real motive, because politicians will back just about anything for campaign cash, and private prisons are flush with dollars. And why not? They deliver substandard services to keep those profit margins up:

A breaking investigation conducted by NPR and released today reveals that there is a more insidious motive behind the drafting of the Arizona law; one that leaves passionate rhetoric behind and focuses purely on profit.

Based on the analysis of hundreds of thousands of campaign finance reports of people like Senator Russell Pearce, the legislator that was responsible for introducing SB1070 before the House of Representatives, as well as the corporate records of numerous prison companies, NPR has found deep financial ties between the drafting and introduction of the bill, and the private prison industry, that stands to benefit millions of dollars from increased immigrant detention.

The NPR investigation found that the seeds of the immigration bill were sown at a meeting of a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a semi-secret group that comprises of state legislators like Pearce, as well as the heads of big private corporations such as ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association, and billion dollar companies like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States.

All of the 50 members present for the meeting in December, 2009 where Pearce first presented his idea for SB1070, voted to support it, and the exact “model bill” that he presented at the meeting became the law that Jan Brewer passed in April, 2010.

Once SB1070 was introduced in the House in January by Senator Pearce, it was backed by thirty six sponsors, most of whom had been present at the December meeting of ALEC. Almost immediately, thirty of the thirty-six sponsors received generous donations from all the big private prison companies, GEO Group, Corrections Corporation of America, and Management and Training Corporation.

Further, it was clear that, if executed, this law would be hugely profitable for the prison companies. The records of CCA showed that prison executives were relying on immigration detention as their next big market.Ties between the massive expansion of immigrant detention and the subsequent growth and profit for the largely privately run prison system are not new. What is even more disturbing is the concrete evidence that points to the lack of accountability that comes with this prison system that is increasingly dysfunctional, as well as a detention system that denies due process and fairness to hundreds of men, women and children.

Advocate groups such as the NDLON have called for a further investigation into the collaboration between private corporations and conservative politicians. Pablo Alvarado, the Executive Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network released a statement today saying- "We have done much to confront the hate within the recent immigration debate…but what this report brings to light is that behind the odious rhetoric there are corporations cashing in…These corporations and the politicians they fund are less concerned with borders than they are profit margins. We call on Russell Pearce to fully disclose his ties with those who may benefit financially from his initiatives and we ask that a deeper investigation be launched into the private interests gaining from the human rights crisis in Arizona."

DOWNLOADS: (574)

PLAYS: (1620)

Embed

It was pretty bizarre, watching Joe Arpaio come on Neil Cavuto's show yesterday on Fox and tout the wonderfulness of his record as sheriff of Maricopa County -- and sneer at his pursuers in the Justice Department -- when only a few hours before I had been reading about the latest in a series of damning revelations about how corrupt his office has become:

Joe Arpaio's office misspent funds, analysis says

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office misused at least $50 million from a fund for jail operations, and county supervisors may have to use the general fund to repay the money, top county officials say.

Findings by the county's Office of Management and Budget show the Sheriff's Office tapped the money to pay for functions not allowed under jail-fund rules, such as salaries for deputies who worked on public-corruption investigations into county supervisors and judges.

Ryan J. Reilly at TPM Muckraker has more:

Excerpts of the reports, obtained by TPMMuckraker, show officials from Arpaio's office made trips to Orlando, D.C., Honduras, Tempe, Belize, Alaska and Puerto Rico on the county's dime and racked up other questionable expenses, like $741 at Sardella's Pizza and Wings. The county was also charged $350 for a hotel room upgrade for one official's spouse. One employee went on multiple extradition trips without submitting receipts for the $62,750 he or she spent -- including $1,341 on Disney World Yacht Club Resort food and entertainment.

Others expenses charged to the county, according to the report, include $1,684 for a portable generator for parade lights on an army tank; $635 at Buca di Beppo when members of the Honduran National Police were in town; and $500 on a carriage ride.

Nary a word about this report was uttered on Cavuto's show -- instead, he was too busy whining that no one in the media would pay attention to Arpaio's clean audit on his handling of prisoners -- an inconsequential issue, since he's not under investigation for that.

Moreover, there was no mention whatsoever of the even more damning revelations coming from within his own office:

Top officials in the office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio used its anti-corruption unit to conduct politically motivated investigations, misled the public about a campaign fund that helped Arpaio win reelection and surveilled the Arizona lawman's campaign rivals, according to an internal memo from a high-ranking officer.

The 63-page memo, first reported Thursday by the Arizona Republic, blames Arpaio's longtime No. 2 man, Chief Deputy Dave Hendershott, for the alleged criminal wrongdoing.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (456)

PLAYS: (1374)

Embed

Neil Cavuto had on Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona to talk about his plans to form an all-volunteer, fully armed posse whose job is hunting down illegal immigrants -- and of course tossed him a load of softballs.

The local news account is fairly glowing too:

Sheriff Joe is always talking about his department’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration but now he wants to commission a posse whose only job will be to enforce illegal immigration and human smuggling laws.

The sheriff explains, “We have 57 different posses. I want 58.”

Arpaio says posse 58 will be devoted solely to illegal immigration. “I want a little specialized unit. I think it's time to do that.”

Details are sparse but, like the sheriff's other posses, this one will be made up of armed volunteers who will patrol rural areas looking for border crossers and human smugglers.

The sheriff explains, “I want to concentrate more in the desert, maybe that’s where our air posse helicopters can help out because a lot of smugglers are crossing the desert. I like to get to them before they get to Phoenix.”

Funny thing about that: Maricopa County is not adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. Border crossers would have to pass through adjacent counties first.

But you'll notice that both Cavuto's softballs and the friendly local press are missing something -- namely, how closely Arpaio's citizen immigrant hunters resemble the vigilante patrols being organized by neo-Nazi J.T. Ready -- who recently announced that he would be seeking to obtain official sanction for his program.

At least Stephen Lemons at Phoenix New Times noticed:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (582)

PLAYS: (2397)

Embed

Those armed neo-Nazis out running vigilante border patrols apparently now want to obtain official status for their group:

J.T. Ready, a neo-Nazi who recently began conducting heavily armed desert patrols in search of “narco-terrorists” and illegal immigrants in Pinal County, told The Kansas City Star that he was working on a proposal seeking state approval for his group, the U.S. Border Guard.

“I’m putting together a package and presenting it to the Arizona Legislature and saying, ‘Why don’t we go ahead and make the border rangers official, or completely reactivate the Arizona Rangers and we’ll work together,’ ” he said.

The Arizona Rangers were created in 1901 to protect the territory from outlaws and rustlers. The group was re-established in 1957.

But watchdog groups say Ready’s patrol illustrates why states should not sanction defense forces.

“We know that the neo-Nazis carry guns, but here’s an example of neo-Nazis with guns trying to position themselves to become an instrument of state policy,” said Leonard Zeskind, the president of the Kansas City-based Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights.

They're also reaching the level of being a private army:

Ready, a neo-Nazi, says his border guard includes heavily armed militias that search for “narco-terrorists” and illegal immigrants in Pinal County.

“We have fully automatic weapons — legally registered — grenade launchers, night vision, body armor,” he said. “We’re definitely going out there fully armed and equipped. When you’re going up against people with AK-47s and grenade launchers, you don’t want to go out there with a slingshot.”

In most states, you'd assume that Ready's campaign to obtain official status would naturally die a-borning. But in Arizona -- which has a predilection for inverting reality when it comes to border violence, not to mention an ongoing white supremacist problem -- there's always a chance.

Especially when you consider that Ready has friends in high places -- including State Sen. Russell Pearce, author of SB1070, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Indeed, Ready has been working tirelessly at making himself a familiar presence on the Arizona landscape.

Of course, it's always amusing when conservatives write op-eds for the Washington Post complaining that liberals outside of Arizona perceive a lot of racism in the state's anti-immigration hysteria -- as though somehow that perception is mistaken.

You'll also note that none other than the Instapundit approves of these groups:

But Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on militias, said he saw no problem with such groups being involved with state defense forces.

“It’s not some crazy idea that someone has come up with out of the blue,” Reynolds said. “Historically, that’s how militias were organized. It’s sort of back to the future.” Reynolds, the author of the widely read political blog Instapundit, said the state defense force has operated in Tennessee for many years.

Back to the future indeed.

It's more than a little ironic, isn't it, that Arizonans will work themselves into a frenzy -- to the point of passing a police-state ordinance like SB1070 -- because of a single case like the murder of border rancher named Robert Krentz, even though the crime is being widely blamed on Mexican drug cartel activity, which is actually a distinct issue largely separate from "illegal immigration". (Indeed, it's not even clear that in fact Krentz's murder came at the hands of Mexicans.)

And yet when a white supremacist drives up next to a mixed-race couple and opens fire with a shotgun because of their races, as happened last October, the case is greeted with a yawn. As was the man's arrest this week:

A man suspected of killing a 39-year-old woman in Phoenix in October was arrested in Livingston, Tenn., on Wednesday, a Livingston Police Department spokesman said Thursday morning.

Schmidt is suspected of opening fire on the woman and her friend last October in what Phoenix police believe could have been a racially motivated crime.

Aaron Schmidt, 28 waived his extradition rights Thursday and can be picked up by the Phoenix Police Department, said Greg Etheredge, chief of the Livingston Police Department. Authorities believe Schmidt has been in Livingston since June.

The woman and a friend, Jeffrey Wellmaker, 48, were walking in Palma Park, on 12th Street and Dunlap Avenue about 1:30 a.m. Oct. 3 when a heavily tattooed, bald White man confronted them.

Wellmaker, who is Black, said the tattooed man yelled, "What are you doing with that White woman," according to Phoenix police at the time of the shooting.

The friends didn't respond and kept walking.

The tattooed man followed the pair for a couple blocks, police had said. By the time the couple reached Fourth Street and Puget Avenue, Wellmaker saw a white four-door newer model sedan with tinted windows drive past them.

In the passenger seat was the tattooed man. That's when Wellmaker said the passenger pulled out a shotgun and shot two blasts at the couple, according to police. One struck the woman and the second blast missed them.

The story was largely buried in the Phoenix newspapers -- perhaps because Wellmaker and the unidentified woman who was killed were homeless, instead of middle-class ranchers.

It's the same way that the case of Shawna Forde and her gang of killer Minutemen has been downplayed by the Arizona media, not to mention the national media, particularly Fox News.

It's the same way that report of camo-bedecked vigilantes firing on Latino border crossers received zero attention in any media beyond a handful of blogs:

Continue reading »

[H/t America's Voice]

After her horrendous performance the other night in her debate with Democrat Terry Goddard, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is doing what she does best: Running from tough questions ... you know, what most folks call accountability:

Arizona voters won't be seeing any more debates between the top gubernatorial contenders.

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

Yes, we can imagine what that venue will be. After 20-plus appearances on Fox News and none with any local TV journalists, we're getting the idea. (When she adds later in the piece that she will "be available for interviews," we're sure she will ... with Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity.)

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.

"Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?" she said.

Translation: why create another situation where I would just be destroyed at my own hand?

Continue reading »